8 votes

Is Ted Cruz Moving Up Too Fast?

He has been spectacular and he has quickly risen up the ranks, similar to Rand.

Cruz may run for President?
He, is not Rand, and he does not have the support that Rand has.
Should we put a cap on his presidential hopes to stay in the Senate?
Would he be a good VP pick?
I don't won't to hear about how he is a Neocon. I know he supports our Allies, he has to play politics, and someone has to back him.
What are your thoughts?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He spends too much time

talking about how gays are trying to take over the world for my taste. (hyperbole) Of course, I wish they would all lay off of the 'you shouldn't be gay or have an abortion talk'. I realize we don't all agree on abortion, but at least there is a rational argument for preventing abortion. I have never heard any reasonable rationale for all of the anti-gay talk some of the "libertarian leaning" Repubs do.

I don't see Cruz as a VP for Rand

Since he wouldn't add to the ticket. I know people will kill me for this, but I think Santorum would be a smart VP for Rand.

Santorum had a lot of good people last go 'round. People that were at least cordial if not friendly to us, some even stood with us against the GOP machine.

Downvote by all means

But at least have the balls to tell me why

I hate to say it,

but Cruz has been stronger on many issues that effect America than Rand, especailly when it comes to illegal immigration. He took the time to evaluate and expose the undermining of the American worker in the Rubiocon Amnesty bill, that Rand somewhat supported. Anybody who votes for amnesty is IMO a traitor to our country, period! To allow foreign invaders to skate our laws, while Americans are imprisoned for similar infractions, is morally wrong. Other, than his Hagel confrontation, he has been strong on the issues, many like amnesty where Rand is wrong. And, he hasn't gone to Israel and bow to the Zionists like Rand, sorry to point out. Cruz, has some establishment ties from the past, but James Madison also initially sided with Hamilton and the Rothschild Banksters before realizing it was wrong for his country and moved to Jefferson's side. It's early, but I see Cruz edging Rand on the issues, many of which Rand has wavered on.

I don't think anyone has ever

I don't think anyone has ever risen out of nowhere , with a blank past, quicker than Obama.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

You really put it in a nutshell John

Nice job!

I like Cruz, however,

EXACTLY what valley6 wrote below.

I would not support him for president.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

To be fair

Cruz seemed at times closer to Ron Paul then Rand ever was :) but I think it is quite OK to have open eyes and watch out what happens next, in three yrs ahead will be plenty of opportunities to call it one way or the other.

It Almost Seems Like Cruz is Shadowing Rand Paul

What I'm trying to say is seems everywhere Rand travels you will find Cruz there as well.

What give?

Does Cruz even qualify to run for prez seeing that he isn't even a natural born American?

Is Cruz taking away votes or support from Rand?

With all the grief Cruz gave Obama over Kenya

It would be tough for Cruz to run for prez when he DEFINITELY was not born in the U.S.

I don't see it, and I think Cruz wouldn't jeopardize his career to be a neo-con pawn.

Sure Gingrich, McCain would since they are fading stars. Cruz on the other hand has a long career ahead of him and I'd be surprised if he would want to risk that for an early run. Also his numbers are not good in polling so far. Not good at all.

Only 10% support in Iowa, and that should be one of his best states.

Economic collapse will have a

Economic collapse will have a lot to do with who our next president is.

I want Cruz, Lee, and

I want Cruz, Lee, and Napolitano on the Supreme court

I've heard about Cruz's

I've heard about Cruz's connection to the ellite, but after all, it is about what he does and says. So far, no foul.
It may appear to some that electing Cruz, or Rand would turn things around. Hardly! With armies of buerocrats, media, ever-goodifying celebs, it will be hard to make big change. What needs to happen is: public needs to be more informed, more agile with their representatives, more respectful to US values. Is it too much to ask?
Bottom line: Rand and Cruz so far look really good, I'd love to get Judge Nap into the mix. Any position, DoJ of course on top.

tasmlab's picture

If even someone slightly libertarian is on watch

If even someone slightly libertarian is on watch when the country further collapses - esp the currency - it will set the intellectual liberty movement back about 200 years.

There's 4,000,000 people employed by the US government. We'll need more than just the executive IMO.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Paul-Cruz or Cruz-Paul both good

Cruz usually votes with Paul and Lee on important issues. I would definitely consider him for President. On the issue of amnesty, Lee stood solid against amnesty while Rand was waffling with his finger in the air trying to figure out which way the wind was blowing. In time, we will learn about their differences. A Pau-Cruz or Cruz-Paul ticket seems like a dream to me relative to the likes of Hillary or Jeb.

Nasty Ted Cruz...

I will never get the nasty Ted Cruz's performance in his questioning of Chuck Hagel out of my mind. I would never support this guy for anything!

Minnesota Mary

Ted Cruz's establishment ties mean he's untrustworthy

Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi are listed as founders of Maverickpac, which is Jeb's son - George P Bush's pac. (Just checked, it looks like this info has been scrubbed from the website?!) A quick scan of the maverickpac . com donation page shows that these are not grassroots-friendly people.

Cruz's parents were in the oil business and his wife has worked for JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. Heidi Cruz was also part of the Bush administration, even worked in the treasury dept. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Ted Cruz says most of the right things, but so did George Bush before he was elected. If you don't believe that, listen to what George W Bush stated BEFORE he was elected: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc ...He sounds like Ron Paul!

Cruz has been following in Rand Paul's wake - he's never done anything other than talk - simple enough task for a Harvard lawyer. He's the establishment's bait-and-switch pick - you're supposed to believe he's as good as Rand. I will absolutely NEVER support the canadian-born Ted Cruz for president. Absolutely NOT!

NJ

Yes

Don't get fooled again

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Should stay in senate. He's

Should stay in senate. He's too young.

Southern Agrarian

I think Cruz...

1) should run

2) when beaten, should drop out and endorse Rand

3) should stay in the Senate where he'd be a bigger help to Prez Rand than as VP

He

should stay out of it. Remember that is what happened to Ron. The Neo-Cons put up all these candidates just so they can split the vote. and take away from Ron.

.

.

I'm not surprised

Ted is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Cruz was born in Canada

He's not a natural born citizen

We can use him in the Senate but he can't be President

you need to read this. The

you need to read this. The naturaliztion act of 1790.

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/nat...

there are two issues inolving the naturalization of Act 1790

First - there is the quote
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: "

two parents who are Citizens (plural)

Ted Cruz's father was Cuban born and his father became a citizen in 2005.

Second - The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced 5 years later with the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which the words "Natural Born citizen" were removed, which made the act solely about naturalization.

I interpret citizens as more

I interpret citizens as more than one citizen, not both parents. If citizens means the same a both parents then the term "natural born citizens" would translate " natural born both parents"

What you need to do is go by how the founders intendeded it

It's not about how YOU interpret it. The constitution should always be understood from ORIGINAL INTENT. Otherwise people interpret it however they want. They change the meaning of "is" if you let them. Thus why we see so many transgressions against our constitution now.

You go back and read the letters and papers and arguments surrounding the continental congress and tell me what their intent was for putting in Natural Born Citizen clause.

They clearly were concerned of foreign national interests being in charge of our government. They were concerned about duel allegiances and how it would affect decisions of a President.

John Jay who was a founding father and US Secretary of Foreign Affairs wrote this to George Washington during the continental congress.
“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.”

What they didn't want was people born with two citizenships or two loyalties. It's too much to write here but the founders believed in Natural law. They read books like he Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law by Emmerich de Vattel. They actually talk about that book in their writings. In that book, Natural born citizen is defined as:

§ 212. Of the citizens and Naturals.

“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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

I agree with you on this. The

I agree with you on this. The trouble is that they did not define natural born citizen in the constitution. I think they tried to clear it up in the naturalization act of 1790. Even then it is not totally clear whether both parents need to be citizens if a child is born in another country. I still dont understand why you would want to exclude ted cruz . He defends to constitution at every opportunity.

I have nothing (per se) against Cruz. He appears liberty minded

I only want the constitution to be followed and obeyed by our politicians. At every turn, it is being denigrated and subverted by those in office and because the public has lost all understanding of our Constitution's purpose and intent. It is there to protect us from tyranny foreign and domestic.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause is only one small part but it still is an important one. It goes to the security of our country. If someone with duel loyalties makes their way into the presidency then we can find ourselves with someone who may make decisions favoring a particular country or get us into conflicts that aren't truly consistent with the united States true interests but instead reflect a separate loyalty. Founders were particularly worried about British slipping their way into our government to undermine our new country and the hard fought revolution.

You know the weird thing I've noticed is that there are a multitude of candidates recently being pushed forward that do not qualify. Why? It seems orchestrated.

Regardless, We can't let things like this slide just for political expediency.