The new Joe McCarthy: Ted Cruz

Paleface · 18-12-2014 2:38am #1

What is Ted Cruz really trying to achieve here other than stir up anti-communist fear? As a potential POTUS GOP candidate I think he's showing everybody how unfit he really is to hold that position.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3948798740001/cruz-normalizing-relations-with-cuba-a-tragic-mistake/?#sp=show-clips

20Cent · 18-12-2014 5:57pm

Cruz is insane. If Obama said people should breath republicans would come out against air. Normal relations and freedom to travel would have gotten rid of the Castros twenty years ago about time it happened.

Manach · 19-12-2014 12:13am

Looking at in a historical context, this same rhetoric has been used during the WWII era to harness those thought to harbour pro-German/Peace sentiment and during and post WWI to try and silence anti-war protestors. Such is the legacy of use by both sides in the US politic spectrum.
Saying that, the relaxation and hopefully elimination of the US embargo will remove impediments to travel to that Island both to allow more family interaction and to show the human cost of Communist rule as compared to US.

ChicagoJoe · 19-12-2014 4:33pm

To think this guy claims he wants to be the next President :rolleyes: The issue Cruz spends the most time on is, unsurprisingly, repealing Obamacare by any means necessary. Cruz suggests that Congress should continue to waste time and money voting on bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, because 40+ failed votes and millions of dollars spent apparently isn’t enough for him. He's a sad joke.

Carcharodon · 21-12-2014 12:36am

Iam really surprised that the deal with Cuba hasn't gained more traction. Its a pretty monumental step in the right direction.
One can only see long term benefits to this and I am delighted Obama is finally getting **** done.
Republicans arw still living in the 1950s, leave them there I say with their bitter objections to everything.

Carcharodon · 21-12-2014 1:29am

Iam really surprised that the deal with Cuba hasn't gained more traction. Its a pretty monumental step in the right direction.
One can only see long term benefits to this and I am delighted Obama is finally getting **** done.
Republicans arw still living in the 1950s, leave them there I say with their bitter objections to everything.

Black Swan · 21-12-2014 4:06am

The anti-Cuba stance taken by Republican Ted Cruz is an obvious appeal to 3rd generation Cuban American voters. The so called barriers to tourism between USA and Cuba has been a poorly masked farce, just like this attempt by Cruz to stir up anti-Cuban sentiment.

For example, USC sent their baseball team to Havana a few years back to complete and play a friendly game with a Cuban team. Over 250 US citizen university alumni, parents, students, and friends traveled to Havana with the team. But in order to travel to Cuba with the team, they had to claim that they were going to Cuba for "religious reasons," not to have fun at the game and play in Havana. Ironically, USC is not a religious school, and is a very wealthy university with 41,000 students that did not experience the Great Recession, and is disproportionately populated by Republican registered voting students and parents. What a craic Ted Cruz!

jank · 21-12-2014 7:21am

I wonder will this push Florida into the GOP hands for 2016?

Fr Tod Umptious · 21-12-2014 1:45pm

I think this Cuba move by Obama is a last desperate attempt by him to secure some sort of legacy.

For all tje talk of change back in 2008 very little has worked for him.

He could not close Guantanamo.

He did a deal with Russia and now Russia is as aggressive as it has been for decades.

He drew a red line for Syria that they crossed months ago.

He had to go back into Iraq to try and stop IS.

Obama care is not tje success it was supposed to be.

So now he has changed track with Cuba, without it seems Cuba having to give up much.

It will certainly cause problems for Dems.

Brian? · 21-12-2014 1:48pm

jank wrote: »

I wonder will this push Florida into the GOP hands for 2016?

I actually don't know to be honest. But wouldn't a lot of the Cuban community be happy to be able to revisit homes and families?

The normalising of relations with Cuba is actually another step towards the end of a "communist" Cuba. I just hope they can hang on to some of the positives communism gave them and not go the way of China or Russia.

Fr Tod Umptious · 21-12-2014 2:46pm

Brian? wrote: »

I actually don't know to be honest. But wouldn't a lot of the Cuban community be happy to be able to revisit homes and families?

The normalising of relations with Cuba is actually another step towards the end of a "communist" Cuba. I just hope they can hang on to some of the positives communism gave them and not go the way of China or Russia.

A lot of US Cubans totally despise the Castro regime.
They put their lives at risk to get out.

The only benefit they would see of free travel is a way to get their loved ones out easier.

Brian? · 21-12-2014 3:22pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A lot of US Cubans totally despise the Castro regime.
They put their lives at risk to get out.

The only benefit they would see of free travel is a way to get their loved ones out easier.

I know they hate the Castro regime. The normalisation of relations doesn't strengthen that regime though, that's why I'm wondering if they'll see the positive here.

jank · 22-12-2014 2:48am

Brian? wrote: »

I actually don't know to be honest. But wouldn't a lot of the Cuban community be happy to be able to revisit homes and families?

One of the reasons why relations with Cuba has not normalised before is the large Cuban vote in Flordia which is a very important state in the electoral college. Cuban Americans vote overwhelmingly GOP. This will more than likely harden their position towards the Democrats who may been seen as 'soft' against the communist regime in Cuba.

Brian? wrote: »

The normalising of relations with Cuba is actually another step towards the end of a "communist" Cuba. I just hope they can hang on to some of the positives communism gave them and not go the way of China or Russia.

Some of the positives? Like the auto-bhans in 1930's Germany? :rolleyes:
The communist regime needs to die to be replaced with a democratic government which will hopefully open up the country to markets and FDI. This will improve the lives of all Cubans.

Brian? · 22-12-2014 1:54pm

jank wrote: »

One of the reasons why relations with Cuba has not normalised before is the large Cuban vote in Flordia which is a very important state in the electoral college. Cuban Americans vote overwhelmingly GOP. This will more than likely harden their position towards the Democrats who may been seen as 'soft' against the communist regime in Cuba.

As I said in the beginning, I don't know enough to say you're wrong.

Some of the positives? Like the auto-bhans in 1930's Germany? :rolleyes:
The communist regime needs to die to be replaced with a democratic government which will hopefully open up the country to markets and FDI. This will improve the lives of all Cubans.

Some of the positives like a properly functioning health service. What's wrong with wanting to maintain a decent standard like that? I agree that the communist regime needs to end, but I want to see it replaced with a democratic socialist leaning regime that won't adopt rampant free market economics a la Russia or whatever the hell the regime is in China.

Edit: to be clear, democracy good.

jank · 23-12-2014 1:09am

Brian? wrote: »

Some of the positives like a properly functioning health service. What's wrong with wanting to maintain a decent standard like that? I agree that the communist regime needs to end, but I want to see it replaced with a democratic socialist leaning regime that won't adopt rampant free market economics a la Russia or whatever the hell the regime is in China.

Edit: to be clear, democracy good.

Chile would be a good model to follow.

Brian? · 23-12-2014 7:29am

jank wrote: »

Chile would be a good model to follow.

Chile isn't a great example to be fair. Yes, they're doing ok now. But the starting points are completely different.

jank · 23-12-2014 1:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

Chile isn't a great example to be fair. Yes, they're doing ok now. But the starting points are completely different.

They enjoy the highest standard of living in Latin America and on a lot of metrics including freedom indexes they are up at the top. However, lets not facts get in the way of ideology now.

Brian? · 23-12-2014 4:35pm

jank wrote: »

They enjoy the highest standard of living in Latin America and on a lot of metrics including freedom indexes they are up at the top. However, lets not facts get in the way of ideology now.

What ideology? Cuba and Chile have very different histories an economies. If anyone is playing the ideology card it's you, there is not a one size fits all solution.

Madd Finn · 29-12-2014 10:30pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

To think this guy claims he wants to be the next President :rolleyes:

Surely he can't? He was born in Canada. And a president of the US must be born American.

Have we forgotten the outrage of the Birthers so soon? :eek:

FISMA · 29-12-2014 11:39pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

And a president of the US must be born American.

Wrong.

Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5
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.
According to the Constitution, the President must be a "natural born citizen."

This problem came up when John McCain ran for President as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was in the military.

From what we know of Cruz it appears that he is natural born citizen. He was born in Canada, to an American mother, while the family was working in Canada.

If he had been naturalized, that would be another story. I suspect he will seek clarification, as John McCain did, at least as a formality. However, unless there is an action by the Supreme Court defining natural born citizens, he has little to worry about.

Black Swan · 30-12-2014 2:11am

Paleface wrote: »

Ted Cruz... As a potential POTUS GOP candidate I think he's showing everybody how unfit he really is to hold that position.

Do not believe that Ted Cruz is qualified to be US president, as he was born in Canada, and was a Canadian citizen before becoming a US citizen. He was not born to US military parents in the occupied Panama Canal zone like John McCain, so this exception does not apply. Of course the soon to be Republican controlled (late January 2015) US Congress could pass a resolution to qualify one of their own, but lacking a Constitutional amendment, this could be problematic.

FISMA · 30-12-2014 4:10am

Black Swan wrote: »

and was a Canadian citizen before becoming a US citizen.

When did Cruz become a US citizen?

Black Swan · 30-12-2014 5:44am

FISMA wrote: »

When did Cruz become a US citizen?

At age 4. For the first 4 years of life Cruz was a Canadian citizen and resident of Canada, and only after moving to the US at that age he then acquired dual citizenship with US becoming his second. He now claims that he has dropped his Canadian citizenship and is now only USA, but that does not change the fact that he was not born in the US (a requirement for US president per their Constitution).

RZoran · 30-12-2014 12:55pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think this Cuba move by Obama is a last desperate attempt by him to secure some sort of legacy.

For all tje talk of change back in 2008 very little has worked for him.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

He could not close Guantanamo.

The Republican controlled House passed a bill that took away any of the funding that would have been required to close it or move any of the detainees to the mainland.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

He did a deal with Russia and now Russia is as aggressive as it has been for decades.

Now? Are you forgetting the Russian-Georgian War that happened after neocons cozied up to Georgia for years, giving them false hope, and then sent only humanitarian supplies when it kicked off.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

He drew a red line for Syria that they crossed months ago.

Thankfully! He got most of the chemical weapons out and didn't help ISIS take the rest of the country. Of course if he had acted sooner the 'moderate' rebels would be the major power even though years later they still need months/year to be trained...blah, blah, blah.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

He had to go back into Iraq to try and stop IS.

After ensuring a peaceful transfer of power and a pretty inclusive government was formed. Also "go back" if you didn't consider all the troops at the embassy and military contractors already there. Then the floating airport full of fighter jets and missiles off the coast.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Obama care is not tje success it was supposed to be.

Also not the failure it was supposed to be. How is the Republican healthcare plan coming along?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So now he has changed track with Cuba, without it seems Cuba having to give up much.

What are they going to give up? 1950 Chevy and some cigars? What did PR China give up?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It will certainly cause problems for Dems.

With who? The dwindling dying off anti-Castro refugees in Florida? Everybody else can see the complete failure it was including younger Cuban-Americans.

Black Swan · 31-12-2014 5:43am

Ted Cruz was "naturally born" in Canada as stated in his Canadian birth certificate, not the USA. Only "naturally born" USA citizens can become president per the US Constitution. Once again, the Republican controlled US Congress (after late January 2015 oaths of office) can pass a resolution that he was "naturally born" in the USA if they wish, but it takes a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution to change or reinterpret the "naturally born" qualification. Would self-proclaimed defenders of the US Constitution do such a thing? Your guess is as good as mine. In any case, the problematic nature of what constitutes the "naturally born" presidential qualification may be cause for the GOP not to back Ted Cruz against Hilliary Clinton in 2016.

FISMA · 31-12-2014 10:23am

I think you're getting your citizenships and natural born's confused. To be honest, I think I am too!

Nonetheless, as written, some of your posts are, point of fact, incorrect.

Black Swan wrote: »

and only after moving to the US at that age he then acquired dual citizenship with US becoming his second.

As stated above, that's not true.

According to the Department of State, Cruz was a citizen at the time of his birth. However, I think you were referring to a natural born US citizen, correct?

Black Swan wrote: »

but that does not change the fact that he was not born in the US (a requirement for US president per their Constitution).

This too is not true and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a citizen has to born in the US to be President. We are, however, getting in to the grey area here.

The issue here is your definition of natural born citizen. A term not defined by the Constitution. Hence our dilemma.

Black Swan wrote: »

Of course the soon to be Republican controlled (late January 2015) US Congress could pass a resolution to qualify one of their own, but lacking a Constitutional amendment, this could be problematic.

I disagree with your assessment and conclusion.

The McCain Resolution of 2008 was passed by Congress with a Democratic Majority in the House and an even split in the Senate. Furthermore, Senators Clinton and Obama cosponsored the bill resolving McCain was a naturally born US citizen.

Give the McCain resolution a quick read. It notes: "previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President." Mitt Romney's father, for example, during his 1968 Presidential Bid.

History appears to be on Cruz's side. Citing the first Congress of 1790 "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."

If this has lasted long, neither McCain, Cruz, Romney, FDR Jr, and others would have had any concerns over natural born citizenship. However, in 1795 Congress amended naturalization wording to:"born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States."

This was a problem for McCain. Many people mistakenly believe that if you are born on a US military base you are on US soil. Generally speaking, that is not true.

At the very least, you would have to check the Status of Forces agreement to determine whether a child born on an American base is a natural born citizen.

Clearly, the Panama Canal Zone (PCZ) is outside the limits of the United States. That is, the PCZ is outside of US borders and the 14th Ammendment does not apply.

But if the US has control of the PCZ, isn't that jurisdiction? Is there a difference between limits and jurisdiction?

Here enter the lawyers...

According to Chin, limits and jurisdiction were used as a "doublet" at the time. That is, they meant the same thing. As one would say "cease and desist." Is it possible to cease and not desist?

This appears to have been McCain's problem. He appears to have been outside the limits of the US but still under jurisdiction.

So was the phrase a "repetition" or two distinct concepts? If it is a doublet, how could you fail one but not the other?

No matter what the case, the McCain resolution passed and given the precedent of those like George Romney, I expect Ted Cruz will have no problems.

Perhaps, Obama could work one more executive memo on citizenship, just for Cruz!;)

Brian? · 31-12-2014 9:34pm

Where are the "birthers" who had such a go at Obama? Surely they should be equally as vocal on Ted's right to run.

The new Joe McCarthy: Ted Cruz

Comments