It was likely inevitable as the Junior Senator from Texas has been essentially campaigning for months now. He starts with a strong Tea Party backing and fairly wide support among many Republicans who would seriously consider looking at him as a potential nominee. Cruz is skipping any formal exploratory process and launching right into an official campaign, which he announced today at a speech from Liberty University (see video below).

Report from the Houston Chronicle:

Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he will run for president of the United States, accelerating his already rapid three-year rise from a tea party insurgent in Texas into a divisive political force in Washington.

Cruz will launch a presidential bid outright rather than form an exploratory committee, said senior advisers with direct knowledge of his plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement had not been made yet. They say he is done exploring and is now ready to become the first Republican presidential candidate.

The senator is scheduled to speak Monday at a convocation ceremony at Liberty University in Virginia, where he is expected to declare his campaign for the presidency.

Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog Senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party’s libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.

Cruz posted this tweet which contains a video from his revamped campaign website :

At the moment, Cruz is sitting at around eighth place with 4.6% in the RealClearPolitics national primary average. If you drill further to the state level in Iowa, the average has him at around 4.3%, which is good for ninth place currently.

As far as rhetoric goes, Cruz is on par with most any mainstream conservative position. He’s socially conservative as well as economically conservative. There remains questions about whether he is eligible to obtain the office of the presidency given that he was born in Canada to his American mother. That issue will be debated for months to come with legal experts taking differing opinions on the matter.

Also, Cruz must contend with comparisons to Barack Obama given that he is running for President as a one-term Senator with no major executive experience. Then again, Rand Paul must answer the same thing..

So, Cruz is in, Rand Paul will soon follow on April 7. Who will be next in the pool?


Here is the entire video of Cruz’s official campaign announcement from Liberty University on March 23, 2015:

More from

LYNCHBURG, Va. – It was like any other Monday convocation on Liberty University’s sprawling campus, except the students were handed little American flags to wave on their way in the double-glass doors.

Though attendance was mandatory for the school’s resident students, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz faced a rapt audience as he launched his long-expected bid for the presidency under the Vine Center’s vast, 10,000-seat white dome.

“I believe God isn’t done with America,” Cruz said to a raucous standing ovation. “I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America. And that’s why today I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States.”

Cruz is nothing if not a strong orator. That worked out well for Obama, so it can’t be discounted.


  1. Now that Rand Paul has changed Kentucky law (so he can run for as many offices at the same time as he wants), maybe he can change the Constitution, so a Cuban-Canadian can run for president. Harr.

      • I just think it’s funny (notice the “harr”). And so does FORBES Magazine:

        Even if you think someone faked Obama’s birth certificate AND newspaper announcements WHEN HE WAS BORN–and even if you think he might have dropped out of the womb in Kenya–that would have made him a
        • son of an AMERICAN mother,
        • and a foreign father,
        • born in a foreign land (questionable).

        Rafael Cruz is a
        • son of an AMERICAN mother,
        • and a foreign father,
        • born in a foreign land (admitted).

        No, I DON’T think it “should” be an issue, just like I don’t think it should ever have been an issue with Mr. Big Ears. It’s the stupendous hypocrisy that I find so humorous–and despicable.

          • This was just a test. If it had been a real emergency, you would have been told to tune to 640 or 1240 on your AM radio, to hear the Conelrad announcement. . .

        • The impact of allowing Obama to continue his candidacy and eventual election — B.O. admittedly doesn’t like the U.S. and has never defended our nation until pressured. He vowed he would “… fundamentally change the U.S.”. I suspect very few knew his goal was to turn us into a Euro-Socialist nation. I believe he has used “Taqiyya” in the name of his religion to deceive us dozens of time. His international apologies many times since 2009 for the U.S. being a “Overbearing, Colonialist nation” and the desire to make us a weak nation militarily. All this put reason behind not having a pure natural-born President (meaning both parents are U.S. citizens with solid allegiance to the U.S.A – and the child once reached adulthood -. and all that implies). A President’s job is to execute the will of the people and proudly lead them as the greatest nation in the world.

          If Cruz doesn’t make the cut, that is very unfortunate. I like him and believe he would proudly lead us (doing the will of the majority) and wants us to remain a Democratic-Republic.

          • So you’re saying that Cruz is totally ineligible to run for president, since his bona fides for citizenship are even less legit than Mr. Big Ears.

            • On the Surface – actually – Cruz’s Bonafides are better. You KNOW where he was born and further his parents are Patriotic – not dissident and anti-American. But If the law was clarified as I stated – Both Cruz and Bad Odor would be ineligible.

            • I fail to get your logic. The complaint about Obama was that he was either FULLY “natural born,” or questionable. In Cruz’ case, there is no doubt that he was foreign born.

              It is possible to be too literal. If you read the actual words, NONE of the early presidents were eligible, since they were born in a colony of a foreign country.

            • We don’t REALLY know where B.O. was born cause we have never seen the REAL birth cert. If he was not born in HI then he and Cruz would be equal.

              “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, …” gives our forefathers a break.

              As I stated earlier – Both parents should be natural Citizens – plus all three sign statements of allegiance and belief that the U.S.A. is the best nation in the world.You see the result when you vote in a Dissident and Lying Bastard like Obama.

            • Sam: This sure doesn’t sound like a post from you. Of all the people on here, you have the most inclusive philosophy and phenomenology. But let’s get to specifics:

              (1) Sounds like you’re now going to say we have no proof that Obama is a mammal, since we have no video of his being pushed out.
              (2) You’re agreeing that BEST case scenario, Cruz is NO more eligible than Mr. O.
              (3) I’ll trump your Constitution quote with this one: “AND been FOURTEEN YEARS a resident of the UNITED STATES.”
              (4) Where in the Constitution does it say that BOTH parents must be natural citizens? And if that’s your yardstick, there is NO way that Cruz would be eligible.
              (5) Are you REALLY serious that a candidate’s dead parents have to sign a statement of BELIEF??
              (6) By what criteria must the candidate AND his or her dead parents decide that the US is the “best” nation in the world??
              –IMD says we’re number two in economic competitiveness
              –In education, we’re #31 in math, #23 in science, #17 in reading
              –Life expectancy #49
              –Environment #61
              –Democracy #17
              –Women in government #10
              –Economic freedom #9
              –Enabling trade #19
              –Press freedom #20


              I’m NOT saying the United States is NOT the greatest country in the world by SOME measurements, but who is to decide which we value?

              Of all people, I am most surprised that you would suggest such a thing. Do they also HAVE to wear a flag lapel pin, prove that they’re a Christian, and have never had an original thought??

            • Goethe – after suffering for six years with a POTUS/CinC deceiving us – mainly because the media gave him a free pass as he is mainly a socialist-communist (under the guise of being a democrat), AND BLACK; I am skittish about another Democrat being elected. The media will run any Republican through the ringer to disprove their worthiness but not so a Democrat.
              As a result we need a hardline legal way to make sure candidates are who they claim to be and provable plus truly transparent so we don’t get caught up with another dissident, lying, opaque, secretive bastard.
              I am trying to get the constitutional law changed to “natural born citizen” to be BOTH parents are U.S. citizens when candidate is born and someway of proving that the candidate likes and will obey our constitution and is very patriotic. the present POTUS/CinC is not that person. He is not this person either even tho he took the oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

              You’re correct under how I want the law, Cruz would not be eligible. Que sera, sera.

              Being Transparent and open is not who Dem’s have chosen for their next candidate for president. GOP candidates needn’t worry cause the media all but crucify them to disprove their worthiness.

              By Wiki’s and some others – the U.S.A. is not the premier,best, & #1 in the world. Which is a major change from 20 years ago (in which the Dems have had the congressional Conn for 17 of the last 23 years.
              But 80 -> 85% of us are quite patriotic and Do believe that compositely WE are #1 and the best in the world and can’t even imagine living anywhere else.

              Goethe, What does a religion have to do with patriotism ???
              Actually that is the good thing about our Constitution — wear any pin, including Atheist, or no pin. but the government keep it’s nose out of it and don’t prejudice against any religion. Yes about 80% of the U.S. are or came from a Christian background because our forefathers founded us on Christian beliefs which is a morphed and screwed up subset of The Creator’s given rights.

            • Dude. It pains me to hear so much caustic vitriol from someone who is, at heart, a gentle, accepting soul–who believes there is a greater force overseeing us.

              We heard all that hate-talk from the left when Bush43 reigned. Sad to hear it from both sides.

              Oh, and if you had liberal friends, you’d realize that they don’t see Mr. O as a “socialist-communist.” They see him as a sellout to big business, and a wimp who didn’t stand up for anything until his party got its butt whipped last November. You should HEAR some of the nasty things the left says about Obama–because he’s not doing anything for them!

            • Goethe – I’m sorry you feel that what I say about Obama and Clinton is “so much caustic vitriol”. I’m being straightforward about Obama and his dislike for the U.S. and his dislike for the U.S.. Of all the presidents I physically remember Obama is the first POTUS (of all people) who is unpatriotic and dislikes his own country. That is almost unfathomable to believe. Clinton(s) believe they are subject to the will or laws of the people and is very secretive and wouldn’t say s%^t about HER politics even if she a mouthful [which she does but nobody can see].

              Other than Bush going into Iraq {which by the way had a big congressional approval percentage} I don’t think “The People” had any issues. And the disagreeing Dems and MSM were not speaking for and representing The People. And Bush was patriotic and doing his best to ensure the U.S. was #1 and the top world power.

              I’m very sensitive to Patriotism to the U.S. – If someone doesn’t like and support this Constitutional Democratic Republic, democratically modify it or get the fk out and go someplace to be with like minds.Obama is in fact a socialist and has admitted such and is trying hard in the next 18mos to make us into Socialist-Europe. Also to down grade the U.S., give Iran full nuke capability and start a middle-East religious war.

              BTW – to have unconditional love for even a misguided / poor judgement soul doesn’t mean you have to like or respect a lyin’, misleading, physical P.O.S. and he’ll have to answer to his true self and soul when he arrives Home.

            • I’m sorry, too.

              HATING OBAMA

              But this nonsense of Obama not loving America is just an echo chamber of idiocy. To say that we need change of some things is not to say you hate everything.

              They say men marry women hoping they’ll never change, and women marry men to change them. Does that mean that all women hate men?

              Today, I found a video of JFK–the Democratic president Republicans most like to claim. In it, JFK says that the USA “could be a greater country.” Does that mean JFK also hated America?


              It’s simply not true that Americans wanted the Iraq War. Were you born yesterday? Polls showed that 72% of Americans did NOT want the Iraq War. They wanted to let the inspectors finish their work, INSTEAD.

              It was only AFTER we sent troops that Americans supported that war, and even then, they were really supporting our troops. History will show it as the worst foreign policy mistake, so far, in the 21st Century.

              And that doesn’t mean I “hate” America. But having “unconditional love” doesn’t mean you have to deny the truth–to lie to yourself. It is better to save what is good and work on what is not. Even 20 years ago or 40 years ago, we were not “the best” at everything. To suggest that is not being patriotic, it’s being foolish.

            • Goethe says: “But this nonsense of Obama not loving America is just an echo chamber of idiocy.”

              Obama not only hates America, but wants to destroy our very foundation — the US Constitution!

              Goethe— get your ostrich head out for the sandbox you play in and soil, and try (hard is it might be for a mediocre mind like yours) and rise above being such a myopic brainwashed ass, kid.

            • That’s a totally subjective claim. How can you possibly know what Obama loves, likes, hates, or couldn’t care less about? And you offer absolutely no basis for your claim, which is impossible to substantiate, anyway.

              Such silliness.

            • Silly Goethe — you display your blindness to reality (being a liberal Dem…it’s no wonder), kid.

              My (and Sam Reusser’s) claims that Obama hates America and wants to destroy our Constitutional Republic are proven by Obama’s actions!

              Or have you been asleep all these 6 years…?!

            • You can say he made mistakes. You can even say that his idea of what’s good for America is different from yours.. But it is total nonsense to say he “hates” America.

              Give me one example of anything that could substantiate your claim.

            • Goethe says about Obama:

              “You can say he [Obama] made mistakes. You can even say that his idea of what’s good for America is different from yours.. But it is total nonsense to say he “hates” America. Give me one example of anything that could substantiate your claim.”

              Goethe — using SNL’s classic which is apropos to you: “Jane you Ignorant slut”:

              Goethe, kid, name one thing Obama has done to support the US Constitution instead!

              Obama’s America hating actions are never-ending attacks on our Liberties and our Constitution — the examples are in the thousands— if you don’t see them, it’s because you, Jane, are an ignorant slut!

            • Only thousands? My golly, I was sure you would have said, millions, billions, trillions.

              Your nonsense hyperbole is slipping, kid.

            • Sam Reusser — spot on!

              If Obama has nothing to hide — why hasn’t he ever shown His Real Birth Certificate (instead of the computer generated fake one released by the White House)?!?!

              Any American must show a Birth Certificate just to get a drivers license — but, to become US President one doesn’t?????

              This refusal by Obama to show his real Birth Certificate is a Red Flag!

              The only plausible reason is that Obama was NOT BORN IN USA — thus, MUST BE JAILED FOR LIFE for usurping the US Presidency under falsehood! But, Liberals and Main Stream Media care naught for legality — so cover up this ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!!!

          • SAM: I offer you an apology and an unconditional surrender. In another thread, Thomas brought up the book, “The Law of Nations,” by a French political philosopher. I looked it up, and found that it says that a “natural born citizen” is a child of two citizens.

            It’s just a book, from a foreigner at that, BUT it is known that the Founding Fathers read and referred to it. And therefore, I think it’s clear that they purposely used that phrase IN THE CONSTITUTION with your meaning.

            Thus, Obama should not have been elected, and people like Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are NOT eligible. Obama’s precedent doesn’t matter, since the early presidents were also illegal, but the argument was never made.

            Once the argument is made and determined to be legitimate, it should stand thereafter.

            Sorry, my friend. You were right and I was wrong.

            • Goethe – I think you are correct for as the law and interpretation stands “right now”. In 2011 to protect Obama’s ass from impeachment and the MSM who constantly cover for him.

            • Sam: It’s not a matter of “covering for him.” The birthers just never made a rational argument. They screamed about the “natural born” phrase, but the actual MEANING of the phrase was always in question. The birthers just screamed, instead of reasoning.

              If an argument had been made that (a) the book says this meaning, (b) the preceded the Constitution, and (c) Founding Fathers referred to the book regarding proper democratic procedure during the period–then they may have succeeded.

              Another problem is that, in our legal system, nothing just happens. Someone would have to challenge Obama, either in the courts, or in Congress.

              In the courts, they’d have to prove that they had “standing.” That is, who was harmed by a wrong action? Could a voter claim damage? Not a Republican, since he/she wouldn’t have voted for Obama, anyway. A Democratic voter might say he/she was denied the right to vote for a legal candidate. But who would?

              And, finally, the wording is “eligible” to be president. Once a majority of voters choose him, and the Chief Justice–the top judge in the country–gives him legitimacy, how can you “take it back”?

              Congress could say being born of a foreign father is a “high crime and misdemeanor,” but the public really doesn’t like that sort of thing–especially so late in the term. The GOP would be signing its 2016 death warrant.

              So that brings us to now. If Rubio, Cruz, and Jindal insist on running, who’s going to challenge them? And how? If someone is 34 years old, no one would take them seriously, but a nation of immigrants–with a soft spot for upward mobility–would have a hard time saying a citizen can’t be president because of his/her parents.

            • A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

              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;

              Obama was never vetted and given a free pass. As long as we have a majority MSM with it’s Liberal bias – A Democrat never will be properly vetted. And to top it off —– oh boy, oh boy this Democrats’ candidate has Negroid blood as well – we are so politically correct we will even have a “Black” President.

              The Republicans won’t fair so well !!! they can’t raise the Natural Born flag because of Obama, but Liberal MSM will put all three through hotter coals than the rest of the field.

              “Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution but were eligible for the office by virtue of having been citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted.[4]”

              They need this clause as the U.S. wasn’t old enuff to bear Natural Born and meet age requirement for a POTUS candidate.

              “…that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence”, and that “The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”[6] ”
              ” “to insure experience and attachment to the country . . .”
              On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

              Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[17]

              Obama still has not provided us with an un-retouched birth cert or explained why he has the SSN of dead man from CT when B.O. has never been to CT or why his original Passport declared him as a citizen of Indonesia. —— B.O. has never shown a positive ‘experience and attachment to the country’.
              So while all may be legal, I believe the law should be re-clarified and specifically spell out that both parents must be U.S. citizens and all three (candidate & parents) specifically swear their attachment and allegiance to the U.S.

            • Oh, Sam. . .You’re making Obama’s case for him.

              The reason I have changed my mind is that up to now, I had never heard a conclusive definition of the term, “native born,” which Emerich de Vatte gives us–and there’s evidence that the Founding Fathers referred to his book.

              The 2011 report you cite, says ANYBODY is a “natural born” citizen, if he or she CAN claim to be a citizen. It does NOT talk about parentage. Case dismissed.

              Bringing up “Negroid blood,” makes your argument seem frivolous. And you and I disagree about the media. You claim they are smart enough to be biased. I think they’re just lazy, and more interested in Kim Kardashian’s ass than in civic matters.

              Also, 8 of the first 9 presidents were NOT “eligible,” because they needed to be 35 years of age AND lived in the UNITED STATES for 14 years. There WAS no “United States” for these presidents to have lived in.

              The moment that the Chief Justice of the United States of America swore in Obama, the question of being “eligible” was moot, since he BECAME the president at that moment. “Shouldn’t be” doesn’t matter when faced with “what is.”

              And, finally, your demand that “all three (candidate & parents) specifically swear their attachment and allegiance to the U.S.” gives me the creeps. Libertarians should freak out about that.

        • Goethe – you bleed Dem Blue !!! I don’t HATE anybody, I’m simply pointing out That B.O. despises America and has admitted such including his books and has never been vetted but instead given a pass by the MSM while putting Clinton down and trying to destroy a retired Naval Officer and a POW. NEVER FORGET after being elected – his famous words, “we will FUNDAMENTALLY change America. He has been a liar and deceiver his entire presidency so far and is about to cave to Iran and create an entire nuclear Middle-East and start a Middle-East religious clusterfk. with every Arab nation getting nukes.

          Face it, Obama is actually a traitor who wants to make the U.S. a second class world country and will live off the Taxpayer’s $$ for the rest of his life.

          I can’t even believe you would compare Kennedy to Obama, you are one sicko!

          72% of Dems wanted to let candy-ass Inspectors continue, who had already let Saddam send all his chemo WMD to Syria. And > 72% of GOP and Independents wanted to go in to IRAQ. Only you and and your Dem friends wanted to be Candy-Ass. Even the incredibly biased MSM initially supported going into Iraq {including Kerry, Reid, Clinton – 58% of Dem Senate}.

          • Har. I’ve never been accused of being a blue blood before!! It is NOT a crime to be anti-war. Nor do you have to be a Democrat to hate war. I’ve been a registered Republican for many years.

            Where, exactly, has Obama ever said he hates America? Such silliness. Give me a quote.

            I was not “comparing” JFK and Obama. I was pointing out that during the Kennedy-Nixon debate, Kennedy said the US could be greater, while Nixon was trying to claim, “you’ve never had it so good.” EVERY president has said that he has wanted to “fix” America in one way or another. That’s not a crime, either.

            No, 72% of the AMERICAN PUBLIC did NOT want the Iraq war. As I recall, a majority of Republicans were also against that incredibly stupid invasion ahead of it, according to Gallup. I’ll try to see if it’s still available.

            According to Wiki, in January of 2003, TWO-THIRDS of Americans did NOT want to invade Iraq. They/We wanted to let the inspectors finish their inspections, which Saddam had agreed to. Only 31% of Americans wanted to foolishly rush in.

            There was a brilliant manipulation campaign, however. Anti-war protestors began taking to the streets, so Representatives held “town hall” meetings to “discuss” the rush to war. BEHIND CLOSED DOORS–in school gymnasiums, nearly all the citizens told the Representatives to stay out of Iraq. Representatives pretended to listen, and that took the steam out of the protests, since citizens didn’t understand that it was all a ruse. It was a brilliant move. If they had done that in the 60s/70s, we might still be fighting in Vietnam.

          • Here’s the speech you’re talking about:


            (1) End policies that put the greed of Wall Street ahead of the hard-workers on “Main Street.”
            (2) New policies to add jobs and grow the economy
            (3) New policies, where EVERYONE has the chance to succeed
            (4) New policies that help middle-class people pay medical bills
            (5) New policies that keep college from being only for the rich

            Now, you might be against the middle class, or want to sabotage the economy, OR you could argue that he hasn’t accomplished these things he said he wanted to do, but you can’t use these goals as some kind of rationalization that he “hates America.” That’s insane.

            • Goethe, if you’re a registered GOP, then your a RINO. You need to quit watching MSNBC and CNN.
              Just like Obamacare – he lies like a rug – He has “fundamentally” fk’d not changed us.
              (1) End policies that put the greed of Wall Street ahead of the hard-workers on “Main Street.” —– not even close, he keeps printing 85giga$/mo and the market keeps accelerating and Main street workers are slipping further behind economically.
              (2) New policies to add jobs and grow the economy —— he has finally reached the “new Job” level that it was before the crash caused by the Dems in ’08.
              (3) New policies, where EVERYONE has the chance to succeed —— the TRUE unemployment rate is 11% – we now have the highest level / % of people who have dropped out of the workforce or just quit looking for work since the early ’70’s.
              (4) New policies that help middle-class people pay medical bills ——— The cost for insurance for those not on medicaid or medicare has doubled and even tripled, some has even chosen to drop insurance and pay the fine – much cheaper.
              (5) New policies that keep college from being only for the rich — And directly on the backs of the middle class that is still working – let them earn it by going in the service or take out Ed. loans or both like my son-in-law & daughter did.

              your correct – i couldn’t not find in his books where he actually Said HATE, but damn close implication.

              You should get your head out of MSNBC’ butt.

            • I don’t watch MSNBC, and only see CNN if I go to the gym. Should I claim that you only watch Fox? And, likewise, get your head out of your butt.

              You were claiming that by saying he wanted to “fundamentally change” America that it meant he “hated” America. I showed you your claim was nonsense, by pointing out the specific speech you were referring to.

              I’m not a fan of Obama, but if you don’t want to participate in hate speech on here, you are given all kinds of titles. Fine. Haters gonna hate.

              You are really above this, Sam.

            • When I want to know political or foreign affairs events, i do watch mostly FOX as they will tell the story pretty straight including having as many Democrats as GOP for discussion comments. In addition they don’t just select phrases but will discuss the whole subject and they don’t give the Administration a free pass.

              B.O. is bad for our country and has been since day one!!! I firmly believe he is a Sunni Muslim aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe he is anti-American and that will become even more apparent when he leaves office and his anti-constitutional “above the law”s with him. He easily could have invented the Muslim word “taqiyya”.

              Being a Muslim is fine as long as not aligned with ‘destroy America’ and in favor of Sharia. Anyone living in America should be assimilated for the most part as well as patriotic. Keeping heritage and religious traits are great as long as they don’t break American Law, the Founding Fathers Constitutional laws, or hurt / embarrass other Americans. There should be no ‘Noun’ dash in front of American. We are all just plain Americans.

            • Well, as long as you frame it as your own, personal suspicion and opinion that Obama is not the Christian he has always claimed to be, that’s up to you. Don’t claim it as fact.

              But if he’s such a “Sunni,” why is he trying to make progress with Iran, the major Shi’ite power? Those groups really hate each other. Your suspicion would be stronger if you just called him a Muslim, and not a Sunni.

              As for pride of heritage, I’ve always been proud to be a “German-American.” The only difference is that my German link is three generations and a century back. My great-grandparents had to be translated, cuz they knew no English.

              As for TV, I watch about 20 minutes of CNN when I’m at the gym, and I see Fox from time to time when I’m at a restaurant or somewhere. No contact with MSNBC or any of the MSM you love to hate.

              I do know MSNBC’s entire morning show is hosted by a former Republican Florida congressman who is often quoted making the conservative argument, including this story, in which he defends Pence and Indiana:


              And, today, he and his partner grilled their guest about the Clinton email thing:


              I did watch a regular show on Fox called “The Five.” There was only one old, fat guy who took the side of the left, and he was furiously pummelled by four adamantly right-side opponents. 20% Fair. 20% Equal. Pfft.

            • B.O. was raised Sunni, by his father and in Indonesia. Also Obama is Muslim Brotherhood, through and through, and they are Sunni, further he supports ISIS, MB creation. He seriously wants to more legacy, a fk’d up Healthcare in his name isn’t enough – he will sell his soul (if he has one) to cut a bad a deal with Iran, but it will backfire and actually start a sectarian middle-east war instead.

              I do watch the Five most every day. Bob Beckel’s out with back surgery. the stand-in’s or Beckel I don’t care much for as they get fixated on protecting the Democrats’ party and constituents and above all Obama. All commentators lean left or right to a certain degree and right leaning makes more sense to me and closer to what the “we the people” I know think.

              Your immediate ancestry is almost identical to mine except mine is Swiss & German my father wasn’t allowed to speak english inside the house till he was 10 (1912). But I am an American and raised my hand many times, “… that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”. So i’m just an American and once someone is a citizen that is how I look at them too. otherwise they are just a visitor in my country.

            • As I say, I only watch TV intermittently and by accident. I’ve seen The Five just a few times, but each time, the one, poor, ineffectual, fat, white guy was ruthlessly beat down by the other four. The way he “took it” suggested to me that he knew his role there was as a token–or whipping boy.

            • Sam: I was checking some old mail and came upon this. I realized I didn’t respond to it.

              I think your rant is an example of believing haters in an echo chamber, who have no one there to contradict them. I’m not necessarily calling you a hater, but when you are fed nothing but crap, sooner or later, “you are what you eat.”

              Truth is, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, and LIVED IN Hawaii until 1967.

              His parents were divorced when he was TWO YEARS OLD. His father married a Jewish woman that same year, and the couple moved to Kenya–and out of his life. His father was a Muslim-turned-Atheist. His stepfather was a “MINO,” (Muslim In Name Only)–not devout.

              While it’s true that Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia to be with his STEPfather when he was six, he attended St. Frances of Assisi CATHOLIC school for three years. After that, he moved to a secular school that celebrated Christmas–for less than a year.

              In1971, when he was TEN, Obama moved back to Hawaii, to live with his grandparents.

              He admits that he was not particularly religious in his early life, but was won over because, he says, “Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.” That would certainly be consistent with his work as a “community organizer” and civil rights attorney–instead of getting rich on Wall Street.

              I find it bizarre that Obama was condemned-by-association with the Christian minister, Rev. Wright, at Trinity Church for ten years, while the same complainers ALSO try to claim he’s a Muslim.

              As president, Obama has worshiped with the Southern Baptist minister at Camp David.

              Mr. Big Ears has p*ssed me off a lot of times over the past six years, but let’s try to keep in at least a tangential touch with reality.

            • Until Obama releases his un-tampered with Birth Cert – NO-ONE (but his mother) knows where he was born. His Indonesian schooling:

              Nothing you said is much different than what I said earlier. You were just expressing the liberal’s half truths. He actually was trying to get rich on Wall Street and beginning his political career as Ayers’ protoge.
              You don’t know what and who Obama is as he has told so many lies and half truths over the last eight years and reversed his concepts as well.

            • Sam: You call anything you don’t want to hear “half-truths,” because you only want to hear YOUR “half truths,” not the whole story, and you call anything you don’t like “liberal.”

              Fact is, I got most of the information I stated from several different Wiki pages.

              The most interesting thing about the link you provided is that the guy HATES Obama, and yet, says that he was “born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961.”

              Obama’s religion was listed as “Muslim” for the same reason that I still consider myself “Catholic.” That’s what my dad was. It’s one of those “who cares” lines people fill in with anything.

              As for Indonesian citizenship, what difference does it make if he might have had dual citizenship?? We are SURE he had American Citizenship, and that’s all that matters.

              I have already agreed with you that I think Roberts made an error in swearing in Obama. It seems apparent that the Founding Fathers were adamant about having presidents who were deeply ensconced in the country. There was confusion about what “natural born” actually meant (not a “C-section”??), but the Frenchman’s book clears that up.

              If there were any further question about how the Founders felt about it, that’s made clear by the fact that they required that a candidate be not only 35, but also have lived IN the country for 14 years.

              But, at this point, it’s all nonsense/BS. It makes no difference if he was “eligible,” because the chief legal officer of the land proclaimed him president, so whether he was “eligible” is moot.

              Personally, I don’t think Ford or Rockefeller were “eligible” to be vice presidents. The Constitution is clear about succession, and says nothing about dropping in an unelected veep. I have also felt that it was wrong for McGovern to just willy-nllly pick a running mate after the convention. He should have run alone, with the Speaker becoming president if he were incapacitated.

              When Harrison died, Tyler became president and we had no vice president. Likewise, Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, and Lyndon Johnson. We don’t “need” a veep. Ford was illegally made vice president by the Democratic Congress–so that they wouldn’t be accused of a coup if they got rid of Nixon.

              Water under the bridge and over the dam. The only purpose to blather on about the eligibility topic, now, is to make it impossible for Cruz and Rubio to run.

            • It’s not water under the bridge — you, Obama-loving liberal twit.

              The only logical reason Obama refuses to show his REAL Birth Certificate is because he was not born in USA!

              This makes him an Usurper of the Presidency, and hopefully will be prosecuted as the criminal that he is once out of power!

            • If you had a brain, you might be dangerous.

              Yes, this discussion is a waste of time, first because his term is practically over, and anything that could be done, can’t be done before his normal term ends.

              More importantly, the Chief Justice gave him legitimacy. It doesn’t matter if you WERE eligible if you already ARE president.

              We’ve had many presidents who were not eligible. 8 of the first 9 were not eligible, because they had not lived in the United States for 14 years, as required in the Constitution.

              Jerry Ford was illegally “appointed” to his office, as was Rockefeller. They were not “eligible” to be vice president, and therefore, Ford should not have been elevated to president.

              There are probably a lot of other presidents who had on right to be president, but once they are, they ARE.

              I can’t believe you’re wasting everyone’s time with this, you liberal twit.

    • When the Eagle Rising blog of a legal expert like Phyllis Schlafly twice finds him fully eligible through an extensive discussion on this topic, I don’t think that such an attempt at derailing the candidacy of this good man is going to go anywhere along those lines.

      • What do you think of Schlafly’s assertion that no woman can claim to be raped by her husband, since marriage legally gives him ownership of her body?

        • What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion which is the candidacy of Senator Cruz for the Presidency? Concerning my personal opinion, no one should ever force another into that type of personal contact whether married or not although usually Christians will take each other’s needs into consideration where that is concerned. When the relationship is valued, it is not a matter of coercion.

          • Just checking. Some people will agree with anything their “hero” says, even while admitting it’s wrong.

        • Phyllis Schlafly is a very talented woman, able in her lifetime , to work as a model, a ballistics gunner in a munitions plant, spent years in college to become a constitutional lawyer, and bore six children (rape?) is today complaining bitterly that the young women of today do not deserve the same opportunities that was afforded her. I do read [email protected]. as I do share her viewpoints on education for children ages 3 to 8.

            • Very simple. Phyllis Schafly believes a man owns his wife’s body and will. There are laws against martial rape in most states, with the exception of Oklahoma that I know of. So, we may never know in this case but the question does strikingly arise.
              Sorry, I hit the down button by mistake.

            • Nate, you are unnecessarily looking for trouble. Because I do not agree with many of her views does not mean I dislike her as an individual. I am in complete accord with some of her views on educating the very young. However, I have the right to question her views, just as you have the right to question mine, and I have the right to question yours of taking offense so quickly.

            • To question (?) is to inquire. To allege is to states someone has done something
              illegal or wrong. I did not allege anything. I did question, which is a form of human curiosity.

            • Forget it.. You floated your “question” for a specific reason which you won’t disclose.. I’m not even remotely familiar with this woman, never read anything she’s written.. but I find your explanation entirely disingenuous.

              Maybe it’s just me, but when I drop questions of “rape,” I’d like to have at least some shred of evidence to back me up other than my human curiosity of questioning.

            • Omigod, let’s back up the bus.

              (1) Victoria gushed about Schlafley.
              (2) I tested Victoria to see if she was a blind hero-worshipper. To do so, I picked an extreme position, to see if Victoria would “bite.”
              (3) She didn’t. Victoria showed that she agreed on certain issues and not others. Next phase:
              (4) The issue I chose was that Schafley had said wives have no right to charge a husband with rape, since the marriage certificate was a contract giving a man legal ownership of the woman’s body.
              (5) Tess figured that Schlafley would not have made that point–wouldn’t have thought of it–if she didn’t at some point feel that it was HER unwilling “job,” also, to “perform her wifely duties.”
              (6) Tess then asked the question of whether the fact that she had six kids meant that she did a lot of “duty.”
              (7) That’s a pretty long logical leap that Nate couldn’t abide, so he called her on it.
              (8) The rest of the posts are beating around the bush (no pun intended, but willing to take credit for).

            • It seems to me that Mrs. Schlafly is a Christian and as such she understands that man and wife are meant to complement one another and at the same time seek to meet each other’s needs so it is not exactly a mutually exclusive idea that they “own” each other’s bodies since they are through marriage united into a oneness. Where is the conflict? I just don’t see it. As to all else, Mrs. Schlafly has been a prolfic writer and excellent political activist since at least the seventies. It was my privilege to meet her at a conference attended by my former boss, the late great Paul Weyrich and I continue to think quiite highly of her to this day. She has accomplished a great deal in promoting conservatism.

          • I don’t think it’s that she doesn’t think young women deserve what she has. It’s more like schadenfraude: “you can have what I have, but only if you go through the same unnecessary and humiliating crap that I did.”

            Lucille Ball was famous for being against equal rights because she also felt that if she had to put up with it, today’s women should have to put up with it.

          • Tess Liehard — still polluting this forum with your vile socialist dead dogma…?

            Googling tripe and pasting it here as non sequitur “proof” for your anti-American pernicious propaganda…?

            What a sad little liberal shill you are….

  2. Cruz is just on a cruise…boarding the Titanic.

    The sad part of this disaster is he’ll take away much needed money from the only Tea Party candidate that can win — and thus restore our plagued nation — Rand Paul, the only American patriot left standing!

  3. Nate — thanks for posting the full 31 minute video of Ted Cruz. A great orator…? Not in the Classic Greek sense of orators that spoke reason without gesticulating — more akin to carnival barkers, or TV evangelists out to sucker old ladies out of their Social Security checks.

    Dissecting it:

    1) “Imagine, imagine, imagine” — too many immaginings, peppered with soap opera-ish drama (on his parents: while drinking too much, overcame tragedy to be blissful in uniting, thus creating him, Ted Cruz).

    2) Keeps on harping how to imagine, imagine, and keep on imagining stuff — until Jesus saved his father, and their family, thereafter.

    3) Then goes on to a little girl born in Africa who played with kids that spoke Swahili while she spoke English…eventually to come to America and make breads to earn a living as a child…(how touching is that)! And that little, born in Africa, girl becomes his wife (trying to connect with African Blacks, while she is a blonde white — Heidi Nelson Cruz — who is one of the top operators ( managing director) of Goldman Sachs!).

    4) Then goes on that our Rights as Americans don’t come from men (our Founding Fathers) but from God only….

    5) Then reverses himself by saying that a man, Thomas Jefferson, stated that the purpose of the US Constitution is to bind Government with its chains.

    6) Then keeps on asking to imagine, imagine, imagine … all kind of stuff — like Israel is our friend and Netenyahu is The Best (no wonder, since he and his wife are part of Goldman Sachs), and the US Constitution will somehow be respected by him and his Goldman Sachs’ wife!

    Ted Cruz will make a great male Tammy Baker — just needs more makeup and running tears….

  4. am delighted and will gladly work to back his candidacy in my state of Virginia. Senator Cruz is an excellent proven conservative who will go on to lead in the mold of the next Reagan. It will be both a joy and a priivilege to support his candidacy…all th way to the White House.

      • Shame on you. Surfisher for assuming that my vote is based on ethnicity. As far as I am concerned, that is a plus due to the Puerto Rican heritage on my grandmother’s side of the family but the fact is that I did not even know who he was until he stood for over 21 hours on the floor of the Senate speaking out against the socialized medicine bill opposed by both 89% of doctors and fully 75% of the electorate at the time it was rammed down the collective American throat. Rand Paul stood on that same floor for only 17 hours against the drones threat. Yes, I think it is correct to protest the threat posed by drones but frankly the assault upon our system of medicine hit a lot closer to home for this voter and in my opinion that is where the good Senator from Texas proved himself to be a knight in shining armor standing up for “We the People” to a degree that is rarely seen among the representatives who are supposed to be defending our values and future today. That definitely got my attention and at the time fellow conservative Senators like Paul and Lee and others stood right there with Ted Cruz helping him to make his points perfectly clear. If we could get a Cruz/Pence ticket for next year, it would knock the Clintonian aspirations right out of the water, to the rescuing of the electorate from the further downgrading their return to the White House would represent to the nation. Rush has often declared that when we nominate true conservatives we win but when we nominate DNC lite we lose. The last two presidential elections have made that point abundantly clear. Senator Cruz is a proven conservative with the excellent record to prove it and so he has my vote and my ‘phone banking work efforts when the time comes for that and I do hope that he is first nominated and then elected to the Presidency for next year. That is nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of. BTW (in case you were wondering) I was born right here in New York with the last name Mulligan so it is rather senseless to judge a book by it’s cover. – enough said.

        • Victoriadelacy — don’t back-peddle now. You’ve stated many times that you support Ted Cruz because he is a Latino conservative. That Latino link have never exited your posts.

          Shame on you for such divisiveness!

          The part that Ted & wife are Goldman Sachs don’t seem to bother you — nor that Ted Cruz puts Israel above America, as he’s stated many times: “If you will not stand for Israel and the Jews, than I will not stand with you!” saying this to American Citizens!

          In his own words, Ted Cruz proclaims that if Americans won’t stand for the foreign State of Israel, he, Ted Cruz won’t stand for Americans! How Unconstitutional and sick and wrong is that…?!

          And you still support him, only because he is a Latino…like your grandmother…?!

          Ted Cruz gets booed of stage for being a Zionist Goldman Sachs apparatchik, and not a Real American!

Comments are closed.