Which GOP Contender will Keep Their Word in the WH

Which GOP Contender will Keep Their Word in the WH

My wife and I were a very nervous and excited young couple purchasing our first home. Our home builder was a dear friend of my parents. Upon going to closing, there were numerous odds and ends the builder had not completed. He vowed to complete my home asap and asked that I sign a paper for the bank stating that he completed all the work on my home.

My mom cautioned me not to sign the paper. Mom said, “Eaten bread is soon forgotten.” I ignored Mom’s counsel. Sure enough, after my builder received his check from the bank, I had to chase him for over a year to complete my home.

Just like my builder said whatever necessary to get paid, politicians make voter-pleasing promises on the campaign trail. After they are elected, they forget their promises. Therefore, the final Jeopardy question is – Which GOP presidential contender will keep their word if elected? Having been burnt so many times, trustworthiness, character and backbone must be paramount in selecting our nominee.

In this primary season, we have witnessed honorable conservative candidates dialing back their original comments or apologizing due to pressure from the mainstream media and the candidate’s handlers. This raises concerns in me about how these candidates will holdup under world class attacks once they are in the WH.

Leftists (mainstream media, Democrats and liberals) viciously insulted and accused president Ronald Reagan of every nasty thing imaginable. It takes a rare human being to stand firm in the midst of 24/7 relentless character assassination. Thus, my question. Which GOP contender will follow through with their conservative promises?

At the top of my list is Senator Ted Cruz. On several issues, Cruz seems to always end up on the opposite side of the GOP establishment and Leftist Democrats; in-sync with We the People. Cruz never follows the crowd. Eagles fly alone.

Remember Cruz getting hammered by Democrats and Republicans for fighting to defund Obamacare? Win or lose, We the People desperately needed to see someone on our side not simply rolling over and playing dead in surrender to Obama as he transforms our great country.

Cruz boldly says he is a Christian. During the GOP debate, I was struck by how naturally Cruz shared his dad’s testimony; transformed from an alcoholic abandoning his wife and three year old Ted to giving his heart to Jesus and reuniting with his family. Politicians do not speak that freely about God and Jesus these days in the political public square. Obviously, Ted Cruz rejected the Left and MSM’s memo banning God. As I said, eagles fly alone.

Some GOP contenders are wishy-washy on illegal immigration, even joining the liberal mainstream media in calling Trump racist for addressing it. Imagine how easily such a president’s position could be swayed when he or she is trashed by the media.

Another GOP contender hopes to win black votes by exempting them from having to show a photo ID to vote. We do not want a president who is willing to surrender to the absurd Democrat party lie that it is too challenging for blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID. Americans do not want another president pandering to various voting blocs and selectively enforcing our laws.

While any of our GOP 17 are far superior to another socialist in the WH, a few are GOP establishment, big donor and Chamber of Commerce Trojan horses. They talk a good conservative game before the election. But once in the WH, they will prove to be a Manchurian candidate of the Washington cartel.

The Bible repulses the MSM like showing Dracula the cross. Still, Cruz quoted scripture, “you shall know them by their fruit.” Cruz said we see lots of “campaign conservatives.” He added that to win in 2016, we need a consistent fiscal, social and national security conservative. Cruz also touted that he has been a defender of life his entire career. This guy paints in bold colors folks.

Cruz looked America squarely in the eye and made bold promises during the GOP debate causing him to surge in the polls. On his first day as president, Cruz vows to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Obama. He will instruct the DOJ to investigate the shocking videos and prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations. He will defend religious liberty, cancel the Iran deal and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Cruz also vows to repeal Obamacare.

Again, as I stated, while all of our contenders know how to say what We the People want to hear, the $64,000 Question (1950s TV game show) is which one is “for real?” Who will keep their word?

Here is Cruz’s last statement of the GOP debate. “I will keep my word. My father fled Cuba, and I will fight to defend liberty because my family knows what it’s like to lose it.”

I believe him, folks. I believe him.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

10 comments for “Which GOP Contender will Keep Their Word in the WH

  1. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:48 am

    If you read the following I hope it will help you understand the truth. Any vote for an ineligible candidate will only help to legitimize the fraud we have now.

    At the time our Constitution was written there was one predominate legal authority that our Founders relied upon, Emerique De Vattell’s “Law of Nations”. During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

    “… 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…”
    In “Law of Nations”, Book 1, Chapter XIX, Section 212, you find the true definition of “natural born citizen”:

    “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.”

    I have had people argue that because this definition was not written in the Constitution itself, there is no proof it is correct. The fact is that the Framers never gave any definitions in the Constitution because they all agreed on what they were. There was no question about it in their minds.

    Sources like Mark Levin and all the other modern day lawyers and so-called Constitutional scholars who say Cruz is eligible are simply wrong. They have not done their historical research as I and many others have done. Consider Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution which refers, by name, to the Law of Nations. I could easily post a number of sources here who are in total agreement with what I am saying but you can research them yourself.

    In regard to the sources who say Cruz is legal, think about this… Eight times from 2003 to 2008 the democrats in Congress tried, to no avail, to change the definition of “natural born”. Then, in 2008, they were able to shove a candidate down our throats who was not eligible and then get him elected president twice. I am also involved in a movement to have him impeached, partly due to his ineligibility and also because he has committed treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors, but that is another story.
    Now, we have the establishment GOP pushing three more ineligible candidates on us, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal. If any one or all of them are allowed to continue running or, perish the thought, actually win the presidency, the liberal progressives will have succeeded in altering the Constitutional definition of “natural born” forever.

    Think about the liberal progressive goals of achieving a New World Order. That NWO is the forerunner of a One World Government with the United Nations and, ultimately the Antichrist, at its head. Would that ever work if we had a true “natural born” citizen as POTUS? Not likely, so they have to do away with that so they can have any international figure they want in the WH. I am not saying Cruz, Rubio or Jindal would be bad, just that they are not eligible under the Constitution.

    Cruz was not born “in country” to two “citizen parents”. Though Rubio & Jindal were born “in the country”, neither of their parents were citizens at the times of their birth. The Framers placed the “natural born” Clause into our Constitution as a matter of National Security. They did not ever want anyone who might have any possible allegiance to any other country to aspire to the highest office in our government. That is the law. Either we follow it or we abandon it and the Constitution along with it. The choice is ours but the ultimate security and future of our country depends on the choice we make…

    There is also this very damning information concerning Ted Cruz. It is the actual U.S. Statute and Consular Code that his mother would of had to follow at the time of his birth.

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    1) The laws used here are all “immigration and naturalization codes.” As a result, use of these laws pertains only to claiming “naturalized citizenship,” which is the opposite of natural born Citizenship.
    2) All naturalization codes have conditions which must be met in order to claim “naturalized citizenship at birth” and Ted Cruz complied with none of those conditions.
    3) This means, at present, it has been CONFIRMED that Ted Cruz never was and never will be a natural born Citizen of the USA, he was born Canadian and remained Canadian until May 2014. Because he has no U.S. Documentation at all, he is in the USA and the U.S. senate “illegally” – he is “undocumented” – aka an “illegal alien resident,” NOT a “legal U.S. Citizen” of any type.

    U.S. Passports and International Travel – Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad

    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.

    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT ANY OF THESE CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS WERE EVER MET BY TED CRUZ OR HIS PARENTS. ALL FOIA REQUESTS FOR RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION HAVE BEEN DENIED. No U.S. Documents exist for Ted Cruz. If they did, he would have never released his Canadian records, but would have released his U.S. Records instead. Unless Ted Cruz can produce US documentation to the contrary, which he cannot, he has not met the legal burden of proving he is an American citizen…

  2. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:50 am

    You aren’t siding with the Constitution if you support Cruz or anyone else (like Rubio and Jindal) who are not constitutionally eligible…One must be born on U.S. soil AND to two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency…Jus soli and jus sanguinis, soil and blood…Obama never qualified and never should have been allowed to be president…

    Cruz was/is a dual citizen, actually a tri-citizen (Canadian, Cuban, American), if his mother reported Cruz’s birth to the U.S. Consulate and she met the U.S. residency requirement as required by LAW…Then Cruz would be a U.S. Citizen, but still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility purposes…

    If Cruz’s mother did not file an application for “Consular Report of Birth Abroad”(CRBA) in the required time frame then Cruz is not even a U.S. Citizen at all…

    Sad thing is Cruz’s campaign refuses to release the CRBA application…

    Just further proof that Sen. Cruz is NOT an Article II “natural born Citizen”…

    The 1940 Nationality Act was Repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952…So you are citing a dead Act of Congress that is moot…Any nationality act begins to articulate most generally “citizen” not “natural born Citizen”…The law amended some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924…Again, the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952…

    The 1790 Nationality Act was Repealed by 1795 Nationality Act, specifically deleting “natural born Citizen” and also inserting “moral” presuming the 1790 to be immoral…

  3. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:51 am

    What some people don’t seem to understand is that what you are quoting is naturalization law, which Congress has the power to regulate…However, Congress does NOT have the power to change what is in the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment and ratification by the states…Naturalization law cannot and does not make Ted Cruz a natural born citizen!!! ONLY a person born IN the U.S. or in its jurisdiction (which Canada is NOT) to TWO citizen parents can be a natural born (of NATURE) citizen and eligible for the presidency…It is because of the low information people, who either don’t know or don’t care what natural born citizen is and why the Founders specified natural born citizen, that Barack Obama wound up in the White House…He was never eligible, even had he been born IN the White House, since his father was not a citizen…Cruz was born in Canada and his father was not a citizen, and having an American citizen mother is not enough to qualify him…He is a citizen, but NOT a natural born citizen…

    Now the report is that Ted Cruz was born with dual citizenship – US and Canadian – and not too long ago renounced his Canadian citizenship… (He renounced a citizenship he was unaware of???) That makes him solely a US citizen but having been born in Canada, he is not eligible to run for the presidency because he is not a natural-born citizen – born on US soil to parents with no allegiance to a foreign entity…Such a simple concept, it should be a non-issue…Cruz is either not as bright as he is believed to be, or he’s pulling the same scam as Obama…Either way, if he was the PERFECT candidate I would not vote for him…And he’s not the perfect candidate…If you think he is, please advise me of what laws he has accomplished in passing…

  4. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Here is a link that shows numerous US Supreme Court decisions affirming that BOTH parents have to be citizens of the US to be “Natural Born”… http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582 NONE of these decisions have been overturned…

    In fact a president can be the product of parents who are both naturalized citizens, since once they are naturalized, they have all the rights and privileges of other citizens, as LONG as they ARE citizens before their child is born, having renounced citizenship in their former country and sworn allegiance to the U.S. and the child is born IN the U.S., ONE citizen parent is NOT enough for the child to be a natural born citizen and Constitutionally eligible for the presidency…Even two citizen parents aren’t enough to make the child a natural born citizen if the child is born out of the U.S…If born out of the country, then the child is a naturalized by congressional statute citizen, not NBC…

  5. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:53 am

    THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT DEFINE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEED…As the Constitution is not a dictionary but the law of this land based in the knowledge of the language of the time…THEY ALL KNEW WHAT IT MEANT…Every single member of the federal government today knows what it means…

    THE AUTHOR OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE WAS THE FIRST SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN JAY,so why would the Supreme Court need to interpret a law written by the very first Supreme Court Chief Justice?

    NO reason unless they intend to DESTROY the law…FAKE the law, change the law the Constitutional Law without an amendment…..as they know the American people and their representatives have no reason to change a law that GLOBAL BANKERS and their influence intend to change, outside of a Constitutional amendment…

    WHY WOULD THE SUPREME COURT NEED TO HEAR A CASE, when they all know what a clause means and every single president since the adoption until OBAMA followed the law? Why on earth did they follow a law that does not exist?

    Ask yourself that question, the fact it was questioned by folks like George Romney and he was not allowed to run, as others that did not fit the Constitutional Law for Natural Born Citizen have been exempted unless they used trickery and lies to obscure their ineligibility…

    And now today those PAID to create the legal premise that will end all U.S. sovereignty the globalists running around as Constitutional “experts” are attempting to END a Clause in the Constitution with nothing but confusion…

    This is the Precedent of the LAW every single President until Obama perhaps there was one time when the vice president, was not completely vetted and became President…..other than that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES until OBAMA met the requirements of being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…..did they follow a law that did not exist? Were they confused by its meaning but it is a coincidence that they fit the LAW? PLEASE stop being led by the nose to understand anything but…..extreme and unshakeable of the historical understanding and 100% proof of the Constitutional Law of Natural Born Citizen…

    This is all smoke and mirrors…There is no need to “define” the clause as it has been defined…There is no need for the Supreme Court to hear a case that the very first Supreme Court Chief justice of the United States WROTE THE CLAUSE…

  6. Phil Dedrick
    August 19, 2015 at 11:54 am

    To further understand how our Founding Fathers came to the conclusion of what an NBC is, go here and research: Vattel’s Book, “Law of Nations”, Book One,

    § 211. What is our country.
    THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    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.

    § 213. Inhabitants.
    The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

    § 214. Naturalization.(58)
    A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
    § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

    It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

    § 216. Children born at sea.
    As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

    § 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
    For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory…. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

    To further understand how the NBC works, check out this link: http://www.petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com...

    The Supreme Court ruled “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.” Cruz was born in Canada, with a Cuban citizen father. He is ineligible and he KNOWS it!

    I relied on Article 2 of the Constitution, Vattels Books, Law of Nations, The Federalist Papers and a lot of historical references, as well as opinions of the Supreme Court. Parse it any way you want, it will not change the FACT that Cruz is following in the footsteps of Obama: Non citizen father, maybe not born in USA. (Cruz definitely foreign born) The status of “Natural Born Citizen”, required by our Supreme Law of the Land, is acquired at birth. Cruz cannot change the circumstances of birth, so he tries to lawyer his way through. Don’t THINK it is going to work.

  7. Harry Giarratana
    August 19, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    No way Trump should or could be President. None of the candidates have the moral fortitude of Sarah Palin, nor are they as qualified or as vetted. The most important point is that she loves and respects Israel, who I feel is planning to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon capability; only Sarah will consider how to assist in that effort. Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel; they are building ICBM’s to threaten or attack the United States. This cannot be allowed to continue. Sarah’s going announce her candidacy for President in the next two months. Take it to the bank.

  8. Tess
    August 19, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    ithink im going to be sick. IF you are correct why all this waste of time and energy, in my mind the NWO is in charge so it will most likely be a Bush if Republican, but something fish about the whole thing, the Dems are a show nothing, and Trump just stirred us all up, unless hes NWO hes not got a chance, besides that we got an arrogant dude in there now. This thought is scary as well, we could have a Muslim President one day, in mean a registered one not as in Obama. Thank you for the information

  9. August 19, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    The sad thing is that this kind of technical glitch exists. Fortunately there’s no question about Rand Paul’s or Ben Carson’s citizenship…but there shouldn’t be a problem with Cruz’s, Rubio’s, or Jindal’s either. All three seem more patriotic and public-spirited Americans than many people whose grandparents were born here. Congress could smooth out some of the technicalities if they tried.

  10. October 21, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    to Parliament in 1653. Can someone plseae go scream this through the halls of Congress? Both parties. Both houses. It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money; is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not bartere28099d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defile28099d this sacred place, and turne28099d the Lorde28099s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redresse28099d, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by Gode28099s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there (Parliamentary Staff), and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Comments are closed.