Ted Cruz Announces Run for President


From Fox News.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, ticking off a litany of President Obama policies he opposes, promised Monday to return to a government by Constitution and “stand for liberty” as he officially announced his 2016 presidential bid.

Cruz, speaking to an energetic crowd of students at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., drew from his background to address his faith and what he sees for the future of the country.

As the first major presidential candidate to officially declare, he told the crowd to “imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders” and drew applause when he promised to “stand up and defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”

Cruz continued his pledge by telling the crowd to “imagine a president who says I will honor the Constitution and under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.”

He also urged the crowd to imagine a simple flat tax. He added, “imagine abolishing the IRS.”

Cruz spoke on the fifth anniversary of Obama’s health care law — legislation that prompted Cruz to stand for more than 21 hours in the Senate to denounce it in a marathon speech that delighted his Tea Party constituency and other foes of the law. Cheers rose in the hall when Cruz reminded the crowd Monday that Liberty University filed a suit against the law right after its enactment.

Cruz also will speak exclusively to Fox News’ Sean Hannity Monday night about his campaign.

Cruz, a divisive figure in his own party, is not expected to be the sole GOP contender for long.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and two Senate colleagues, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Florida’s Marco Rubio, are eyeing campaign launches soon.

For his announcement, Cruz bypassed Texas, which he represents in the Senate, as well as early nominating states such as New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney kicked off his own campaign for the GOP nomination in 2012, and Iowa.

By getting in early — and at Liberty — Cruz was hoping to claim ownership of the influential and highly vocal corner of the Republican Party for whom cultural issues are supreme. It was a move at crowding out figures such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, and former Sen. Rick Santorum, who has made his Catholic faith a cornerstone of his political identity.

And the DemProgs are terrified out of their minds.

‘Shiver me timbers’!:

In what was clearly meant to be an attack on Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, announced shortly after midnight, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may have accidentally admitted that it’s worried about a Cruz GOP presidential campaign—noting in an email to supporters that his announcement “sent shivers down” their spines.

“If you’re like us, just reading that phrase probably sent shivers down your spine or produced a pretty serious roll of the eyes,” the DNC said in what it calls a “Factivist” email to supporters early on Monday. “But as of this moment, Texas Senator Ted Cruz is officially running for president, and if we don’t do everything in our power to stop him, the possibility of President Ted Cruz could become a reality.”

I will do everything in my power as a milblogger, voter, and political donor to see that Ted Cruz’ quest for president becomes a reality.

Here come the DemProg birthers:

In a fundraising email sent out Monday, the bombastic, bombthrowing Florida Democrat Alan Grayson included a transcript of remarks from an interview with MSNBC where he claimed that Ted Cruz was ineligible to be president. Grayson said “since Ted Cruz is a Canadian, and our Constitution requires tha[t] an American win, I’m pretty sure that it’s not going to be Ted Cruz.” Cruz, a 2016 presidential hopeful, was born in Canada but his mother was an American citizen and the Texas senator became a citizen of the United States at birth. 

BTW: Grayson is a certified nutjob.

Ted Cruz is eminently qualified and is perhaps the only true Republican/Tea Party candidate in the GOP.

He also seems to be the only Republican left with guts.

I’m glad to see him run and I hope he succeeds.  If he gets the nomination, whom will he select as a running mate?

Dr. Ben Carson

Carly Fiorina

Scott Walker

Bobby Jindal

The above examples are (currently)  among the best the GOP has to offer. Their dedication, loyalty, patriotism, and respect for America and the Constitution is equal to their ability to lead, make good decisions, and fulfill the duties of the office of a public servant. Any one of them will do what is best for America and stop the socialist Frankenstein unleashed by Obama dead in its tracks.

Unfortunately, there are also some conservatives who have jumped into the fray with negative comments:

(Charles) Krauthammer on Monday took a shot at Cruz while on Fox News, claiming that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a better choice because he has more of a record than the first-term senator.

“His appeal is that, ‘I’m a Constitutional conservative, I’m the guy with the liquid tongue, I can make the case,’ and he does,” Krauthammer said of Cruz.

Hell, Obama was a Senator for only 144 days and voted ‘present’ much of the time.  He was never vetted properly and ended up destroying this country for the last 7 years.

Peter King (R-NY) weighed in with some shitty comments:

New York Rep. Peter King hammered Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday, calling the fellow Republican a big-mouthed “carnival barker” who has no business running for president.

“We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify,” Mr. King told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview on “The Situation Room.”

“For instance, to say that we could end Obamacare, in effect, by not funding and shutting down the government is absolutely wrong. That’s the wrong signal to send,” the Republican continued. “We need intelligent debate in this country. Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn’t carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates, and he basically led the Republican Party over the cliff in the fall of 2013. He’s shown no qualifications, no legislation being passed, he doesn’t provide leadership and he has no real experience. So to me, he’s a guy with a big mouth and no results.”

……Mr. King, a senior member of both the Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, has said he’s mulling a potential 2016 bid because he believes the GOP needs someone with a strong national security agenda, CNN reported.

Hey Pete, what the fuck have you done to stop Obama’s bullshit?

If you have presidential aspirations and want the support of grassroots Tea Party/Republicans, trashing the only Republican with any guts isn’t going to get you any votes.

That’s what scares some of the GOP’s denizens; that Ted Cruz’s dynamic approach and straightforward goals are too much for lily-livered RINOs.

I have yet to see any concerted effort on the part of the GOP to unite and override Obama’s unlawful, unconstitutional actions.  When that happens, I might give a shit about Pete’s pontifications.

Related posts:




Related articles:





12 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by sfcmac on 26/03/2015 at 13:56

    The question of citizenship and naturalization has been dealt with and pretty much settled in the courts and laws. This is what I tried to explain to ncoathkeeper:
    Illegal aliens are not citizens, neither are their children. (We agree on that)
    If you’re born to at least one bona fide American citizen (who was born on American soil or naturalized) you are automatically a citizen and, according to the McCarren-Walter Act, you are naturalized even if you were born in Japan, like John McCain, or Canada, like Ted Cruz. The law is pretty clear. He just doesn’t agree with it and refuses to acknowledge the facts.
    When he sarcastically commented that I’m ‘too smart’ for him, he unintentionally told the truth.



  2. SARG hunny…
    it would appear that NCOath has made his mind up…
    you ‘member what my granma always said…
    “bless his lil’ heart”, then she would pat their lil’ pointy haid an’ move on…
    say it, do it, move on…squeezes & smooches…yer luv’n sailorman xoxoxo…


  3. Posted by sfcmac on 26/03/2015 at 08:05


    Oh yeah, you’re such an intellect. BTW, Mr. Rhodes Scholar: It’s “you’re” not “your”. “You’re” is a possessive pronoun, showing ownership. “Your” is a pronoun, a form of the possessive case of “you” used as an attributive adjective.
    It’s always best to use correct grammar when flinging insults. It might make you look more intelligent.

    I’m citing Supreme Court cases, federal statutes, and the Constitution.

    READ: Source: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
    Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement Congressional Research Service


    The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
    The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the
    Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of
    independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in
    the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of “jus solis”(law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”
    ……The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship
    “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born
    abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;
    or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.”…

    Now, in the case of illegal aliens, pregnant illegal alien females will often cross the border and drop “anchor babies” to further violate the immigration and citizenship law HR 1868 the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 was introduced to stop them, but as of this date, no action has been taken.

    Bottom line: In the case of McCain and Cruz, the term “natural born” is a technicality. They’re both American citizens born of (one or both) American parents, so the Supreme Court probably won’t bother with it. And as further noted, they were ‘naturalized’ by federal statute:

    Source: http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

    For John McCain the question was whether the Panama Canal Zone, where he was born, was U.S. soil. It is not, and being born of parents both of whom were U.S. citizens did not make him a “natural-born” citizen, although a statute was later adopted naturalizing such persons at birth.

    The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):

    There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States… [citing to Steinkauler’s Case, which was an opinion given by Edwards Pierrepont, who was Attorney General for Ulysses S. Grant].

    ……”Citizen at birth” is not “natural born citizenship”. Many people are made citizens at birth by statute. That is what the statute did that retroactively made John McCain a U.S. citizen at birth, or the statute that makes persons born in Puerto Rico U.S. citizens at birth, or 8 USC 1401, but those are naturalization statutes, and one can be naturalized at birth.. It doesn’t have to be done after birth….
    No Supreme Court opinion has “defined” natural born citizenship for purposes of presidential eligibility. The cases cited were either dictum or concerned ordinary citizenship sufficient to vote or hold office other than that of president.

    From U.S. Code 8:
    8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined:

    (a)(23) The term ”naturalization” means the conferring of nationality [NOT “citizenship” or “U.S. citizenship”, but “nationality”, which means “U.S. national”] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

    Which means that naturalization logically follows the legal parameters of citizenship due to parental status, not necessarily location of birth.
    Under the McCarran-Walter Act, which supplements the 14th Amendment, Cruz was born both a citizen, and a natural born citizen.
    Another scenario: If a baby is born on an international flight over international waters, and at least one of the parents is an American citizen, the child automatically becomes a naturalized American citizen. Get it?
    Your semantics over the eligibility of McCain and Cruz for presidential candidacy are pretty weak. The fact that both McCain’s parents, and Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, who is an American citizen and lived in the U.S. long enough for him to qualify, were in foreign countries when they were born, in no way disqualifies either of them for presidential candidacy.

    Again, I cited Supreme Court cases, federal statutes, and the Constitution.

    Game, set, match.



  4. I sited you 4 Supreme Court cases and you site John McCain’s willingness to run for office. Touche’ you win. I surrender, your much too smart for me.


  5. Posted by sfcmac on 25/03/2015 at 17:00

    They’re not wrong. If there was any validity to your argument, John McCain could never have considered running for president. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.



  6. Again: they are wrong.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: