Marco has a lot of ‘splaining’ to do…..

Phyllis Schlafly Issues Rubio Betrayal Memo

Conservative icon and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly has released a new report extensively detailing Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) 79% efforts to deceive the American people in his determined pursuit to open the nation’s borders.

Schlafly’s 15-page report on Rubio’s “betrayal” provides hyperlinked sources to document Rubio’s “big con.”

Schlafly’s memo warns the American people that Rubio’s push to deliver globalist immigration policies for his donors is not finished. “There is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration,” the memo states. “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as a centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.”

The report is broken up into more than a dozen subsections, including “LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA,” in which Schlafly details how Rubio made countless false promises to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, National Review, and others. “Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him,” the memo states. “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Although in recent months, many of National Review’s writers have sought to boost Rubio’s candidacy, the memo later notes that “National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.” The memo reports, “To this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.”

Another subsection of the memo entitled “AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT”states

In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss.  They explained:

‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.’

Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.

The memo also documents the back-room deals involved in the bill. A subsection entitled,“IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT” reports that Rubio’s lawyer, who wrote the bill, also enriched his clients through it.”

More here at Breitbart


True conservative? eh ….no, vote Ted Instead!

Marco Rubio’s 7 Top Achievements in U.S. Senate

Following Rick Santorum’s inability to name a single achievement of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79% , the media sought to answer the question for themselves. Yet many reporters appear to have come up empty handed.

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes, a “major part of the problem is that Rubio doesn’t have all that many accomplishments in the Senate.”

“When Rubio is asked to name his single greatest achievement in the Senate, do you hear crickets?” tweeted the National Journal’s Ron Fournier.

Though Rick Santorum was unable to name the accomplishments of the man he just endorsed, there are indeed several accomplishments that are quite noteworthy. Below are a few of Sen. Rubio’s achievements that Rick Santorum could have identified on MSNBC this morning:

(1) The Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight Bill

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York has described the 2013 Rubio-Schumer bill as Rubio’s “signature accomplishment.” Although Santorum seemed reluctant to mention it, Rubio’s immigration bill is probably the first accomplishment that comes to mind when anyone thinks of Rubio’s very brief career in the U.S. Senate.

Rubio’s immigration bill would have tripled the issuances of green cards, doubled the dispensation of foreign worker visas, and granted citizenship — and, thereby, welfare access and voting privileges — to illegal immigrants.

Reports ranging from the The National Review, to the Tampa Bay Times, to the Washington Post, to the New Yorker have all suggested that the Gang of Eight bill would have likely not passed the Senate if not for Sen. Rubio’s tireless efforts. Indeed, Rubio was the key salesman of the Obama-backed immigration agenda. As Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker reported at the time, Rubio served as “the Gang’s official ambassador to the right,” and was able to convince prominent conservatives to promote the open borders legislation.

Lizza wrote: “[Democratic Senator Bob] Menendez told me that Rubio’s role was to ‘work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,’ in order to ‘neutralize them’ and, in some cases, ‘proselytize them.’ Schumer said, ‘He’s the real deal.’”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told Lizza, “[Rubio] has been invaluable… He’s willing to go on the most conservative talk shows, television and radio, Rush Limbaugh and the rest.”

Moreover, Rubio was also able to successfully strike down all conservative amendments to the Gang of Eight’s proposal. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 94% pointed out, ““Marco and Schumer basically had a secret deal to block all amendments.” Indeed, Rubio joined Chuck Schumer in voting down an amendment offered by Sen. Thune, which would have required the completion of a double-layer border fence. He also successfully defeated an amendment offered by Sen. Vitter, which would require the implementation of an exit-entry tracking system in order to prevent foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas.

(2) Obamatrade

Sen. Rubio cast the 60th and deciding vote to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. By giving President Obama fast-track powers, Rubio essentially helped to ensure the passage of not only the TPP, but all subsequent trade pacts, which are now liberated from Senate filibuster, amendment process, and constitutional treaty vote.

This represents a significant legislative victory for the young Senator, who previously endorsed TPP and described Obama’s trade deal as the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

Moreover, Rubio was also successful in promoting foreign currency manipulation by helping to vote down a provision to crack down on the illicit practice that had been proposed by Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) 50%.

(3) Blocking Curbs to Muslim Immigration

More here.


Trump is the one responsible for Carson’s low numbers in Iowa, after pummeling him in November as an unchangeable psychopath for violence in his youth.

Now he’s Carson’s pal?

CNN received that info from Carson’s own campaign staff for crying out loud. This is a farce!!

UPDATES: CNN, NOT Cruz staff, responsible for Ben Carson campaign suspension ‘rumor’

SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SEE UPDATES (Please come back for updates, as this article is being regularly updated)

Here they are summarized:

  • UPDATE: Rubio campaign was not only aware of the “rumor,” but “pushing the narrative hard.”
  • UPDATE II: You must watch this adult in the room (video).
  • UPDATE III: Commentary on Ted Cruz’s handling of the situation by Steve Berman at The Resurgent.
  • UPDATE IV: SooperMexican points out at therightscoop that Bill O’Reilly “asked [Ben Carson] some really good questions.” (see video)
  • UPDATE V: Shocker, Donald Trump is unhinged. He would make a great president, right?
  • UPDATE VI: Sarah Palin jumps on the bandwagon; falls flat.
  • UPDATE VII: Carson campaign fends of rumors that Carson is suspending campaign at Buzzfeed. Bonus:  Carson’s “business manager and adviser Armstrong Williams” also blames Rand Paul supporters in addition to Cruz camp for fueling rumors.
  • UPDATE VIII: Conservative Review points out that Rush Limbaugh said that the “rumors of Ben Carson dropping out on Monday were actively encouraged by the Rubio campaign.”
  • UPDATE IX: Ben Carson sends fund raising letter BLAMING CNN. Ted Cruz NOT mentioned. (see screenshot)
  • UPDATE X: A tweet by Jake Tapper that literally made this author’s jaw drop.

More here.


With the long haul ahead though…..

Cruz Draws First Blood

On Monday, Senator

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% performed the singular feat of simultaneously proving that a Republican can win Iowa without backing the ethanol boondoggle, and toppled The God Who Does Not Bleed, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-) 79% finished stronger than expected, beating poll estimates by six percentage points; Trump finished more than four percent below expectations, while Cruz finished nearly four percent above expectations.

Naturally, the media rushed to declare Rubio tonight’s big winner.

That’s nonsense. Cruz, the most consistent conservative in the race, was the big winner. Bronze isn’t gold. And as Trump has tweeted:

Cruz had to win Iowa in order to remain competitive in future states. He dealt Trump a blow that will test Trump’s mettle, and withstood The Donald’s biggest campaign haymakers in order to do it. He beat back a media assault on him that ranged from his birthplace to his Goldman Sachs connections. “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee…will not be chosen by the media, by the establishment, or by the lobbyists,” Cruz said.

We can only hope that’s true going forward.

What’s more, Cruz utilized a serious ground game and data plan to pound out a victory over a candidate with significantly more media exposure. Some may say that makes Trump look strong – he didn’t utilize the same resources. But that actually just demonstrates that boots on the ground always defeat an air-only campaign. As Cruz put it in his victory speech, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots.” And Cruz worked those grassroots.

Cruz isn’t done yet, either. Unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, he has the resources to run a long, grueling campaign before he even begins. His campaign has $19 million on hand, more than any other candidate. He’s running second in South Carolina already to Trump, who will take a polling hit there. He’s currently tied for second in New Hampshire, and unhampered by the four-way crab pot that is the establishment lane. Should Trump hit the skids, Cruz will be right there to pick up the pieces – as he should be, given that he’s the man who put Trump on the mat.

More here.


I’m an equal opportunity provider of information on the candidates…… :-)

Andy McCarthy: Trump is a Thinned Skinned Tyrant

From Andy McCarthy in National Review:

Is Donald Trump the sharia of American politics? I’m having trouble finding much daylight between Islamic law’s repressive blasphemy standards and the mogul’s thin-skinned sense of privilege.

None of us wants to be insulted or smeared. But sharia forbids not only ridicule or slander against Islam; it bans any examination that casts Islam in an unflattering light. Worse, truth is not a defense: Even if one’s questions are based on undeniable past actions or verbatim quotes from scripture, tough questioning is considered blasphemous. Retribution, moreover, is often completely out of proportion to the scale of the perceived “offense.”

How is Trump different?

Read the rest of the article here.



More grist for the GOP conservative nomination mill……

NOTE: It’s all very, very interesting. Diana offers up a very well thought out piece which is par for the course for her. You just can’t slough this off with a pejorative. That said, changing one’s mind due to new information is a sign of intelligence and honesty.

Cruz v. Trump 2: The Post-Constitutional Election

Written by: Diana West
Sunday, January 24, 2016 10:53 AM

Part 1 is here.

A word cloud envelops the Ted Cruz campaign for president. “Consistent.” “Conservative.” “Reliable.” “Consistent conservative,” “reliable conservative.” “Trusted.” Or, as the tagline goes, “TrusTed.”

This branding does not serve Ted Cruz well. After all, he is a politician. In his short career as a senator and presidential candidate, Cruz has already flip-flopped on vital immigration and trade issues. There is a pattern to his political “evolution.” As a measure of the Trump effect, Cruz has moved from the globalist position to the nationalist position on Syrian refugess (for to against), Obamatrade (for to against), H1B visas (from calling for expansion to calling for a moratorium), birthright citizenship (from waste of conservative time to must end it). Now he even calls for a “wall that works.” In this way, Cruz has moved to occupy brand new political terrain that Donald Trump by himself opened up (which is why Trump has my vote).

Fine. Americans frequently forgive and forget flip flops. But dub Candidate A the Shining Knight of Consistency and don’t be suprised when A’s inconsistencies take centerstage, especially when Candidate A is all about branding Candidate B as … inconsistent.

Ted Cruz is also known to us as the “constitutional conservative,” a moniker I never thought to question until I watched Canada-born Cruz dismiss and, then, on national television, distort and mock what is widely perceived to be the constitutionally conservative, or “originalist” understanding of the Constitution’s “natural born” clause. (For the record, I commented on Cruz’s ineligibility on such grounds in a syndicated column in 2013.) Thus, Cruz dismisses legitimate constitutional concerns which a voter might have as a laughing matter, all without merit. This would be one thing for a constitutional liberal. But the Official 2016 Republican Constitutional Conservative? Again, the branding becomes a liability, if not also an irritant.

Cruz’s most vocal supporter on the natural-born-subject, Mark Levin, meanwhile — Mr. Hail the Founding Fathers’ Orginal Intent — has for weeks on the air substituted ad hominem rants for cogent discussion. One evening, Levin went so far as to castigate a Fordham law professor who wrote a well-reasoned op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on the subject for having gone to what Levin called a “third-tier” law school. (NB: The school ranked higher than Levin’s.)

All of this name-calling and noise is a color guard of red flags. What is it all about? “Any means necessary” to protect the constitutional principle from itself? Or something else? Hit the mute button and it does seem preposterous for an “originalist” to insist that in the run-up to, say, the 1816 presidential election, the Founding Fathers would have regarded a candidate born in the British colony of Canada to an American mother and a Spanish father to be a “natural born” American; however, that is exactly what constitutional conservatives out there are saying, with Mark Levin yelling into his mike: “Stop chasing liberal arguments! Don’t accept cults of personality! Be freedom-loving, Constitutional conservatives … and let’s beat the liberals!”

Re-education camp, anyone?

Back at the Cruz presidential campaign website, of course, all is serene on the page called “Our Standard: The Constitution.”

This image is what we see  before we even get to the text, which states:

Ted Cruz has spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution — our nation’s founding document and the supreme law of the land — which was crafted by our founding fathers to act as chains to bind the mischief of government and to protect the liberties endowed to us by our Creator.

A list of Cruz’s achievements in the legal arena follows — mainly defending religious liberties and second amendment cases.

More here.


Let the two battle it out, I support Cruz, but Trump is better than anything the RINOS and the socialist Dems can produce.

The main issue here is, the people are fed up with business as usual type of politics in Washington, and will no longer stand idle as their country is being devoured, the country overrun with illegals, and the debt climbing to unprecedented levels.

There is no perfect candidate, all have flaws, but on the issues that matter, who is it that you trust the most? Some Say Trump, and give ample reasons for it, some say Cruz and do the same as well, and point to flaws of the other to prove their choice is the right choice.

NOTE: One thing is for sure however, if their choice wins the day and fails to produce, or worse, inflicts more of the same, they will not be reelected, the people have had enough.

Rejoice, America! 2016 is about the ‘old consensus’ being dead

Rejoice, America! 2016 is about the ‘old consensus’ being dead

Ike-Nixon ticket at the 1956 GOP convention: the old consensus takes a bow. (Image via YouTube video/Ben Valdez)

Everybody seems to be running around in fear, confusion, or both, about what’s going on with the American political right.

I call it that – the “American political right” – because it isn’t coherent or unified enough to call it “conservatives” or “the Republican Party,” and still correctly signify the majority of the people in it.  This, in fact, is one of the biggest sources of confusion.

If you enthusiastically support Trump, you’re not a conservative, by any definition.  That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.  It means you don’t prioritize the actual principles of American political conservatism.  You’re not making your choice based on those principles.

On the other hand, if you believe you are a guardian of political conservatism, and yet you’re more determined to bolster an obviously failing status quo than to accept that it needs serious adjustment – well, in that case, you aren’t a real conservative either.  You’re more of a reactionary, caught with your interests in a particular time and place.

This seems to be where much of the “conservative establishment” is.  A lot of people would agree with Ace of Spades that that’s where the iconic publication National Review is, given that it has just come out with its “Against Trump” manifesto.  I think it’s more complicated than that, for what it’s worth.  I haven’t come to bury NR — but neither have I come, in this instance, to praise it.

John Nolte takes NR to task today for the anachronism of its delivery device:  the old-timey political manifesto.

But my criticism is for the strategy of adopting an “Against Trump” posture, as if that is the most relevant stance given what’s going on here.

The old-consensus right needs to stop blaming Trump and his supporters for a very real phenomenon emerging among the voters, one that preceded his rise and is much bigger than he is.

What’s happening is that the old consensus is falling apart.  This is the consensus of 20th century America by which Republicans agreed to have as much big government as we could “afford.”  To put it another way, the limited-government, constitutionalist right compromised with the big-government, collectivist, anti-libertarian left, and agreed to fund big government, in exchange for retaining the formal structure of a constitutional republic.

More here.


Anyone who tweets anything what Bob Dole has to say on politics, and think it meaningful, is a clueless to what conservatism is all about.

U.S. building and gambling kingpin Donald Trump speaks to the media on his arrival at Aberdeen airport, Scotland Friday April 28, 2006. Trump will visit the site of his planned 300 million pound (US$542 million; 432 million euro) golf development, where he wants to create the "best golf course in the world" on the 800-acre site at the nearby Menie Estate. (AP Photo/Andrew Milligan, PA) ** UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE ** LON808 05182006xquick 06052006xGUIDELIVE

I fully agree with Rush, that there has been a pent-up anxiety (which I also felt) over the exhausting Obama years, which is now being vented through a candidate in Donald Trump. In my opinion however, he’s not the 1st choice of candidate, Ted Cruz is.

I simply refuse to violate my own set of conservative principles (in picking for my first choice of candidate) to go along with the herd just because ‘someone says this or that’. I look at the history first, what the person has stood for, what they understand America to be, what is conservatism, etc..

I heard Trump on the radio last year during the summer, and he was asked the question, ”what does conservatism mean to you?”, and he gave the most boilerplate response that any RINO could have belched out. It doesn’t mean that Donald hasn’t progressed from that time, he has.

What it does mean is, that he can’t be trusted to think and react from a deeply seated set of conservative principles, which should be at this time in his life, like picking up a newspaper or taking a swing on the ninth hole.

Rush Limbaugh: ‘Nationalism and Populism Have Overtaken Conservatism in Terms of Appeal’

On his show on Wednesday, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh offered his analysis of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s rise, which he argued wasn’t a sign that conservative orthodoxy was winning the day, but instead it is a pushback against the modern-day Democratic Party and President Barack Obama.

And that according to Limbaugh is a sign of the rise of nationalism and populism overtaking conservatism.

“What’s happening here, nationalism, dirty word, ooh, people hate it, populism, even dirtier word,” Limbaugh said. “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.  And when this has happened, when it exposes — what people in Washington are afraid of —  and that that is, you know, all this money we’ve asked people to send us and all these donations people have made, this movement, promote that movement, where is conservatism in Washington, they’re asking.  Where is it?  The Republican Party isn’t conservative.  Where are all these conservative people that are contributing to policy being implemented in Congress or in the Senate?  They don’t see it.”


NOTE: A comment about Trump and Cruz that I came across some weeks ago, and worth reposting now:

Guys like Trump have dismissed so many things that many are numb to his detractions and focus on his entertainment. Guys like Cruz are like a clean white car with one bird poop on the hood….unfortunately, that’s all people will see.

Trump is like a car parked under a phone line lined with pigeons and when people start to focus on all the poop, he lifts the hood and starts to brag about how awesome it is….a great distractor.



“We were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads,” Ted Cruz began the debate.

“I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

Obama unavailable for comment (still busy getting Americans on their knees)


Candidates vow to take on Iran in fierce debate

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The Republican debate may have been taking place in South Carolina, but over it hung the shadow of Iran. And so, despite its FOX Business hosts, the topic quickly turned to the American sailors who had been captured and humiliated by Iran’s terrorist regime on television.

“We were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees, with their hands on their heads,” Ted Cruz began the debate.

“I give you my word, if I am elected president, no service man or service woman will be forced to be on their knees, and any nation that captures our fighting men will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

That was also the way that Trump closed the debate describing the “terrible sight” of American hostages. “I stood yesterday with 75 construction workers. They’re tough, they’re strong, they’re great people. Half of them had tears pouring down their face. They were watching the humiliation of our young ten sailors, sitting on the floor with their knees in a begging position, their hands up. And Iranian wise guys having guns to their heads.”

There were personal clashes in between, some petty, some personal and some political, but above all else, was the conviction that there were larger stakes in this struggle.

In the undercard debate, Rick Santorum asked Citadel candidates to stand up and accusing Iran of forcing our sailors to record a hostage video, told them, “If you choose to serve this country, I will have your back. I will not let America be trampled upon anymore by these radical jihadists.”

More here.


This story is about the newly released movie on the Benghazi security team’s response to jihadis attacking the consulate in Libya on 9/11 2012.

obama flag and benghazi bloody wall

At The Blaze, three medal of honor recipients were interviewed about the documentary movie 13 Hours. One of the things mentioned towards the end of the article hit me the most, the way in which these highly distinguished medals were handed out to everyone that was there, whether they risked their lives, or were being rescued themselves.

It diminishes the significance behind the earning of the medal itself.

Wiki: “The Medal of Honor is the United States of America’s highest military honor, awarded for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty. The medal is awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress to U.S. military personnel only.”

Benghazi Security Team Says CIA Officer Did Not ‘By Any Means’ Deserve Medal of Honor

Kris "Tanto" Paronto,  Mark  "Oz" Geist, and John "Tig" Tiegen discuss the Benghazi attack with Glenn Beck Thursday, Jan. 14.

[…] According to Paronto, “Bob” was “overcome” with pride the night of the attack, which led him to maintain control of the situation, “instead of relinquishing control to the guys who had the expertise on the ground, which is us.”

“We’re glad we put that in the movie, as far as him getting a metal, [but], my opinion, did he deserve that? No — not by any means,” Paronto told Beck.

In fact, Geist said it was Teigan who truly deserved the Medal of Honor, claiming that it was him who saved several lives that horrific night in Benghazi.

But, in the end, Teigan, Geist and Paronto each walked away with a Medal of Valor, which Teigan seemingly felt wasn’t enough.

“We all got a Medal of Valor, which they gave to everybody that was there that was a contractor, to include the cook and everybody else, so, I mean, it doesn’t, when you do that, it kind of,” Teigan said before trailing off.

More here.

NOTE: What Obama did in handing these medals out to everyone, was to diminish the significance of the medal itself, if all are deserving of the medal in spite of what they did, the medal means nothing. That was his intention.


Then I hope Rubio makes an issue of Bush’s ‘tippy toes’……

tippy toes bush

Jeb on Rubio’s Boots: ‘I Don’t Have a Height Issue’

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), a candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, discussed the back-and-forth going on between his campaign and the campaign of his opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79%.

Bush was asked by show co-host Willie Geist to react to an attack ad titled “These Boots Are Made for Walking” from a pro-Bush super-PAC, to which Bush said he thought it was fair game, despite potentially helping the potential Democratic opposition in the form of party front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The boots appeared to be a theme of the ad because Rubio wore a pair of high-heeled boots on the campaign trail last week, which drew the attention of his GOP opponents. However, when asked by co-host Joe Scarborough about what boots he would wear, Bush explained he didn’t have a height issue and could wear normal normal cowboy boots.


I’m an expat American with children born in Finland, and as someone who is openly in favor of Ted Cruz for president, I would like to offer a solution to the current dilemma facing the Cruz campaign. How about showing your own birth certificate and not your mother’s?

I’ll do it in reverse, here is the certificate of birth for my own child (redacted), will the Cruz campaign show a same/ similar certificate like this one? Do take note, it’s not a digital version, but a photocopy of an original with the stamp from the US Embassy in Helsinki.


Here is a Diana West piece in which she notes what Lawrence Sellin has to say about the Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America:

Lawrence Sellin further reports:

Cruz came to the U.S. with his parents in 1974, but no evidence has been provided to indicate that his parents filed a CRBA [Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America] form with the U.S. Government or if Ted Cruz was issued a U.S. passport prior to entering the country. All Freedom of Information Act requests filed to obtain documents confirming the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied and will remain sealed until he agrees to allow any such records to be released.

Cruz should immediately release these documents — regardless of the precedent for stonewalling set by Barack Obama.



It’s what I’ve been saying all along, no matter how personally satisfying it is to take a dig at the impersonator-in-chief (and I do so with gusto), since Obama was born to an American parent (his mother), he is in fact a bona fide US citizen, as much as my own children are though they all have been born in Finland. The same with Ted Cruz.

So the issue with Donald Trump throwing up some blue smoke and mirrors around Ted Cruz’s legitimacy in running for US president is very disingenuous, it’s pure political chicanery trying to keep the senator in a defensive mode. The more he denies Trump’s claim, the more he keeps the issue of his birth/citizenship question in the public eye.

NOTE: I would hope that this issue on naturalization will be now answered for all of the TT’s readers.

In the third segment, Levin cited an article by Ilya Shapiro that argued Cruz is eligible to president, although he objected to Shapiro’s claim that “birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship” guarantees natural born citizenship. He further stated that attacking Cruz’s eligibility is something liberals have done, and that “using left-wing arguments against a conservative is unacceptable.”


Levin: Cruz Is Eligible — I ‘Don’t Have To Agree’ With Trump ‘Like Our Friends Over at Breitbart’

Talk radio host Mark Levin criticized the questioning of Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97%, stating, “just because he [Trump] says something doesn’t mean I have to agree with it like our friends over at Breitbart who are going all kinds of crazy over the birther issue” while addressing the issue over multiple segments of his radio show on Wednesday.

Levin began by saying, “I like Donald Trump. I like him a lot. I think he’s done great things in the last six months, but I’m not chasing shiny objects, and I’m not chasing squirrels. And just because he says something doesn’t mean I have to agree with it like our friends over at Breitbart who are going all kinds of crazy over the birther issue.” He added that the birther issue with both Cruz and President Obama is “stupid,” no one has standing to challenge it, no court would take it up, and is “just not true.” Levin continued that “the liberals love this stuff.”

He then turned to the specific claims that Cruz isn’t eligible, saying that both Trump and columnist Ann Coulter have “taken two positions” on the issue. Levin also dismissed claims by Trump that the Washington Post brought the subject up, not him.

Levin then said anyone who is born to a US citizen can run for president, regardless of where they were born. He then read the 5th clause of Article II, Section I of the US Constitution, and argued that children born to US citizens abroad are natural born US citizens under US law.

He continued by pointing to arguments that child born in the US are not automatically natural born citizens under the 14th Amendment, that he and other conservatives have embraced, contrary to the “amnesty crowd, the establishment Republicans, [and] dummies on TV”.

Levin further said, “We’re not liberals. We try to discern the truth. We try to discern the facts. We try to discern the law. We try to figure out what the framers meant in the Constitution. The framers didn’t reject people who were born of American citizens from being American citizens.” He added that the Supreme Court would never hear such a case because almost no one has standing to bring one, and it would be considered a political question by SCOTUS.

Levin then addressed arguments that someone has to be born to two US citizens in order to be considered a natural born citizen by stating that such a rule appears nowhere in the Constitution. He added, “So, rather than being activists, and liberals, and re-writing the Constitution, and trying to change it to accommodate a candidate, that’s not what constitutional conservatives do. That’s not who we are.”

Levin then declared that Cruz’s eligibility was “resolved,” and questions over Cruz’s eligibility are “for the kooks.”

He then argued that the media loves the questions about Cruz’s eligibility, because it takes attention away from President Obama “eviscerating the Constitution” with his executive action on gun control, and that such questions “played right into the liberal’s hands.”

Levin further stated, “I don’t believe in cults of personality. Some websites do. Some commentators do. Fine. I’m not one of them.” And that “chasing another dumbass issue” wouldn’t help save the country, or change a single vote, but only gives the media an excuse to ignore Obama’s gun control actions.

More here.


Don’t worry statists and neo-statists, he’s not serious, he’s just concerned over his congressional seat that’s being called into question. Primaries are a serious threat to RINO’s.

Paul Ryan’s 2016 plans start with Obamacare repeal vote

Rebellion over Ryan?

Rebellion over Ryan? 00:48

Story highlights

  • House to vote on Obamacare; President Obama has pledged to veto bill
  • Speaker Paul Ryan wants to use the House to draw contrasts with Democrats

Washington (CNN)House Speaker Paul Ryan kicks off the new year with an old Republican priority: repealing Obamacare.

With the presidential campaign kicking into high gear, Ryan has said his 2016 plan is largely about drawing a contrast with Democrats and delivering a blueprint for the eventual Republican nominee to pick up and use as a platform once the party coalesces around a candidate later this year.

It starts with the vote Wednesday giving the Republicans a chance to do something they’ve been attempting for five years: getting a bill that rolls back key parts of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law to his desk.

Obama has already pledged to veto the bill, and the GOP doesn’t have the votes to override a veto. But the vote is a two-fer for the Republican base — the bill also would strip taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood, something the GOP was unable to get through as part of the spending bill approved shortly before the holidays.

More here.



Marco Polo: “legend has it that the famed explorer didn’t really have a clue as to where he was going, much like [the “It” person]”. Wiki

Marco Rubio’s Senate Voting Record ‘Much Worse’ Than Senators, Says Vote-Tracking Site

GOP presidential candidate

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79% claims to have “close to a 90 percent attendance record in the Senate.”

Rubio told reporters in Iowa that he had close to a 90 percent attendance record in the Senate, as he was defending against a criticism by fellow GOP presidential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for not showing up to vote against the $1.1 trillion 2016 Omnibus spending bill last month.

But according to government data collected by GovTrack.US, which tracks senators’ attendance records, “From Jan. 2011 to Dec. 2015, Rubio missed 197 of 1,482 roll call votes, which is 13.3%.”

More here.


It’s never “free trade” when it’s done with non-free actors.

It always comes at a price of their legitimization, continued misery for political dissidents, and corruption of our morals as a free people and the systems we allow to govern us. Thanks to my pal Diana for an excellent piece that really should give people pause to reflect on what it really means to be conservative and how far we have fallen from that philosophy.

NOTE: Finland’s pseudo conservatives, most noticeably Alexander Stubb, are as enthralled with the ”new world order” as are the RINO GOP’ers.

stubb boy

Diana West: What Is a Conservative? What Defines the GOP?

But here is Continetti’s central point:

Indeed, Republican nominees since Ronald Reagan have been internationalist in outlook. They have been pro-free trade and pro-immigration, have supported American leadership in global institutions, and have argued for market solutions and traditional values. A Republican Party under Donald Trump would broadly reject this attitude. It would emphasize protection in all its forms—immigration restriction, trade duties, a fortress America approach to international relations, and activist government to address health care and veterans’ care. Paeans to freedom and opportunity and equality and small government would give way to admonishments to strive, to fight, to win, to profit.

This set of Republican/conservative criteria — which CandidateTrump is said not to meet — are quite fascinating to me, particularly in light of research vectors that both led to, and continue on after American Betrayal. 

Let’s take a closer look at Continetti’s top four GOP markers: 1) internationalist in outlook; 2) pro-free trade; 3) pro-immigration; 4) support for American leadership in global institutions.

At one time, such positions defined the Left side of the American political spectrum, even the far Left — even the Communist Party USA!

This is in not an exageration. The program Continetti describes as quintessentially Republican happens to intersect or mesh perfectly with the global systems helmed into existence, literally, by American Communist agents of the Kremlin at the time of or after World War II — namely, to take the most prominent examples, Alger Hiss at the United Nations, and Harry Dexter White at the International Monetary Fund. What Continetti describes as “pro-immigration,” I take to mean as a position that is the opposite of immigration restriction as enacted by conservatives (in both parties) in the 1920s and 1950s, and perhaps even in line with the unceasing mass immigration mainly from the Third World that has been demographically and culturally and politically transforming the USA since the infamous, Ted-Kennedy-managed 1965 Immigration Act.

Then there’s free trade — surely, the ultimate in free market economics, and, thus, an essence of what we think of as “conservatism,” right? (TT: emboldened)

Think again. I have long believed that bottom-line free trade which, for example, turned Americans into enablers of slave or quasi-slave labor in such dictatorships as Communist China, and bankrupters of our own manufacturing base in the USA, was a disaster. Not until I recently picked up Toward Soviet America, the 1932 book by Communist Pary USA Chairman William Z. Foster, did I realize global free trade was also in sync with Communism’s assault on our nation’s character as well.

In his predictions for Soviet America, many of which have come true as Marxist ideology has subverted our institutions, Foster writes:

A Communist world will be a unified, organized world.

Remember Soviet agent Alger Hiss acted as the first UN secretary general in 1945.

The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in the U.S.S.R.

Remember that Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was the first executive director of the IMF in 1946.

The American Soviet government will be an important section in this world organization. In such a society there will be no tariffs or the many other barriers  erected by capitalism against a free world interchange of goods. The raw material supplies of the world will be at the disposition of the peoples of the world.

Of course! Free trade is just another weapon to break down the nation-state — the ultimate globalist/Communist/progressive/Marxist/Democrat — and, in our time, apparently, GOP — goal.

As Continetti writes, “A Republican Party under Donald Trump would broadly reject this attitude.”

Amen to that.

Diana West @ Breitbart