You saw a bit of this in the Hannity interview I posted yesterday, but only as part of Cruz’s kitchen-sink effort against Trump — he’s afraid of Megyn Kelly, he’s not a conservative, and oh, by the way, he’s temperamentally a terrible fit for the job. You hear that from other Trump critics too but temperament is almost always an afterthought vis-a-vis the other two, which is foolish when you think about it. Calling Trump chicken for dodging Kelly is a fun way to needle the alpha male but you’re not going to get far trying to convince voters that the most anti-PC guy in the race is too timid to lead. It’s undeniably true that Trump isn’t a conservative, but no one who’s still open to Trump at this point cares about that. Either they’ve absorbed his heresies and concluded they’re not disqualifying or they’re not very conservative themselves and don’t hold it against Trump for being the same way.
What about temperament, though? That critique may be more potent than you think. New fromABC/WaPo:
At 51 percent, more voters say they’re “very anxious” about Trump than say they’re at all anxious about Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. A lot goes into “anxiety” about a candidate, of course. Some of it is simple partisanship, some of it is more issue-specific. Go figure that Latinos are especially anxious about a Trump presidency:
Some of it, though, is anxiety about giving the launch codes to a guy who’s famously unpredictable. Note that this poll was conducted between the 21st and the 24th; Trump didn’t announce that he was boycotting the Fox News debate until the evening of the 26th. These numbers, in other words, reflect public opinion of Trump before he pulled his biggest stunt of the campaign so far. How will undecideds in Iowa react when they turn on Fox tonight and, much to their surprise, don’t see Trump there? What do you think Cruz will say about what theyshould think? This is another reason why skipping the debate is so foolish for Trump: It’s not just a matter of “snubbing” Iowans, it’s a matter of signaling that electing him risks making the country less stable at a moment when voters are already anxious about instability.
Go figure that Team Cruz is starting to hammer that theme:
If Trump sees through his promise to hold a rival event Thursday, the Cruz camp will use it as fresh ammunition for an assault on the New Yorker’s character, casting their fiercest rival for the GOP nomination as too emotional and self-centered to be trusted with the White House.
“What people will understand is Donald Trump, if he’s not there, made an emotional decision,” Tyler said. “That fits his erratic behavior, based on grievances that are petty and small. That’s what people will see.”
Amanda Carpenter, who used to be Cruz’s communications director, is also alluding to it here:
There are just too many cliffhangers in the Trump reality show to risk bringing it to the White House. Andy McCarthy, a Cruz supporter, echoes the point as well:
Mix in his signature instability: He would never stop treating Kelly nicely, until — turning on a dime — he did . . . just like Carly Fiorina was unattractive until she was “beautiful” . . . and Jeb Bush was a great guy until he was a loser . . . and Ted Cruz was a friend until he was a “nasty” guy that no one would have for a friend . . . and ISIS was Putin’s problem until we needed to obliterate them . . . and he was going to roll over all the “stupid” people on Capitol Hill who’ve screwed everything up until he was going to make deals with his old friends Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer . . . and he was going to round up and kick out 12 million illegal aliens but then bring most of them right back into the country.
How can Trump fans think, based on what he’s saying at the moment, that they know what a President Trump would do a year from now? The truth is: No one knows whether what he just said is what he’ll be saying five minutes from now.
And that is because Trump is a calculating showman. What he says in the moment is based on expedience, not rooted ideas. That’s why, if you stick around long enough, he will get around to saying everything: advocating abortion on demand and, eventually, the sanctity of life; professing admiration for Bill de Blasio and, eventually, Clarence Thomas; gushing praise for Megyn Kelly and, eventually, savaging Megyn Kelly.
Irrational, mercurial, draconian, solipsist — all wrapped up in a neat little persecution complex. I wouldn’t put him in the Oval Office, but he has the makings of a fine Saudi sheikh.
Byron York picked up on all of this on Wednesday night, when he asked various Cruz supporters in Iowa why they preferred him to Trump. The answer: Partly because Trump is too much of a “wild card.” Said one Cruz advisor about Trump skipping the debate, “People are a little nervous about electing someone who is so knee-jerk.” I didn’t pay attention to that when I read it yesterday morning, thinking that Trump has shrugged off far worse attacks, but the ABC/WaPo data has me reconsidering. And the odd thing is, before pulling out of the debate, Trump himself seemed to be working to reassure voters that he’d be more even-keeled as president than he’s been on the trail. That’s why he’s been less confrontational and relatively low-key at the debates, and that’s part of the reason why he’s been talking up how many members of the GOP establishment have been reaching out to him. If mainstream Republicans like Bob Dole and Terry Branstad prefer him to Cruz, how much of a loose cannon can he really be? Now, suddenly, he turns around and bugs out of the debate. Trump critics like to note that his favorable rating among the total electorate is terrible right now, but it was terrible among Republicans back in the spring and he turned it around. He can pull the same trick on the general electorate, especially when he starts shedding some of the immigration stances his fans love him for. I’m not sure if he can turn those anxiety numbers around, though. This is who Trump is. Don’t vote for him unless you want drama with the highest possible stakes.
I am amazed that no one listened in government class. Weren’t they taught that if someone wanted to become president they had to be natural born – born of TWO United States citizens? Now cruz was born in a foreign country. His father was a Cuban citizen and supposedly his mother was a US citizen. There has been some evidence released lately that she was registered to vote in Canada during the time of his birth and since only Canadians are only allowed to vote, it could indicate she was actually a Canadian citizen. (wouldn’t that be a hoot because it would mean he can’t even be a senator, however I have digressed) Of course cruz refused to release his information (shades of obama)
“U.S. Natural Born Citizen Defined
To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”.
Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH. Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Regarding Ted Cruz, Vattel states what amounts to be a rebuke of Ted Cruz’s and Obama’s birth conditions, making the claim of their illegitimacy open.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a “natural born citizen”. In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified the age of twenty one years”, and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law. But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of “Nemo potest exuere Patriam” :
“No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father’s Land.” [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]
In the Act of January 29, 1795, we see the requirement In Section 1,that any citizen that naturalized to the United States (and we must keep any bar of any who was to have any natural born son at this same minimum co-equal level) that such were required to “forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever.”
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever”. He was also to be “a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to “support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever”.
In other words, the father “of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son” was never to be a foreign national, as Cruz’s father was, as Obama’s father was. “…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child’s birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in ” The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290 – Chief Justice John Marshall stated: The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments (excerpt): Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother). Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states a need for jus soli location of birth within the United States must always be present in our considerations here: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”
Of the 1952 Immigration and Nationalization Act, it was recorded in the 2nd Session of the 82nd Congress that: “This provision establishing the child’s nationality as that of the mother regardless of the legitimation or establishment of paternity is new. It insures that the child shall have a nationality at birth.” S. Rep. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1952).
In other words, a new definition of citizenship was granted not recognized as a Natural Born Citizenship, but a birth citizenship by operation of law IF other preconditions were met. What is the residence status of Ted Cruz Father and in the United States before his birth? Perhaps at best Ted is a “national” and NOT a United States Citizen?
So the chart indicates that people are more comfortable with Hitlers political party socialism (ie Sanders) than Trump, guess you are right Enchanted nobody was listening in school. Who the hell with an IQ higher than a bean-spout thinks, give all your stuff to the Government and let them give it back to you as they see fit, is a good idea, and Hillary can’t tell you the difference between Democrats and socialists should give you an idea she is poorly educated as well.
It wasn’t until 1917 after the Bolshevik revolution that “socialism” came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin. So are they teaching this in school, the destruction of capitalism will lead to a non-productive, backwards system that does not reward personal effort or invention? That fat guy Moore should do a documentary on the communist health care system in Russia.
From Fred on Everything: (I highly recommend reading his work)
If anyone comes long who doesn’t fit, either news weasel or pol, they want to disappear him.Thus we see the Republicans, desperate to find a candidate that Hillary can beat, chattering at each other, “Is Trump Really a Conservative?” Not “Does what he says make sense?” The underlying question of course is “How can we get rid of this guy that the constituency wants but who isn’t a member of the tree house?”
They all seem to spend their time talking to each other about each other. They remind me of ingrown toe-nails. I think of this as the National Review Two-Step, though it is industry-wide. (Journalism is an industry: Ay, there’s the rub.) Thus the endless stories, “Leibniz on Atkins,” “Tugwurtle’s Response to Michael Moore on Coulter.”
I doubt anyone was taught what you are pushing in “government” class, which was probably called “civics” class if you get right down to it. Also, I challenge you to show where in the Constitution, or any of the writings of the Founders, the debates over what encompasses “natural born” citizenship, to show where the rule is TWO citizen parents. You ain’t gonna find it, Bubba.
You are simply taking the tired, worn out arguments of both the Obama birthers and the newly created Trumpet birthers. Every Constitutional scholar, on both sides of the aisle, state, without reservation, that Cruz is “natural born” just as John Jay’s children were “natural born.” The only exception to that rule is Lawrence Tribe who first said Cruz was natural born then added the caveat that it had never been challenged in court.
Now, you’re free to support a redeux of a narcissistic, egotistical, bombastic version of Obama if you want. That’s the American way. But to present falsehoods in order to win is still called lying.