Google Find us on Google+

Vetting Donald Trump

Jul 31, 2015 by

trump

“Vetting Donald Trump”

By Donna Garner

7.31.15

 

I well understand the frustration that Americans feel with Obama and with Congress.  I feel the same frustration. I also know from history that whenever there is a vacuum of leadership, someone will fill that void; and when people get to the desperation level where they feel they have no control, they will latch on to anyone who appears to offer them that leadership. 

 

Remember that Obama promised Change, and the public latched on to him.  Obama has certainly brought Change – in fact so much Change that the Great American Way is becoming almost unrecognizable!

 

Donald Trump has used the same approach by resoundingly convincing people that he will bring Change, and he has wisely chosen the areas in which a large percentage of Americans desperately want Change such as unlawful immigration and the disastrous deal with Iran.

 

Trump, who knows he must lean to the right to get elected in the Primaries, has even gone so far as to name conservatives Trey Gowdy as his Attorney General and Sarah Palin to serve in some official capacity in a Trump administration.  Would he really follow through on these appointments if he ended up in the White House?

 

Of course, we must also remember that Donald Trump floated Oprah Winfrey (a New Age spiritualist) as his possible Vice President back in 1999 when he was considering a run for President as a member of the Reform Party. He justified his choice by saying that she was talented and was a friend of his — as if that qualifies a person to be Vice President who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

 

Donald Trump has also stated that Bill Clinton is his favorite President.  What does this say about Trump’s judgment when he excuses the philandering and disrespectful way that Bill Clinton has treated multiple women?  How could Trump possibly heap praise on Bill Clinton who is involved up to the gills with possible corruption at The Clinton Foundation and its questionable practices? 

 

CHARACTER COUNTS

Americans got fooled two times when they elected Obama as President based upon his emotion-packed campaign rhetoric.  America must never make that mistake again. 

 

A Presidential candidate’s character and life experiences do matter.  It is those and his ideology that end up driving the policies which he puts into place when he gets into the Oval Office – the things that he will “fall on the sword” to implement.  It is his life experiences, value system, and ideology that dictate to him the type of people from whom he will take counsel and those whom he will appoint to his Cabinet and to the Supreme Court. 

 

In fact, the character and life experiences of a President’s wife are also important because of the influence she has on him and upon the world as America’s First Lady.

 

Young people and many adults look to the President and his wife as role models; and whatever image they create eventually directs our culture and our public policies.

 

WHAT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP?

Question:  What sort of a person is Donald Trump?  What life experiences has he had that would impact the decisions he might make if elected President? 

 

I respect those Republican Presidential candidates who have refused to criticize Donald Trump; but we as voters leading up to the Primaries have the duty and responsibility to vet carefully each Presidential candidate.

 

Please take the time to verify my research. I have included the links to help you. Then decide for yourself whether Donald Trump is someone whom you can trust to lead our country.

 

With his proclivity for foreign-born wives and his constant emphasis on judging the worth of people by how wealthy they are, could he be trusted to put wise, Godly counselors around himself in the White House? 

 

What kind of people does Donald Trump consider to be his “friends”?  Are they the type of people who would bring dignity and trust to the Office of the President of the United States? 

 

Donald Trump is a man who came from great wealth but believes himself to be a self-made man.  He seems to be a Narcissist who shares the very same characteristics that Obama has.  How much does Donald Trump really know about The Constitution upon which our laws are built?  Once in office, would he try to force his will upon our country in the same way he does as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company instead of following the Rule of Law as found in The Constitution? 

 

Can we trust Donald Trump and what he says?

 

DONALD TRUMP AND DRAFT DEFERMENTS

The following information has been taken from 7.18.15 — “Deferments Helped Donald Trump Dodge Vietnam” – TheSmokingGun.com — http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/deferments-helped-trump-dodge-vietnam.  The article also includes links to the actual copies of Trump’s various Selective Service records.

 

Since Donald Trump has indicated that he does not believe Sen. John McCain is a war hero captured in Vietnam, here is what TSG has documented about the way Donald Trump avoided military service: 

Donald Trump is the son of a very wealthy real estate developer and received four student deferments followed by a 1968 medical deferment that came a few months after he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

Asked about the last of his five deferments, Trump said that his disqualifying medical condition was a bone spur in one of his feet (he could not remember which one).

…Despite Donald Trump’s claim this week that he avoided serving in the Vietnam War solely due to a high draft number, Selective Service records show that the purported presidential aspirant actually received a series of student deferments while in college and then topped those off with a medical deferment after graduation that helped spare him from fighting for his country…

However, Selective Service records reveal that Trump, the fortunate son of a multimillionaire real estate baron, took repeated steps to avoid serving in Vietnam.

By the time his number (356) was drawn during the December 1, 1969 draft lottery, Trump had already received four student deferments and a medical deferment, according to military records on file with the National Archives and Records Administration. 

In fact, the December 1969 draft lottery occurred about 18 months after Trump graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied business at the Wharton School. So, while claiming that he would ‘never forget’ being at Wharton watching the draft numbers being drawn, the 64-year-old Trump seems to have misremembered, as candidates are fond of saying.

Trump obtained his first two Class 2-S student deferments in June 1964 and December 1965, when he was student at Fordham University in the Bronx. He was briefly reclassified as 1-A–or ‘available for military service’ — in late-November 1966, but that classification was switched back to 2-S three weeks later.

Another 2-S deferment is dated January 16, 1968, just months before his graduation from UPenn (to which he transferred following his sophomore year at Fordham).

Following his UPenn graduation, Trump–no longer qualified for a 2-S deferment–was again briefly classified as available for service on July 9. However, three months later, on October 15, his classification was switched to 1-Y, which was given to men deemed qualified for military service ‘only in time of national emergency.’

The 1-Y classification came a month after Trump underwent an ‘Armed Forces Physical Examination,’ according to Selective Service records, which note the results of the exam as ‘DISQ.’ While the military records do not further detail why Trump was granted the 1-Y deferment, a 1992 biography of the businessman by journalist Wayne Barrett reported that Trump received a medical deferment following the September 17, 1968 exam.

Trump’s 1-Y classification stayed in effect until February 1, 1972 when it was changed to a 4-F classification (which covered registrants not qualified for military service). The change in classification was likely prompted by the military’s December 1971 decision to abolish the 1-Y classification.

 

DONALD TRUMP’S FIRST WIFE — IVANA

Donald Trump has been married three times and divorced twice.  His first wife Ivana gave him the name ‘The Donald.’  

 

Ivana Zelníčková is a native of the Czech Republic. At the age of six, she began competitive skiing, later qualified for the Olympics, immigrated to Canada, began a modeling career which led her in 1976 to New York City where she met the real estate mogul, Donald Trump. (2015 – “Ivana Trump Biography” — Biography.com — Ihttp://www.biography.com/people/ivana-trump-9542158 )

 

In 1977, Donald and Ivana married and had two sons and one daughter.  All three are presently officials in Trump’s company. (7.30.15 – “Donald Trump” — Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump )

 

Ivana and Donald had severe marital problems, and his ex-wife Ivana Trump once used the word “rape” and felt “violated” to describe a violent incident between them in 1989:

Ivana Trump’s assertion of ‘rape’ came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book ‘Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.’

The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

‘Your f*** doctor has ruined me!’ Trump cried.

What followed was a ‘violent assault,’ according to ‘Lost Tycoon.’  Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

‘Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified…It is a violent assault…According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there ‘crying  for the rest of night.’ When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’

…When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book…

‘[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape,” but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.’

…The 1990 divorce case between the two Trumps was granted on the grounds of Donald’s ‘cruel and inhuman treatment’ of Ivana.

The settlement, under which the Trumps agreed on the division of assets, was finalized in 1991. Her divorce involved a gag order that keeps her from talking about her marriage to Donald Trump without his permission.

 

According to Business Insider, Michael Cohen (Donald Trump’s lawyer) threatened the Daily Beast reporters if they dared to publish their 7.27.15 article even though it was based upon factual sources.  Here is Michael Cohen’s statement which resembles the same type of bullying done by Obama and the various Chicago-style Mafia people who surround him:  

‘I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know…So I’m warning you, tread very f*** lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f*** disgusting. You understand me?’

‘You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word rape, and I’m going to mess your life up…for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet…you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it.’

…’Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you.’ (7.27.15 – “Donald Trump’s Lawyer Goes Nuts on Reporters for Writing Controversial Story About Trump and His Ex-Wife” – by Harrison Jacobs — Business Insiderhttp://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-wife-ivana-2015-7 )

 

DONALD TRUMP’S SECOND WIFE – MARLA MAPLES

 

Marla Maples and Donald Trump began an affair in 1985 while Trump was still married to Ivana Trump.  Donald first met Marla at a celebrity tennis tournament in Atlantic City.  Marla was 21.  Donald secretly began romancing Marla while he found ways to ditch Ivana and his three children, Donny (19), Ivanka (15), and Eric (13).  Unfortunately, the affair became public when word came out that Trump’s empire ‘was overextended by junk bonds and easy bank loans. By 1991 he faced $1 billion in debt and had lost his Trump Shuttle and 282-foot yacht, the Trump Princess.’ (5.19.97 — “The Donald Ducks Out” –by Karen Schneider – Peoplehttp://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20122177,00.html)

 

Ivana discovered the affair in 1991 and confronted Marla on a ski slope in Aspen, Colorado. The public argument was reported by the news media and led to Ivana’s filing for a divorce from Donald in 1992.

 

According to an article published on 7.25.15 in The Daily Beast, even though Donald was dating Marla, he was also seeing other women.  In fact, Donald in the early 90’s used to ask his ladies “to swing by the doctor for an AIDS test before he’d wine and dine them.”  

…According to an early ‘90s Associated Press article, Trump—then a ‘newly eligible bachelor’—talked about how he asked women to agree to an AIDS test at his doctor’s office before he would take them out on a date.

…Trump made his comments shortly after his divorce from Ivana Trump was finalized, and after he had been seen out on the town with TV personality Marla Maples and then model Carla Bruni.

‘I have been known to say that to women,’ the real estate mogul and notorious womanizer told Newsday when asked if he actually asked potential lovers to test for STDs. ‘It’s one way to be careful. There are a lot of ways. I’m saying, take all of those ways and double them, because you will need them…It’s very scary out there.’ – (7.25.15 – “Trump Used To Test His Dates For AIDS” — by Asawin Suebsaeng – The Daily Beast — http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/25/stay-classy-trump-used-to-test-his-dates-for-aids.html  )

 

At one point, Marla cut off contact with Donald. Then several days later, she showed up with a $250,000 engagement ring; and she stated to People that she and Donald’s marriage was going to be built on trust with no pre-nuptial necessary. 

 

The couple postponed their wedding plans at least five times.  Then in early 1993, Maples became pregnant; and a few months later, she told Donald to marry her or else. Tiffany was born on Oct. 13, 1993; and two months later on Dec. 19, 1993, Donald and Marla got married with a pre-nuptial in place.

 

Not long after their marriage, their disagreements began to surface over such things as the 65,000 square foot Mar-a-Lago which Marla wanted to make into a family retreat; but instead Donald turned it into a private country club (cost: $75,000 initiation plus $6,000 a month). 

 

When Trump had his 50th birthday party at Trump Tower, he invited hundreds of guests while Marla wanted to have dinner alone with him.

 

With Donald obsessed with business and surrounded by other gorgeous, voluptuous women, Marla turned to her mother for companionship which Donald highly resented. On June 8, 1999, Marla and Donald got divorced.  (7.29.15 — Wikipedia – Marla Maples — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Maples) and (5.19.97 – “The Donald Ducks Out” – by Karen Schneider – Peoplehttp://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20122177,00.html

 

DONALD TRUMP’S THIRD WIFE — MELANIA

On April 26, 2004, Donald proposed to Melania Knauss, a native of Slovenia. They got married on Jan. 22, 2005, on the island of Palm Beach, Florida, with the reception at Mar-a-Lago.  Melania wore a $200,000 dress made by the house of Christian Dior; and the orange, butter-cream-filled cake weighed 50 pounds and was covered with 3,000 roses.

 

On March 20, 2006, Melania gave birth to a boy named Barron William Trump who is Donald’s fifth child.  (7.28.15 – “Melania Trump” – Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melania_Trump )


In June 2015 when Donald blasted Jeb Bush for being such a big supporter of Common Core, Melania told Donald “to lay off Jeb Bush”; and Trump unfortunately appears to have taken her advice with few if any mentions of Common Core/Jeb Bush since.
(6.28.15 — “Donald Trump’s Wife Wants Him To Lay off Jeb Bush” – by Geoff Earle — New York Post http://nypost.com/2015/06/28/donald-trumps-wife-wants-him-to-lay-off-jeb-bush/ )

 

CAN WE VOTERS TRUST TRUMP TO STAND FOR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES?

We voters must always remember that to win the Primary, Trump has to move to the right to get conservative votes.  He has no proven voting record of his own by which we can judge him.  Because of his own life experiences, should we really count on Trump “falling on his sword” to support pro-life issues, abstinence education, traditional marriage, and other conservative principles?

 

When CNN asked Trump to explain how he could possibly support traditional marriage having been married three times and divorced twice, here is what he said: 

The real estate mogul revisited his socially conservative views on abortion and marriage with awareness that they are difficult for many to understand given his personal history.

‘I’m (for) traditional marriage,’ he said.

When asked how Trump reconciles the notion of ‘traditional marriage’ with his personal history of being married three times and divorced twice, Trump conceded the point. (6.28.15 – “Donald Trump Talks Immigration, Gay Marriage and ISIS” – by Eugene Scott — CNN – http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/politics/donald-trump-immigration-gay-marriage-2016/ )

 

MY CLOSING THOUGHTS

I personally like some of the positions Donald Trump has taken against illegal immigration and the Iran deal. I appreciate the fact that he has taken a position against Common Core.  I believe he knows a great deal about business issues; however, it still concerns me that he himself has spent wildly and that his corporations have had to file bankruptcy four different times.

 

My biggest reservations are that Trump does not seem to live out the conservative principles in his own life, and “his walk does not match his talk.” How could we depend upon him to make the gut-wrenching decisions that are going to be absolutely necessary in this next Presidency to drag our country back from the slippery slope upon which Obama has placed us?  Not only are we more than $18 Trillion in debt, but our culture is so saturated with the social justice agenda that the future of our children and grandchildren is at stake. 

We must vet each of these Presidential candidates very carefully; and when we are satisfied that we have found the one upon whom we can place our trust, we need to educate those voters around us. 

 

OUR CHOICE – TED CRUZ

My husband and I have already made our decision after spending many months vetting each candidate. Our choice is Ted Cruz because of his proven record and the courage he has already demonstrated to take a principled stand.  Ted Cruz has no secrets because he has had the courage to reveal all in his book, “A Time for Truth.”  ($12.05 on Amazon.com — http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0062365614/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1_har_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1438322825&sr=8-1&keywords=a+time+for+truth%2C+ted+cruz)

 

After reading Ted Cruz’s book, we believe more than ever that he has been equipped by God with the experiences to lead our country back to the Rule of Law and away from the lawlessness this present administration has implemented. 

 

Each of you will have to make your own decision about the person you plan to support for President, but please do not wait too long to vet candidates’ backgrounds and life experiences.  Please do not be misled by what they say in the midst of the “Silly Season” just to get votes.

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

25 Comments

  1. Donna Garner

    “Answer to Question: Is Ted Cruz Eligible To Be President?”
    By Donna Garner
    3.23.15

    Ted Cruz is a natural-born American citizen because his mother was born in America even though she gave birth to Ted Cruz in Canada. This is similar to a female American-born missionary today who goes to Africa and gives birth. Her children are American citizens.

    The Harvard Law Review on 3.11.15 cites the following (excerpts from this article):

    All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

    …While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888). Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. (“On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” — by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement – 128 Harv. L. Rev. F.161 — http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    ============
    At the top of the Dallas Morning News article by Todd Gillman from 3.13.15 (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-is-eligible-for-president-despite-canada-birth-legal-duo-writes-in-harvard-law-review.html/ ), there is a copy of Ted Cruz’s birth certificate.
    Excerpts from this DMN article:

    As Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz edges closer to a formal campaign for president, a bipartisan pair of top lawyers is arguing in the Harvard Law Review that his birth outside the country should not hold him back.
    …The commentary, titled “On the Meaning of `Natural Born Citizen’ ” was co-authored by Paul Clement, solicitor general during George W. Bush’s second term, and Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration and during the 2000 recount, co-counsel to Bush’s opponent, Al Gore.
    …Cruz wasn’t naturalized, and didn’t have to be to attain U.S. citizenship, thanks to the fact that his mother, Eleanor, is American by birth.
    “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a `natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they argued.
    …Cruz’s parents were working in the Canadian oil patch. His mother was born in the United States. His father, Rafael Cruz, was a Cuban citizen at the time of his son’s birth in Calgary, though he also had been a U.S. resident. Clement and Katyal also maintain that the father’s status alone would have made Ted Cruz a natural born citizen, a contention not generally made by other legal scholars who have weighed in on Cruz’s eligibility.
    …Clement and Katyal review the relevant common law and court rulings. They note that questions were raised about Arizona Sen. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father, a Navy officer, was stationed there, and about George Romney, born in Mexico to Mormon missionaries, and Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before it was a state.

    Donna Garner
    Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

    • Glenda

      Donna, there is a difference between an American ‘citizen’ and an American ‘natural born’ citizen. All ‘natural born’ citizens are American born citizens, but not all American citizens are American ‘natural born’ citizens.

      Natural born citizens are those born on U.S. soil to 2 American citizens. An American citizen, however, is

      1) one that came from another country and went through the naturalization process, revoking citizenship to their home country,

      2) a child, under the age of 21, living in the U.S. whose parents went through the naturalization process and is automatically naturalized when the parents are

      3) a child born abroad of one or both U.S. citizen parents. The birth of these children are naturalized via a Congressional act IF the parents register the birth with the U.S. Embassy in the country of birth. If the parents fail to register the birth, then the child is a citizen of the country of birth. If the birth is registered, depending on the agreement between the U.S. and that country, the child has dual citizenship.

      Again, natural born status is very different than citizen status.

      The Harvard Law Review, which Obama was once editor of, wrote their initial review to protect Obama’s butt, who has also violated the Constitution. They had to compound their cover-up, because if the truth about Cruz (and Rubio) was recognized, everyone would realize Obama had committed a fraud. Katyal and Clement make many false statements and offer no evidence of their assertions. They quote the Naturalization Act of 1790, without mentioning that Act was repealed in 1795, making it null and void. They ignore much of the historical and legal writings that explains what our Founding Fathers meant by natural born, such as the 4 Supreme Court cases in which natural born is referenced. They ignore the dissertation by David Ramsay, one of the Founding Fathers, in which he explains natural born. They ignore the sequence of events that led our Founding Fathers to change the initial requirement of citizen for president and vice-president to natural born citizen. Events that included John Jay (1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Emer de Vattel.

      You can read more about this at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html.

      They also ignore the fact that any babies born abroad of American parent(s), MUST have those birth registered in the U.S.

      “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth IF certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

      http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

      Even though Cruz’s father had lived legally in the U.S. prior to Ted’s birth, he was still legally under the authority of Cuba and remained so until he swore allegiance to the U.S. If Cruz’s father hated Cuba so much, why did he wait until 2005 to become a U.S. citizen? If Ted Cruz was so proud to be an American, why did he wait until 2014 to revoke his Canadian citizenship, TWO years after he was elected the Senator from Texas? If Ted Cruz’s birth was registered with the U.S. Embassy as required by U.S. law, why has he failed to provide the documentation proving it? (Very reminiscent of Obama’s refusal to provide his birth certificate until he was forced to issue a fraudulent one.)

      Of course, all this is a moot point since natural born does require birth on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. American citizens. Cruz’s father did not become an American citizen until Ted Cruz was 35 years old.

      Obama chose to violate the Constitution to run for the presidency and has continually violated it since. Now Cruz and Rubio are choosing to violate the Constitution to run for president. How many times will they violate it if either are elected president? How many times do we have to fall for the same con before the American people wake up to the truth?

      If you permit another fraud to occur, the next candidate could be a child born to illegal aliens here in the U.S. or the child of a Chinese couple who came here long enough to give birth, get the birth certificate and return to China. One of Founding Fathers biggest concerns was a foreigner becoming Commander-in-Chief.

      Don’t take my word for what I say. Don’t take anyone’s word. Do the research and don’t allow yourself to be conned again.

  2. Donna Garner

    Of course, I have vetted Ted Cruz and his wife. I started vetting them when he ran for Texas Senator and have never stopped. Just do an Internet search under “Donna Garner, Ted Cruz.”

    • Glenda

      Then you should know that Cruz may not be an American citizen. Babies born abroad to Americans have the option of becoming U.S. IF their births are registered at the U.S. Embassy. Since Cruz has failed to produce such a document, then it appears his mother failed to register him. Knowing this, Cruz ran for the Senate as a Canadian citizen. When that became public, he ended his Canadian citizenship, leaving him a man without a country.

      “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth “IF” certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

      http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

  3. Cherry Thomas

    I like Cruz. I have one question. Have you vetted Cruz as you have Trump? Have you vetted others? You are using Cruz book to make your choice? Can we trust his words any more than the Donald or the others? I’m leaning toward Cruz but don’t trust fact he is lawyer. Have you vetted his lawyer wife? I haven’t read conservative things about her? Actually can we trust ANY politician in today’s world? Would love some feedback. Thanks

    • Glenda

      A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
      http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

      • Ii disagree also, but it doesn’t matter why really ,just have a question for you, I know Cruz wrote a book, but I also know he had been dishonest and no one likes him in Washington ! Question is ‘ how come I can not find where you have vetted Cruz !! How come I find no vetting in him?? Would love to read the truth about him, I already knew these things about Trump ,cause all you have to do is ask Trump and he will tell you the truth ,which I can’t say the same for Cruz cause he isn’t truthful and forth coming. Thanks but no thanks

  4. Phil

    #DonaldTrumpForPresident2016Landslide

  5. Clark Patterson

    I respectfully disagree. I also vehemently oppose Donald Trump, but for very different reasons than the ones you furnish here. IMO, Donald Trump should be strongly opposed because not only is he not anti-government, his policies and programs would actually greatly expand the federal government, both domestically and internationally, more than almost any other candidate, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. More about that later. But first, I disagree with your correlation of a president or candidate’s marital fidelity and his record as president. As far as I can see, there’s virtually no connection whatsoever. Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, Bernie Sanders [and even Adolf Hitler, if you want to really stretch the point] were all faithful partners to their wives and great fathers, but all were terrible leaders, who greatly expanded the size and scope of government. And although Ronald Reagan was also very faithful to Nancy, he was the first divorced president and his wife Nancy regularly consulted with astrologers Jeane Dixon and Joan Quigley in advising Reagan on major presidential decisions; Reagan almost always accepted Nancy’s advice. [Full disclosure, although I’m an Ayn Rand atheist, if I were a born again Christian, I would totally repudiate Reagan as an Elmer Gantry Christian. Not sure why Christians in 1988 (when Donald Regan revealed the astrologers in his book) didn’t completely attack the Reagans for this heresy, either back then or since] Finally, I don’t think there’s any correlation between a president’s competence as a husband and father [Reagan’s children were distant from him and almost none shared his views.] and his/her ability or inability to cut back on big government.
    Also, you mention Trump’s draft deferments. Well, the draft and draft registration are anti-constitutional and have absolutely no place whatsoever in a free society. Yes, Trump was a “fortunate son” and maybe today hasn’t been completely forthcoming about his draft deferments but there shouldn’t have been a draft or draft registratoin in the first place. Even Bill Buckley opposed sending draftees to Vietnam, yet draftees were sent. And Vietnam was a completely unnecessary war. The situation in Vietnam could easily have been settled at Geneva in July, 1954, but the US government chose not to support the Geneva Accords of 1954., choosing instead to back a series of authoritarian leaders in Vietnam over the next 21 years. Again, conservatives correctly oppose gun registration because they don’t want the government to know the location of the nation’s 300 million guns. Why should these same conservatives support the total registration of the nation’s 18-25 year-old males?
    BTW, although I volunteered and voted for Reagan in 1980, I now acknowledge that his presidency completed failed to cut back the federal government. In fact, he added more federal debt to the federal budget than all previous 39 presidents combined. And you can’t blame Democrats and liberals for this phenomenon. The budgets that Reagan submitted during his eight years totalled more than the Democrats’ eight budgets. And remember, in 1980 and 1984 Reagan won a combined 93 states, so you can’t really argue he couldn’t have used that mandate to make drastic cuts in government. But he didn’t. He and his administration must share most of the blame for this. Also, although I now repudiate Reagan, unlike almost all current Republican candidates, at least Reagan had some appreciation for the incredible benefits that more immigrantion brings to America. In fact, Reagan was the most pro-immigration of the three major candidates in 1980 as you can see at this link of his pres. announcement: [ https://youtu.be/fAtYMD-H2UY?t=17m8s between minutes 17:08 and 20:44 of this video. Again, full-disclosure, I watched Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign announcement with fellow Young Texans for Reagan at UT-Austin on the 4th floor of the Texas Union buidling on TUE, Nov. 13, 1979.] And today, almost all of my current friends and acquaintances are conservative Republicans; I’ve been unable to convince very many of them to vote Libertarian.
    I’ve it said before, and I’ll say it again. I first began following politics the summer that I turned 14 [1973]. Unfortunately, the problems today are almost exactly the same as they were in 1973, only worse. Absolutely no progress has been made on cutting back the size and scope of the federal government. In fact, we’ve greatly regressed. I’m 56 now, but I live in West Campus, west of UT Austin, where almost all of my neighbors are students in their late teens to early to mid-20s. Whenever I met young people interested in current affairs [very often] and we start talking politics, I apologize to them for the incredible mess that my baby boomer generation is leaving them. A federal debt of $18 trillion, and rapidly growing. Unfunded liabilities of 127 trillion and rapdily expanding. But neither of the major parties today are willing to do anything to really address entitlements, which is currently 60 percent of the budget, and growing. In fact, Social Security and health care programs together consume 48 percent of the current budget, and that percentage of course will only get larger in the years ahead. Only Rand Paul [and his father Ron] seem to have a clue about just how bad things are going to get. The very idea of citizens being “entitled” to health care and a government-guaranteed pension [Social Security] is repugnant to the entire concept of limited government. Yes, Obama has given us Obamacare, but George W. Bush gave us Medicare Part D [prescription drug coverage for seniors]. And Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen with drones. And Obama has increased the number of drone strikes six-fold and surged in Afghanistan. All of these actions have added [or will eventually add] trillions to our federal debt.
    What is the current conservative response to all of this. At best conservatives simply re-state the problem. [“We have to get entitilements under control.”] but then refuse to propose the only real solution to this: massive, massive cuts in benefits to not only future Social Security and Medicare recipients but also current recipients. Today, because the benefit levels are set entirely too high, almost all current Medicare and Social Security reciepients will receive payments far higher than the amounts they paid into the systems. This can’t continue. Even Ted Cruz, who correctly rails against Obamacare declined to work to repeal Bush’s 2003 Medicare Part D plan, the largest enttiement expanision since the 1960s. And instead of proposing massive cuts in defense, all conservatives [with the possible exception of Rand Paul] want to increase defense spending, even in the face of our $18 trillion debt and $127 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
    Finally, after keeping up with politics for 42 years, I’m now convinced that the only way to reduce the size and scope of government is to propose and implement massive, massive cuts across the board. Both guns and butter. No exceptions whatsover. Yet, conservatism has failed to make any meaningful reduction in the federal government because it wants to exempt cuts in defense and foreign intervention. And again, most conservatives are at best agnostic on the issue of making cuts in benefits fo current Social Security and Medicare recipients.
    Because of this conservative failure to reduce big government, I’m been voting Libertarian since the early 1980s.
    Whatever else can be said, we have to get this right. We owe that much to the Gen-Xers and Millenials. After all, we’re not talking here about something more trivial like why the Dallas Cowboys have won only a couple of playoff games since 1996 [something that I have a strong opinion about]. What’s at stake here is a little more important, in the course of human events.
    Again, I respectfully disagree with you, Donna. But due to the importance of political issues today, I certainly would be willing to hear your response.

  6. Carol Havranek

    I question the “he said, she said” story from the first wife. We don’t know whether those wild stories are true!

    • Donna Garner

      12.11.15 – Since I wrote these two articles several months ago, Donald Trump has let loose with many more statements that show he is “practicing the politics of personal destruction.” His behavior and his public vitriol have validated my earlier concerns with him and Melania as the representatives of America before the entire world (and before today’s young people). Do the Trumps send the message that we as Americans want to project? My answer is “No.” – Donna Garner
      ========
      7.31.15 — “Vetting Donald Trump” – By Donna Garner – EdViews.org — http://www.educationviews.org/vetting-donald-trump/

      =========

      “Melania Trump: A Good Role Model for America?”
      By Donna Garner
      10.2.15

      It is common sense to realize that if “President and Mrs. Trump” were meeting with world leaders, they would not be focused on discussing policy issues if she were sitting there with her bosom uncovered and cleavage showing down to her waist.
      What kind of a signal would it send to our precious granddaughters if the First Lady has her glamorous, immodest, and nude poses posted all over the Internet and social media?

      What would that say to our grandsons about the type of lifestyle they should choose? If the President of the United States lives a lascivious life, why shouldn’t they?
      Do we want our children and grandchildren viewing our First Lady this way? So that you will know that I am not making wild allegations, please go to this link where inappropriate photos of Melania Trump are plainly posted. Be sure to use the scroll arrows to move you through the photos. I feel sure that Melania Trump’s nude photos from GQ Magazine and from other sources could also be found easily on the Internet, but I did not choose to do that. However, millions of other people across the world most certainly will:

      http://coed.com/2015/08/20/melania-trump-hot-photos-sexy-pics-instagram/

      Donna Garner
      Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

    • Rich

      Sure you question it,but it seems you don’t care to research the truth.. you just want to come to a gut instinct conclusion to protect your pick. It’s easy enough to research Trump’s history and see that these stories are not oddities but rather indicate common practice during “the Donald’s” life. You are the very example of what the author was asking voters NOT to do.. don’t just make snap judgment, research first!

  7. Karen

    Interesting article and highly informative. Personally I prefer Ted Cruz, but am concerned there aren’t enough informed and intelligent people to get him past the primary, mush less the general, Question (respectfully): Where were you when this same degree of vetting was sorely neede on Obama?

    • Donna Garner

      Please feel free to do a Google search under my name “Donna Garner,” and you will find hundreds of well-researched articles that I have published going back years — many of which were about Obama and his damaging ideology
      .

  8. william

    The term “Natural-Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

    “The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born” citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be “natural-born” citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, which were just U.S.Citizens. Some authorities go further and include as u.s. citizens, children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been many doubts, but never as to the first. ——–Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of “American parents”, (sic..regardless of where you were born) you are naturally a “natural-born” American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy -Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    Accordingly, any contestant running for either the POTUS, or VPOTUS must be “natural-born” meaning that person was born to “american parents” regardless of where that may have been born at the time. IAW “the law of Nations” they too would be “natural-born” citizens. Now you must seek out those running for these two vital positions and see if they actually qualify for these two vital positions.

  9. william

    OUR CHOICE – TED CRUZ
    My husband and I have already made our decision after spending many months vetting each candidate. Our choice is Ted Cruz because of his proven record and the courage he has already demonstrated to take a principled stand.  Ted Cruz has no secrets because he has had the courage to reveal all in his book, “A Time for Truth.” 

    My only comment, what if…..what if…..Cruz gets the nomination and the democrats challenge his eligibility?…..thats all Im asking…..

    “both parents must be US Citizens in order the have a “Natural Born Citizen” dont matter where they have that child but they must be “Natural Born” both POTUS and VPOTUS have that requirement according to the constitution as written…Any other political position may be filled with a US Citizen, there is a distinct difference.

    • Amy

      William, this should put your concerns about Ted Cruz’s status as a natural-born citizen to rest. It’s from ConstitutionCenter.org: The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

      Cruz is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. You can rest assured he made sure he was eligible before undertaking a presidential run.

      • Glenda

        Amy, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Act of 1795. The words “natural born” were explicitly removed and replaced by “citizen”.

        In addition, there are 4 SCOTUS decisions that discuss “natural born”:

        You can look at several SCOTUS decisions that explicitly discuss natural born: Minor v Happersett (1875) “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”

        Perkins v Elg: “A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

        Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

        Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814): “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 citzens. 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.”

        You can also look at the writings of one of the Founding Fathers, David Ramsay. A Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States: “Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a nautral right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” (website http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789)

        We also have the question of whether or not Cruz is even a registered American citizen. Yes, his mother was born in the U.S., but there are requirements to be fulfilled for that birth to be recognized. “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth IF certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

        http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

        Since Cruz has refused to produce this document of registration or a U.S. passport, it appears his birth was never registered in the U.S., resulting in him being only a Canadian citizen.

        Last, we can look at the historical sequence of events that led to the natural born requirement: Many make the assumption that English common law was used for the meaning of ‘natural born’. However, I have found no proof that it was used, with a lot of proof that it was actually based on “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel (written 1758).

        First, we have English history and the kings George I, II and III. The fight for Catholic rule vs. Protestant Rule had resulted in the deaths of many since King Henry VIII had separated England from the Vatican in 1535.

        The Act of Settlement 1701 prohibited Catholics from inheriting the British throne. When Queen Anne of England died in 1714, her closest living Protestant relative was George I of Hanover, who was the first monarch of the House of Hanover (Germany).

        George I and II were both born in Germany and neither spoke English. George III was born in England and spoke English, but was greatly influenced by his father and grandfather in loyalty to Germany. As a result, the English people and the American colonies suffered greatly by kings more interested in Germany than in England.

        Second, John Jay was a diplomat to England (would later be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) and had an up-close view of how this divided loyalty affected England and the colonies. This prompted his letter to George Washington:

        “To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

        From John Jay

        New York 25 July 1787

        Dear Sir

        I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.

        ***Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & 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 devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.***

        Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

        John Jay”

        Third, we also have proof that the book “Law of Nations” was used extensively by the Constitutional Congress via the letter Benjamin Franklin wrote, expressing this fact.

        “Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas
        ———————————————————————–

        Dear Sir,
        Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
        I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.

        I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s’est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies,” bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.”

        (de Vattel’s book made it quite clear ‘natural born’ was a child born on the soil of the country to TWO parents who are citizens of that country.)

        George Washington replied to John Jay’s letter on Sept. 2, 1787, thanking him for his hint. Two days later, on Sept 4, 1787, the vote to change the presidential and vice-presidential requirement to natural born passed without any debate or dissent.
        ———————————————————– Fourth, the assumption that we followed English law because of our English heritage is a non-starter. If that were the case, the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights would have read very differently, as England was a Protestant-only country.

        Instead, the 1st Amendment very clearly lists the right “freedom of religion”.

      • Glenda

        Amy, The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 and “natural born” was explicitly replaced with citizen. “Natural born” has never been used in any other legislation since.

        There are 4 SCOTUS cases in which natural born is discussed:

        Minor v Happersett (1875) “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”

        Perkins v Elg: “A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

        Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

        Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814): “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 citzens. 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.”

  10. Jomotro

    Thank you for the informative article. So many people are willfully blind to Trump’s horrible qualitis. I will use many of your talking points to hopefully educated at least some of the Trumpies. Hopefully, they all haven’t been hypnotized by his snake-oil talk.

    Go Cruz! The real, proven conservative.

    • william

      OUR CHOICE – TED CRUZ
      My husband and I have already made our decision after spending many months vetting each candidate. Our choice is Ted Cruz because of his proven record and the courage he has already demonstrated to take a principled stand.  Ted Cruz has no secrets because he has had the courage to reveal all in his book, “A Time for Truth.” 

      My only comment, what if…..what if…..Cruz gets the nomination and the democrats challenge his eligibility?…..thats all Im asking…..

      “both parents must be US Citizens in order the have a “Natural Born Citizen” dont matter where they have that child but they must be “Natural Born” both POTUS and VPOTUS have that requirement according to the constitution as written…Any other political position may be filled with a US Citizen, there is a distinct difference.

  11. Donna Garner

    [Definitions: A flat tax would tax all income at the same percentage. A fair tax does not focus on income at all but instead implements a national sales tax.

    The flat tax has been tried successfully in approximately 24 different countries, but there is no example where a country has replaced an income tax with the fair tax.

    The concern over moving directly into the fair tax is that unless we first repeal the 16th Amendment (which allows Congress to levy an income tax), the big-government spenders in Congress might decide to implement both the income tax and a national sales tax.

    Many fiscally responsible people believe that we need to take it one step at a time: First, we need to support a flat tax; and once that equitable system is implemented, then we need to support a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit an income tax. This seems to be Ted Cruz’s approach. – Donna Garner]

    ========

    3.25.15 — http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/25/ted-cruz-is-right-about-taxes#.l3sgmq:1qKB

    “Ted Cruz Is Right About Taxes”
    Jacob Sullum

    Excerpts from this article:

    Cruz said, “Imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American file his or her taxes on a postcard.” Flat-tax proponents…have been asking us to imagine a postcard-sized tax return for more than three decades. If it still sounds far-fetched, that is only because we are sadly accustomed to jumping through hoops for the privilege of parting with our money.

    …Cruz’s solution—a single income tax rate with deductions limited to charitable donations and home mortgage interest—would be a step in the right direction.

    …By contrast, a national sales tax, an approach Cruz also has endorsed, would make “abolishing the IRS” feasible…

    In 2013 Cruz co-sponsored the Fair Tax Act, which would have replaced the federal income and payroll taxes with a 23 percent sales tax, collected by a new Treasury Department agency with help from state revenue departments…

    Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist.

  12. The problem that the GOP has this election is the same one that we have suffered from since 1988. We don’t have a real, honest conservative running, who has a chance of winning. Mike Huckabee is, without a doubt, an honest conservative. But his chances of winning the primary are slim. I think that his character would serve him well in the general election, if he ever got that far. But alas, his chances are slim. But before Trump entered the race, Huckabee’s chances were zero – none – zilch.

    Trump’s entrance into the race has caused several otherwise top tier candidates, like Bush and Walker, to name just two, to make stupid remarks attacking Trump and those remarks have caused them to suffer a precipitous drop in the polls. By contrast, the only two major candidates who have not engaged in the “attack Trump” game are Huckabee and Cruz. But Cruz lied about supporting the FairTax, during his run for the Senate, and is now vociferously pushing for a flat income tax, instead. I even know people who don’t support the FairTax who have told me that they couldn’t support Cruz because, if he lied about the FairTax to get into the Senate, he would have no qualms about lying about something else that was important to them, to become president. He also, not only voted for, but pushed the unconstitutional TPA, which claims the right of Congress to bypass the constitutionally required 2/3 majority treaty ratification vote in the Senate, with the much lower threshold of 50% + 1 vote in both houses. His lying, combined with pushing to bypass the Constitution is why his poll numbers have crashed in recent weeks, to where he is now, at the same 6% level as Huckabee, who it should be noted, has seen his poll numbers rise two points, to that level, in the same time frame.

    It could well be that we could see all of the top-tier candidates shoot themselves in the foot, attacking Trump, instead of focusing on the real issues, leaving Huckabee as the last conservative standing. Better yet, yesterday, Huckabee actually gave Trump a sort of backhanded praise. So Huck is definitely not jumping on the “attack Trump” bandwagon.

    While I’m certainly no fan of Trump, I could vote for him if he were to win the nomination. By contrast, there are four major candidates for whom I will never vote, either in the primary or general election – Bush, Rubio, Cruz, and Walker (defended of a traitor, when Trump told the truth about McCain). Trump is far from perfect. But then, even my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, was not perfect. It was Reagan who first gave us Amnesty. He also gave us George H.W. Bush, as VP – a legacy that still haunts us to this day (i.e. Jeb). He was also the first president to follow through on his declaration of war on drugs and that has turned into the second biggest threat to the privacy of U.S. citizens in history, right behind the Patriot Act. But Reagan made all of those mistakes in good faith and the rest of what he did was great. Trump is certainly no Reagan (I would prefer Huckabee). But I have no doubt that he would be, by far, the best president since Reagan. Of course, considering his competition (two Bushes, Clinton and Obama), I’ll admit that’s not saying a lot. But it’s a far cry from what I can say about any of our current crop of candidates, except Huckabee. Of the entire batch, there are only two whom I have no doubt, would defend Israel and deal positively for the USA, with China and Mexico and they are Huckabee and Trump. The rest would equivocate.

    As a final thought, I believe that IF Trump is in this race to win (which may or may not be the case), then he will be our next president. He is too good at dealing with the media and he owes no allegiance to any big donors. While all of the other candidates have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, holding major events and sending out tons of mailers which litter my physical and email trash cans, Trump has managed to stay in the limelight, without spending a penny. When the second tier rabble is cleared out and he begins spending campaign money in earnest, it will be all over but the crying for the rest of the candidates, including Hillary. So the only question that remains is, “Is he in the race to win or to influence who becomes the next president?” It’s looking more and more like he is in it to win. Sure, the GOP could do better than Trump. But the problem is that there are very few better who are actually “running” and most of them don’t stand a chance of winning the primary, let alone defeating Hillary. On the other hand, we could do far worse than Trump… far worse (think Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, etc.).

    BTW, not only did I vote for Cruz for Senate, but I actively campaigned for him, making phone calls, block-walking, blogging, and putting out and taking down signs for all three elections (primary, primary run-off, and general election). What a disappointment… If I only knew then, what I know now, I would have voted for that Ft. Worth millionaire who was running. Bummer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

UA-24036587-1