Featured Why Shouldn't Ted Cruz be President

Ah... Just like Obama.

 

The difference I see is that Arizona Territory was still apart of the US just not a state at the the. McCain (who I am not a fan of BTW) was born on an American Military base which is technically US soil just like our embassy around the world are US soil. Cruz was born in a different country and I do take issue with it. I don't think he will get the nomination so for me its a moot point beyond being consistent in my view that if Obama was not born in Hawaii then he himself is not eligible for the office of President.

 

My money is also on Walker. I think he would be a great leader and would do what is needed to get this country back on the right track.

 

You are on untested ground here:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/03/24/good-question-how-is-natural-born-citizen-defined/

this could go way up to SCOTUS in the near-future. Jus soli and jus sanguinis should both apply to the definition of "natural born"

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

"at the time of the adoption" = grandfathering themselves in.

 

No, I cannot. I heard hours of talk from an immigration lawyer and others on this subject and I will leave it to you, Rolf, to define what the Constitution means by the term "natural born." Better yet, I would like for the Supreme Court to clarify the term.

As for Walker, I like him, also. I am not leaning for any GOP candidate at this time because it is so early. The Cubans are pointing out that the Democrats are calling Cruz a white Hispanic, a term that they do not apply to the lily-white aristocrat Fidel Castro, a racist who controls a nation of 70% Afro-Cuban but has not one Afro-Cuban high up as Cuba is an apartheid state.

I say let the Republican primaries select the candidate.

So I am waiting for you, Rolf, to explain what the Constitution means on the qualifications for President.

 

He hasn't outlined too many specifics as of yet but I would say his flat tax, lack of real political experience and ties to dominionist theology for starters.

Flat tax, as he has proposed, doesn't add up. I need to see more, I'm all for simplifying the current system.

For me, I prefer governors over senators and congressman. The experience of having to run a multifaceted government with a wide variety of people and established agencies proves invaluable at the highest levels. Two years just doesn't seem like enough.

Dominionist theolgy is problematic from go.

 

Cruz was preceded by his father, Rafael. He’s a minister who roused the audience with a mix of American history that denies separation of church and state and a fringe theology called Dominionism. It says Christians are to take “dominion” over seven aspects of life, including business, government, media and education.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...atives-look-for-candidate-to-rally-around.ece

 

I don't know the theolgy of Senator Cruz. What concerns me are his ties to the likes of David Barton, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and of course his father. There are others like Ralph Reed, Rick Scarbrough and John Hagee that I'm not sure have ties with Senator Cruz. Scarbrough and Hagee are in Texas, so it wouldn't shock me that there are ties to Senator Cruz.

 

Looks like Rev. has found his horse everybody.

 

BTW, I was certain, CERTAIN, someone would post, "That's not Ted Cruz advocating Dominionism, that's his dad. It's not the same thing."

Whereupon I would point out how the right has accused Obama of guilt by association with the various people whose influence he fell under over the years. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, anyone?

 

What concerns me are his very close to ties to those that do. Those I mentioned are very much in the dominionist strand, they have each said as much. It isn't me that needs a primer on the topic but you, if you think they don't. I wouldn't classify it as classic dominionist theology since they are for the most part dispensational in their end times theology. They would be more of an Americanized dominionist. America founded as a Christian nation by God, leaders should be Christians (of the conservative type), etc, etc, follow the bouncing ball. Still well within the strand of dominionist thought.

I didn't speculate other ties, mentioned others advocating dominionist theology that wouldn't shock me if it turns out Senator Cruz had ties with.

 

Curious if Senator Cruz will face the same types of religious questions that then Senator Obama faced?

 

That's why I said I would call it classic dominionist theology which was/is basically post-millennial. It is an Americanized, Ameria-centric version of the same basic ideas.

 

Dispensationalism is the reason I wouldn't call them classic dominionists. Wasn't trying to jump to dispensationalism, just indicate a difference in where the people I mentioned are in reference to the classic position.

Starting with America?

 

He combs his hair funny.