This is huge, folks. It seems that “Conservative” Ted Cruz, the Canadian born presidential candidate billing himself as conservative has a history of being anything but a Conservative.
In fact, there really isn’t a dime’s difference between Cruz and RINO flavor du jour Marco Rubio when it comes to allowing millions of illegal immigrants. Both favor allowing the law breakers to not only remain in the United States, but Ted Cruz proposed an amendment in 2013 to grant the illegal aliens RPI Status and LPR status.
Under the comprehensive immigration reform legislation passed by the U.S. Senate in June 2013, Registered Provisional Immigrant status would allow immigrants living in the country illegally to remain here without fear of deportation or removal.
Immigrants who are in deportation or removal proceedings and are eligible to receive RPI must be given the opportunity to get it, according to the Senate’s bill.
And LPR is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or “green card” recipient.
So, sneak across the borders and Ted Cruz has your back. You need not fear deportation under the Cruz Amendment.
One of my favorite excuses Cruz and his supporters are now claiming is that the amendment was a “poison pill”. However, in 2013 Cruz told The Washington Examiner’s Byron York one week after his amendment was voted down “My objective was not to kill immigration reform”.
Watch this 2013 video of Ted Cruz selling legal status for millions of immigrants:
We have become so accustomed to believing these Republicans who claim to be Conservatives only to go DC and stab us in the back with amnesty and support of the far left ideology. The Spending Bill that Paul Ryan is cramming through the House is a perfect example. Barack Obama gets everything he wants fully funded, foreigners will be ushered in freely and the debt will skyrocket.
Eric Cantor made the same “Conservative” claims on the campaign trail and was 100% for amnesty. Try as I might, hearing what Ted Cruz said in 2013 and then what he is trying to say now brings back the whole Cantor lie fest in my mind.
So we can say that Ted Cruz was for legalizing illegal immigrants before he was against it.
And in April of this year, Ted Cruz joined Paul Ryan (a real conservative, right?) in urging America to give Barack Obama expanded Trade Authority with the Trade Promotional Authority bill – also called Obama Trade.
“Fast Track” is on the congressional fast track.
With a deal between Congress and the White House complete, and the mark-up on a bill re-establishing presidential trade promotional authority (TPA) about to begin, Wisconsin’s own Congressman Paul Ryan and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz appear this morning in the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to explain why this policy is so vital to the American economy.
The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.
But before the U.S. can complete the agreements, Congress needs to strengthen the country’s bargaining position by establishing trade-promotion authority, also known as TPA, which is an arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.
And two months later, after his presidential campaign was in full swing, Cruz changed his mind and voted against the TPA.
So again, Ted Cruz was for TPA before he was against it.
So what happened in the two months between his Op Ed extolling the wondrous virtues of TPA and June when he turned against it?
I’ll tell you. The grassroots mobilized against a horrible bill. Pretty much the same thing that happened on Amnesty. Ted Cruz put his finger in the air and saw that the grassroots conservatives were against it. And on Amnesty and legalization, Donald Trump’s straight talk on the subject resonated with Americans – and Conservatives in particular. And Cruz saw the Conservative writing on the wall.
Folks, these flip flops concern me a great deal. Ted Cruz talks the talk, just like Cantor. And he has made a few good speeches. I love the one he call Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. Good stuff. But Cruz just blows with the wind. I see him as more of a follower than a leader. Leading from behind. He will jump on whichever side the popular Conservative opinion lands on.
He is a smart guy and talks the talk. But he hasn’t walked the walk.
And one of the most disturbing things I find in politics today is the fact that so many, most in fact, politicians are owned by the big money of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce. And even if they get elected and are full of good intentions, the big money soon buys their votes and rewards them with campaign money so they can take it easy, knowing the money will be there when they need it.
And remember when Ted Cruz was trying to force Senators and Congressmen to buy health insurance without government subsidies? He shut down the government over that. Then it turned out that Cruz himself is not on Obamacare at all. He is on a Cadillac plan with Goldman Sachs, his wife’s employer where she works as a Vice President. Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me.
And speaking of big money buying politics, Cruz Senate campaign counts Goldman Sachs as one of their top contributors.
But the most troubling aspect of a Ted Cruz nomination is the fact that he was born in Canada. And yes, I have seen all of the opinions that he meets the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen. And I have also seen legal scholars who have come to the exact opposite conclusion. But the legal arguments have never been to the US Supreme Court which has made some pretty earth shattering far out decisions as the left wing ideology seems to permeate that body.
So the issue may have merit one way or the other, but there is no definitive answer to the question “Is Ted Cruz eligible for the presidency?”. And the answer is, we simply don’t know yet.
But that is likely to make no difference as there is a great likelihood that a significant number of states and localities may simply decide Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. And they will refuse to put him on the ballot should he be the nominee. And many on the left will look at that as payback for the “Birther” movement that is still going on. And one thing I learned is that there is no Constitutional entity other than the states that can remove a sitting president if it was found that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. The Constitution does not specifically give the duty and the authority of making that determination to SCOTUS. Congress, perhaps. But we are in uncharted territory here.
So let’s say Florida, with their wacky State Supreme Court that brought hanging chads and “voter intent” into the ballot box said no to Cruz. And Pennsylvania. And perhaps even Virginia.
Ahhh. A true Conservative dilemma. Do states have the right to decide who is a Natural Born Citizen as far as their state is concerned? The Constitution does not specifically grand the authority to the federal government. So would this be one of those powers granted to the states?
And who has standing to bring the suit? Like we saw with Obamacare, there is a possibility that the Supreme Court may not actually have any jurisdiction until actual harm can be proven. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made that argument over Obamacare and lost because no harm had been done until things went into effect.
So what if several states leave Cruz off the ballot? And SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or rules it not “ripe” until after the election. What is the harm? Hillary won? SCOTUS cannot remove a duly elected President. Congress can impeach, but what would Hillary have done wrong in this? Nothing. So impeachment would have no cause.
I like what Cruz says. I have enough evidence to believe that he is no different from Cantor, Boehner, McConnell and Ryan. We don’t know what we don’t know about Cruz. I understand the appeal, I do not blame my friends and anyone who supports Cruz. But there are so many warning signs and potential ugly scenarios that are beyond the control of the voters that I simply cannot, in good conscience support this man.
And now that the media and Marco Rubio (Marco the RINO was a Jolly Happy soul) and others are going full bore against Cruz, can he withstand the scrutiny? I really don’t see Cruz supporters having a lot of options here. They wouldn’t go to Rubio or any of the RINO’s. Ben Carson is done, a smoking (coughing) pile of media rubble and Carly Fiorina is in the same boat. So many of Cruz’ supporters have spent a lot of time bashing Trump with falsehoods (no, Trump does not want to shut down the internet, he does not want to round up Muslims and put then in Hitler type Concentration camps, he is not best friends nor a conspiracy to get Hillary elected, he is not a racist, xenophobe, nativist, hater, or most of the other lies) so it will be hard for the bashers, probably impossible, to support Trump.
But I have a lot of issues with a Cruz nomination.
Article written by: Tom White