The GOPe Fatwah Against @TedCruz Has Me Hoping For A Dewhurst On Tuesday

Posted on | February 28, 2016 | 36 Comments

by Smitty

Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorsing Trump?

Sessions, what’s more, has decided to back Trump over Cruz, a fellow senator. Sessions has been one of the few in the Senate, even among Republicans, to praise Cruz, and Cruz has been dropping Sessions’ name all over the place in recent days. That Sessions has come out for Trump is surely a bitter disappointment to the Texan.

This is kind of a head ‘sploder, given Trump’s apparently squishy support of the First Amendment.

I think I’m totally writing in Cruz in November, irrespective of what the elite care about. If the GOPe wants to party like it’s 1992, I can bring it.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

36 Responses to “The GOPe Fatwah Against @TedCruz Has Me Hoping For A Dewhurst On Tuesday”

lonely conservative
February 28th, 2016 @ 10:06 pm

I’m with you, Smitty. I’ve had enough.
Jason Lee
February 28th, 2016 @ 11:05 pm

“If the GOPe wants to party like it’s 1992, I can bring it.”

No problem. They can work with Hillary.
CrustyB
February 28th, 2016 @ 11:08 pm

I haven’t voted since 2000 and it doesn’t look like I’m going to start.again anytime soon. There’s no room for conservatives in the voting booth any more than there’s room for us on Twitter.
rodander
February 28th, 2016 @ 11:25 pm

While I held my nose and voted for the non-Stacy McCain in 2008 because of his choice of Sarah Palin for VP, I will not under any circumstances vote for Donald Trump for president.

The Republican Party will be dead to me if they nominate Trump.
Clinton
February 29th, 2016 @ 4:26 am

The mandarins of the GOP would rather see a President
Hillary than a President Trump, and they’d rather see a
President Trump than a President Cruz.

Seems to me they don’t care who’s president, so long as
that person doesn’t upset the gravy train they’ve got
going for themselves and their donors/masters. They
long ago made it clear how much contempt they had for
the grassroots. I’m about ready to start voting third
party, or stop voting altogether.
Kathleen Lechuga
February 29th, 2016 @ 5:58 am

?my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here:;/145????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:::::;/145………
Powered by UNicorn flatulence
February 29th, 2016 @ 8:02 am

Muslim for Trump
Without a border we have no nation
daialanye
February 29th, 2016 @ 8:31 am

The presumptive winner presents a great attraction to the weak-willed and self-serving.
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 8:38 am

I certainly don’t want to vote for Trump.

On the other hand, neither Rubio or Cruz (*) are natural born US citizens. Thus, because I do honor the Constitution, I *will not* vote for any ticket including either one of them.

(*) moreover, starting with how Cruz’s campaign tried to steal the vote for Carson in Iowa, and his response to that, he’s showing himself to be quite the weasel.
gunga
February 29th, 2016 @ 9:45 am

Smitty – my hope is that you will remain a happy warrior, whatever the outcome of any election. The contrast alone heaps hot coals on their heads…
rodander
February 29th, 2016 @ 9:46 am

Are you saying that Rubio and Cruz are not US citizens at all? Because neither is naturalized — so if they are not citizens by birth than they are not citizens whatsoever, which is nonsense.
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 10:13 am

“so if they are not citizens by birth than they are not citizens whatsoever, which is nonsense.”

Are you saying that George Washington was a naturalized US citizen? ‘Cause he sure wasn’t a natural born US citizen, there having been no US when he was born. But, that is non-sense; George was neither a natural born US citizen nor was he a naturalized US citizen nor was he a US citizen at birth; yet he *was* a US citizen. It is becasue he was not a natural born US citizen that the Consitution says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President …” — the part I bolded was put in there so that Washington and the other US cizitens who were born before the US even existed would qualify to hold the office of president.

“Because neither is naturalized — so if they are not citizens by birth than they are not citizens whatsoever, which is nonsense.”

1) you’re incorrectly conflating “citizen at birth” with “natural born citizen”; these are not the same thing.

2) and, in actual fact, the US citizenship that Rubio and Cruz had “at birth” was via an Act of Congress under its Constitutional authority “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” … which is to say, you have been misinforned: these two men *are* naturalized US citizens.
rodander
February 29th, 2016 @ 10:33 am

Your point might hold water if “natural born” were defined in the constitution to exclude the Cruz and Rubio situations. Congress does not have the power to later redefine a term in the Constitution, much less by implication.

But since “natural born” is not defining, the term is descriptive. And I think the far better argument is that one who naturally is a citizen when born is “natural born” for this purpose.
mackykam
February 29th, 2016 @ 10:45 am

Brutus Sessions: unprincipled person.
Adobe_Walls
February 29th, 2016 @ 11:29 am

That would be the argument for voting for Trump if he gets the nomination. Cruz could be a step in the direction of Re-redesigning the system. All of the other candidates are a null value at best. Except Trump that is, he’s an unknown quantity.
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 11:29 am

“Your point might hold water if “natural born” were defined in the constitution …”

Now you’re falling back to the pseudo-reasoning that those who refuse to reason correctly about this topic always fall back to.

Here are a few other terms the Constitution does not define, non-exhaustively:
* “State”
* “legislative Powers”
* “executive Power”
* “judicial Power”
* “Citizen”
* “year”
* “Legislatures … of the several States”

Why, the Constitution is a virtual farrago of undefined terms. Who can possibly know what any of them mean, lacking a definition in the document?

Concerning the qualifications to hold the office of president, the Constitution further says, “… neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Who is to say what that means, really? After all, not a single one of those words is defined in the document! What does “Person ” mean, really? What does “eligible” mean, really? What does “the Age of thirty five Years” mean, really? What does “attained” mean, really? What does “Resident” mean, really? What does “within” mean, really?

“Congress does not have the power to later redefine a term in the Constitution, much less by implication …”

Exactly.

“Natural born citizen” means what it means, and Congress does not have the authority to modify its meaning.

Congress does, however, have the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” … and the citizenship “at birth” of both Rubio and Cruz (and also of Obama and Jindal and Nikki Haley) derive from Acts of Congress, not from the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

“But since “natural born” is not defining, the term is descriptive.”

Really? Are you really saying that the Framers — who were so careful and precise everywhere else in the document — didn’t really mean anything in particular when they *deliberately* used that phrase to set forth the requirements to holding the office?

“.. And I think the far better argument is that one who naturally is a citizen when born is “natural born” for this purpose.”

Translation: I want what I want.

Neither Cruz nor Rubio is “naturally [a US] citizen when born” — both of these men are naturally subjects of Cuba, not of the United States. In the case of Obama, he is naturally a subject of the United Kingdom, not of the United States. In the case of Jindal and Haley, they are naturally subjects of India, not of the United States.
20thCenturyVole
February 29th, 2016 @ 11:57 am

Hear hear. I’m definitely considering write-in.
Dan Morgan
February 29th, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

Your assertions here are false. They are both Natural Born Citizens. As to the “dirty tricks” There were three campaigns and one news organization involved in this, yet only Ted Cruz stood up and apologized. Dr. Carson to this day has not taken responsibility for his own part in it.
Dan Morgan
February 29th, 2016 @ 12:04 pm

Your logic is faulty. http://indianqueentavern.com/2016/02/01/the-issue-of-natural-born-citizen-solved/
Dan Morgan
February 29th, 2016 @ 12:06 pm

This is why you are incorrect: http://indianqueentavern.com/2016/02/01/the-issue-of-natural-born-citizen-solved/
ATDavidD
February 29th, 2016 @ 12:48 pm

You ‘n me both, Smitty.

One each.
Christopher_Renner
February 29th, 2016 @ 4:23 pm

Sorry to hear about your dumbfuck concern that has no political relevance, because Presidential nominees from major parties never get thrown off the ballot for lack of eligibility. Have a nice day!
Finrod Felagund
February 29th, 2016 @ 4:33 pm

There’s a hashtag for us: #NeverTrump — I’ll vote for Zombie Ronald Reagan before I vote for Donald Trump.
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 4:38 pm

Smitty and M.Thompson, you should be ashamed of yourselves for upvoting the anti-rational Dan Morgan.

I have presented — as best a combox allows — an argument for the truth of my conclusion that Cruz is not a natural born US citizen (and believe me, I can bring a lot more to bear on this). All Dan Morgan has done is assert that my reasoning is false — by hand-waving –and than, like all his ilk everywhere, he linked to some webpage that he claims proves that me reasoning is false.

Did either of you even *glance* at his amusing page? — which does nothing more than “reason” from false premises in the typical style of leftists (“Conclusion first, build rationale around it”), and some of which I’ve already shown the falseness of to the reader.

Here is just one of the false premises from that page, “There are only two types of citizens: natural born or naturalized/”

So, once again, was George Washington a natural born US citizen, or was he a naturalized US citizen? The answer, of course, is thgat he was neither: ERGO, it is not the case that “There are only two types of citizens: natural born or naturalized/”

============
MOREOVER, the very post that you upvoted is the one in which he blames Ben Carson, and, well, everyone *except* Cruz’s people, for Cruz’s people playing dishonest and dirty against Carson.

Are you people Democrats, after all, that you don’t care *how* you get what you want, just so you get it?
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 4:42 pm

In other words, you don’t give a shit about the Constitution.
.
And *you* ‘Finrod Felagund’, you should be ashamed of yourself for upvoting that. Or are you just some damned Democrat?
Finrod Felagund
February 29th, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

Go read the Naturalization Act of 1790 and get back to me.
Ilion
February 29th, 2016 @ 5:44 pm

Oh, you mean that one that — besides being explicitly repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 — *proves* that you don’t know (*) what you’re talking about?
.
(*) unless it’s “don’t care”
Finrod Felagund
February 29th, 2016 @ 5:53 pm

You apparently missed where it says that the children born abroad of citizens are natural-born citizens. Oh, and show me where the 1795 act repealed that bit, because I don’t believe that’s in there.
Finrod Felagund
February 29th, 2016 @ 5:55 pm

The Constitution doesn’t define ‘the’, ‘one’ and ‘and’ either. Your point, other than that you’re trying to be a bigger ass than Bill Clinton?
smitty
February 29th, 2016 @ 6:01 pm

As my hope is in Christ, not this government, my joy was long since won.
smitty
February 29th, 2016 @ 6:02 pm

There are plenty of legal arguments to the contrary. How about advocating clarification?
gunga
March 1st, 2016 @ 7:39 am

Amen!
teapartydoc
March 1st, 2016 @ 9:31 am

I’m planning to vote for Trump despite liking Cruz more because if it comes down to a brokered convention the establishment will pull all the strings for Rubio. Rubio is unacceptable. In fact, he is the only candidate I will never vote for.
Wombat_socho
March 1st, 2016 @ 12:46 pm

Mind your temper and your language.
Finrod Felagund
March 1st, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

I’ll upvote whatever I want to, thank you not at all. Take your accusations of being a Democrat and shove them up your fourth point of contact.
News of the Week (March 6th, 2016) | The Political Hat
March 6th, 2016 @ 6:35 pm

[…] The GOPe Fatwah Against @TedCruz Has Me Hoping For A Dewhurst On Tuesday Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorsing Trump? […]