Ted Cruz ally: Team Rand raising questions in Iowa about Cruz’s eligibility

[rbohlig]

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and possibly Ron Wyden (Don't know the details.)

Ted is in the "Top five" in a group of 98 traitors and two people that are flirting dangerously close to being traitors, at least one of whom for political reasons. This group contains 100 people. Congratulations, Ted.

"Get a rope" applies for Ted Cruz along with all other warmongerers.

Ron Wyden is good on Civil Liberties, the rest is pretty much moderate democrat.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I could definitely see a Santorum/Cruz ticket being floated about in the coming years.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I could definitely see a Santorum/Cruz ticket being floated about in the coming years.

So can I. But what scares me more is Rand Paul/Ted Cruz. We'd have Ted Cruz in the Presidency within a year if Rand won. At least Santorum would get crushed.

Rand needs to be smart enough to dodge that bullet.

 

[rbohlig]

Uhh, not me.... If your fine with his Goldman Sachs wife then go right ahead! Maybe he'll make her secretary of the tres.. That cool? Oh and his little Bush buddy Co_chairing his PAC says enough for me... Reckon you haven't been around long enough to know the establishments ways of stopping one that is not theirs..

Cruz, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in economics and international relations from CMC in 1994, is a vice president in the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman Sachs, Texas.

She is a VP of Private Wealth Management in TEXAS. Some of you guys have your heads so far up your asses that if the name Goldman Sachs or Haliburton comes up on a donor list of a candidate "GAME OVER NWO PLANT!!"

My dad's friend is VP of Wealth Management for Merrill Lynch in the midwest region. Pretty certain he isn't plotting with establishment republicans how to best bring down Rand Paul and our liberty movement...A little skepticism is alright, but Jesus...

 

[rbohlig]

as long as you are ok with it, then i guess it fine.
heard its ok on the radio too?
then it must be ok.
back to sleep.

Pray tell where did you get your constitutional law degree from? (Not that it matters, Obama's got one and doesn't understand shit)

So "allegiance" is the key here -- at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, "natural born" was a term carefully chosen to define that allegiance - it means having a singular allegiance that derives from one's having been born of the soil of the nation - in this case, the US nation. This results in a kind of "super-allegiance".
That is what the framers meant, and Constitutional lawyers have always recognized this to be the meaning.

I haven't heard a singular definition from any of the "Founders" nor have I ever heard a plurality of constitutional lawyers ever agree about everything. You tell me I heard it on the radio and I think so therefore it must be so, How about you provide me with a source document backing up your assertions, or stop being a snarky asshole.

I told you from my perspective as long as he denounces his Canadian citizenship (he claims to only found out recently he held dual citizenship) I think he is eligible to be president. I also told you one of the most knowledgeable talk show hosts I've listened to had done extensive research and posted his views for you to look at. I never claimed to be a legal expert, but from what I've heard he checks out just as much as McCain did.

You give some bullshit opinion without facts or sources and then have the nerve to tell me to "Go back to sleep"?

 

[devil21]

She is a VP of Private Wealth Management in TEXAS. Some of you guys have your heads so far up your asses that if the name Goldman Sachs or Haliburton comes up on a donor list of a candidate "GAME OVER NWO PLANT!!"

Oh....it's Texas. Goldman must have an entirely different corporate plan outside of NYC. :eyeroll

We aren't talking about donors here. We are talking about a Goldman exec sleeping with the President. I'm going to assume that your next logical conclusion is that Hank Paulson's stint as Goldman CEO had no impact on his decisions who to bail out with TARP money. It's Goldman Sachs no matter how you shake it. Goldman got the Greek government to take on so much debt that the country became insolvent. That's a different country but the same games. Last I checked, corrupt banks was a rather important topic around here.

My dad's friend is VP of Wealth Management for Merrill Lynch in the midwest region. Pretty certain he isn't plotting with establishment republicans how to best bring down Rand Paul and our liberty movement...A little skepticism is alright, but Jesus...

I wouldn't vote for your dad's friend either. Btw, someone should let your friend's dad know that BoA is in the process of dissolving Merrill. TBTF just got even bigger.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ssolve-merrill-lynch-to-simplify-company.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Probably because the first President was born before we were a nation. Actually I think Van Buren was the first born after the Constitution was ratified.

Yeah, it was hard to elect a President that had only been an American in the early days of the Republic.

A requirement that all members of Congress and the President (and his cabinet) being citizens of (and only of) the United States would be a good idea. Constitutional Amendment time?

 

[rbohlig]

Oh....it's Texas. Goldman must have an entirely different corporate plan outside of NYC. :eyeroll

We aren't talking about donors here. We are talking about a Goldman exec sleeping with the President. I'm going to assume that your next logical conclusion is that Hank Paulson's stint as Goldman CEO had no impact on his decisions who to bail out with TARP money. It's Goldman Sachs no matter how you shake it. Goldman got the Greek government to take on so much debt that the country became insolvent. That's a different country but the same games. Last I checked, corrupt banks was a rather important topic around here.

I wouldn't vote for your dad's friend either. Btw, someone should let your friend's dad know that BoA is in the process of dissolving Merrill. TBTF just got even bigger.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ssolve-merrill-lynch-to-simplify-company.html

1. Actually, yes, corporate structures/personnel are quite different outside of NYC. Do you even know what the "Wealth Management Division" does? They don't make trades, they don't speculate on commodities, their job is to bring in and schmooze wealthy clients. They don't have any say whatsoever in the trading arm of Goldman which is a scary creature...My point was, it's not like this woman is Hank Paulson or Timothy Geithner who were actually in the top 5 people in the company, so conflating the two is either ignorant or dishonest.

2. This man has been one of the top 3 voices in the senate for liberty since he's been there, I worked for his campaign, I worked for RP's campaign...The man truly believes what he says, he might not be up to Ron Paul's standards, I doubt anyone ever will be, but to hold everyone to that kind of standard is impossible and doesn't do jack shit to advance the liberty movement.

3. My dad's friend will be fine, he could retire today and live a comfortable life. But if you read the article, "Dissolving the legal entity also ends Merrill Lynch’s need to file separate regulatory disclosures. The move will have “no impact” on how the firm serves clients or on the Merrill Lynch brand". It is being done in order to simplify regulatory filings, not that I really care, fuck BofA

 

[devil21]

1. Actually, yes, corporate structures/personnel are quite different outside of NYC. Do you even know what the "Wealth Management Division" does? They don't make trades, they don't speculate on commodities, their job is to bring in and schmooze wealthy clients.

You're just screwing with me. Are you suggesting that would never affect the Oval Office? Maybe I have to be more direct. If you're fucking the President, you don't get to have a job bringing in and schmoozing wealthy banking clients. What you're describing is the DEFINITION of what is wrong with DC. Wealthy clients are who controls this country because they control the President and Congress. Obama's recent vacation was held at the private home of a Chicago businessman. I have no doubts that this person expects much favor in return, even if it's counter to the country's interests.

Im ignoring the rest of your post because your premise is garbage.

 

[rbohlig]

Are you suggesting that would never affect the Oval Office?

I'm suggesting that the wealthy clients who want to try and affect policy at the Oval Office would go through another conduit besides a MID LEVEL EX GOLDMAN EMPLOYEE. Goldman Sachs isn't shit down here in Texas, they aren't a prestigious company and anyone who is anyone goes with JP Morgan or BofA. I am in finance and I live in this state, I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Wealthy clients are who controls this country because they control the President and Congress. Obama's recent vacation was held at the private home of a Chicago businessman. I have no doubts that this person expects much favor in return

Money/Lobbying in DC is a huge issue no doubt, no argument there. But Presidents have stayed with wealthy, rich, and famous people probably since the founding of this country. Are you shocked that they all run in the same circles and have similar friends? Doesn't always mean something nefarious is going on.

Im ignoring the rest of your post because your premise is garbage.

My premise was not garbage, you just choose to see it one way. I really couldn't care less, I doubt Cruz will ever be president, but as I stated, I volunteered for his and RP's campaigns so I would definitely vote for the man if it came down to him or HillaryBiden

 

[jbauer]

I don't get what the hostility towards Sen. Cruz is all about? I volunteered for his campaign in Texas, he has stood with Rand on every issue I can think of, he is a genius and is capable of delivering the freedom message to the older, religious types. He is without a doubt the 2nd or 3rd best Senator we've had in the last 20 years, yet you people continue to attack him like he's Lindsey Graham or Dick Cheney.

This is the best post I've read so far. I do favor Rand more then Cruz. Cruz's biggest difference is he's a little more hawkish on foreign policy than Rand. If it came down to Cruz or Rand vs the Democrats I'd actually vote for one of them and feel perfectly ok about it. Neither is Ron Paul and I'm ok with it.

 

[jbauer]

Yet, didn't he want to send a special force into Syria, wasn't it, to get the supposed WMDs?

Regardless, I think this article is about splitting Rand and Cruz forces. We do agree on a great deal.

In fairness if the nerve gas reports this morning are true they may ACTUALLY have WMD's.

 

[KingNothing]

Sounds to me moreso that Santorum's people are trying to stir the pot.

"They’re scared and they now keep bringing up the eligibility issue,” Jamie Johnson told the Washington Examiner. Johnson was coalitions director for Rick Santorum’s campaign during the 2012 Iowa caucuses"

Reminiscent of Hyman Roth setting up Frankie Five Angels with the Rosato Brothers and giving him reason to believe that Michael was behind it?

Genius move by Santorum's camp.

 

[jbauer]

You're just screwing with me. Are you suggesting that would never affect the Oval Office? Maybe I have to be more direct. If you're fucking the President, you don't get to have a job bringing in and schmoozing wealthy banking clients. What you're describing is the DEFINITION of what is wrong with DC. Wealthy clients are who controls this country because they control the President and Congress. Obama's recent vacation was held at the private home of a Chicago businessman. I have no doubts that this person expects much favor in return, even if it's counter to the country's interests.

Im ignoring the rest of your post because your premise is garbage.

The whole Goldman thing is another talk for another day. But isn't schmoozing wealthy clients a politicians job?

 

[torchbearer]

Pray tell where did you get your constitutional law degree from? (Not that it matters, Obama's got one and doesn't understand shit)



I haven't heard a singular definition from any of the "Founders" nor have I ever heard a plurality of constitutional lawyers ever agree about everything. You tell me I heard it on the radio and I think so therefore it must be so, How about you provide me with a source document backing up your assertions, or stop being a snarky asshole.

I told you from my perspective as long as he denounces his Canadian citizenship (he claims to only found out recently he held dual citizenship) I think he is eligible to be president. I also told you one of the most knowledgeable talk show hosts I've listened to had done extensive research and posted his views for you to look at. I never claimed to be a legal expert, but from what I've heard he checks out just as much as McCain did.

You give some bullshit opinion without facts or sources and then have the nerve to tell me to "Go back to sleep"?

Louisiana College.