“Rubio trounces Trump in the GOP debate” ???

Art credit: therightscoop.com

Today’s message from the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund PAC opened with its endorsement of Ted Cruz, followed by this:

Rubio routs Trump in Thursday’s debate.

After last month’s weak (devastating, really) debate performance in New Hampshire, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio desperately needed a win at this week’s debate. And on Thursday, he certainly got the win his campaign wanted.

Sen. Rubio’s winning strategy centered heavily on attacking Donald Trump’s record. For many of the past debates, Trump’s opponents have given him a pass, choosing instead to attack one another – they figured (wrongly, it turns out) that rather than challenging Trump directly, the better strategy was to attempt to knock each other out in hopes of being the Last Man Standing against Trump (at which point they believe the 65-70% of the anti-Trump voters in the GOP would rally to their cause). But with Trump’s latest victory in Nevada, the other candidates are quickly realizing the short-sightedness of that strategy. And Sen. Rubio, for one, decided it was time for Trump to account for his record on everything from founding a “fake university” that defrauded people, to his history of hiring undocumented immigrants.

During the debate, Trump – who long ago became accustomed to being unchallenged in the debates – seemed unable to regain his footing after several of Sen. Rubio’s zingers. . . .

But here are some key polls, h/t Conservative Treehouse:

Drudge Report  

Political Opinion 

Right Scoop  

Telegraph  

Wall Street Journal 

The Blaze (click on the list of names to see results)

TimeDotCom  (click on the list of names to see results) 

Slate

All these polls showed Trump the winner. The Blaze poll is especially telling, since everyone knows that Glenn Beck has endorsed Cruz and loathes Trump. The Telegraph didn’t much like the poll results, either. But regardless of where you stand on the candidates, it’s unfortunate that Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund claims that Marco Rubio the winner of the debate, that he trounced Trump, when the above polls show otherwise. Where was at least a qualifier?

# # #

And then there were five.

carton credit: thefederalistpapers.com

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Carson

AP: The ninth Republican debate of the presidential campaign will take place just a few days before 11 states hold GOP elections that will either cement Trump's dominance — or let his rivals slow his march to his party's presidential nomination.

Tonight on CNN (Cleveland area Time Warner ch. 34) at 8:30 pm.

# # #

R.I.P. Justice Scalia

Cartoon by Glenn McCoy via Lucianne.com

From The Washington Times: 

The Rev. Paul Scalia, one of the justice’s sons, led the Mass at the nation’s largest Roman Catholic church, the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in northeast Washington. His four other sons served as pallbearers.

. . .

In the homily, Father Scalia said God blessed his father “with a love for his country.”

“He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was,” Father Scalia said. “And he saw in that founding, as did the Founders themselves, a blessing — a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square or when we refuse to bring it there.”

# # #

Cuyahoga County Early Voting begins today Wednesday, February 17

Image credit: flchamber.com

Early voting and voting by mail for the 2016 Presidential Primary began today and will continue through March 14. Election Day is on March 15. 

Voters who are registered as Republican may want to wait until Election Day when the field may have gotten smaller. More information at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website here.

# # #

George Washington’s Birthday

Art credit: www.history.com

George Washington’s Birthday

This article, originally written by David Azerrad and published in 2012, is reprinted today, President’s Day, at The Daily Signal:

Poor George Washington. His birthday, spontaneously celebrated since the revolution and formally declared a holiday in 1879, has slowly morphed into the insipid Presidents Day you’ll hear about Monday.

Washington, the “indispensable man” of the revolution who was rightly extolled for being “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” has now been lumped together with the likes of James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Pierce and John Tyler.

It gets worse. Washington’s good name and great legacy are now shamelessly invoked to justify positions that he would never have envisaged.

In a Time Magazine special edition on Washington, historian Joseph Ellis matter-of-factly remarks: “He began the political tradition that produced a Union victory in the Civil War, the Federal Reserve Board, Social Security, Medicare and, more recently, Obamacare.”

Washington, who called on Americans to display “pious gratitude” for their Constitution and warned against any “change by usurpation,” is now a partisan of the sprawling welfare state and the unprecedented individual mandate.

Ellis even has the gall to hail Washington—the man who gracefully and voluntarily relinquished power after two terms when he could have stayed on for life—as the father of “strong executive leadership” and the precursor to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who stayed in office for an unprecedented 12 years.

The true Washington still has much to teach us, in particular when it comes to the presidency, foreign policy and religious liberty. Although much has changed in the past two centuries, his sage advice and conduct in office have lost none of their relevance, anchored as they are in the timeless principles of the founding and a sober assessment of human nature.

Washington, like every president after him, swore the following oath upon taking office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Unlike many presidents in the past 100 years, however, Washington took the oath seriously and did not try to place himself above the Constitution.

He understood himself to be the president of a republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws—not some visionary leader who must define what progress requires and lead the unenlightened masses there.

Washington took care “that the laws be faithfully executed,” as when he quashed the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He did not try to make the laws himself, either by issuing executive orders that circumvented Congress or by regulating what could not be legislated. He left behind no “signature” legislative accomplishments as we would say today. He only used his veto twice—once on constitutional grounds and once in his capacity as commander in chief.

Washington gave, on average, only three public speeches a year while in office—including the shortest ever inaugural address. And, of course, he had to be persuaded to serve a second term.

As a president who took his bearings from the Constitution, Washington devoted considerable attention to foreign policy. Our first president sought to establish an energetic and independent foreign policy. He believed America needed a strong military so that it could “choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.” His Farewell Address remains the preeminent statement of purpose for American foreign policy.

No survey of Washington’s legacy would be complete without acknowledging his profound commitment to religious liberty. Many today seem to have lost sight of the crucial distinction he drew between mere toleration and true religious liberty. As he explained in the memorable letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.

On Monday, as we celebrate our greatest president, let us remember why he—and not Polk or, heaven forbid, Wilson—deserves a national holiday.

# # #

Unresolved: eligibility to run for President

cartoon credit: Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Unresolved: natural born citizenship and eligibility to run for President

The 9th GOP debate was not much fun to watch, nor did we learn anything about the eligibility of two candidates with Hispanic pedigrees (no, not Jeb!, who defined himself as “Hispanic” on his voter registration form), those two being Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Last month, CNN declared that

Cruz was conferred American citizenship at birth because his mother is an American citizen, and legal experts have largely agreed that would qualify him for natural-born citizenship. The Texas Republican was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also had Canadian citizenship until he renounced it in 2014.

Is that correct? If so, what’s all the fuss about?

Gateway Pundit posted a more detailed and sourced analysis of the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen of the U.S.:

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.

It would be nice if the Cruz camp cleared this up for Republican voters.

Via Family Security Matters:

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,”Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

What about Marco Rubio? AOL summarizes: 

The issue at hand -- as Ted Cruz has learned well -- is over whether Rubio can be considered a "natural born citizen."

Rubio's lawyers are in court this week fighting claims he's not eligible because his parents weren't U.S. citizens until four years after his birth. The lawsuit claims that means he is ineligible to run under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Rubio's citizenship has been contested before, when the question popped up in the 2012 election after rumors swirled that Republican candidate Mitt Romney might tap Rubio as a potential running mate.

The argument over what a "natural born citizen" actually means has been going on for years, and the only group who could actually define it, the Supreme Court, has never done so.

The issue has been going on for years. President Obama’s eligibility was never decided in the court. Will Mr. Trump or some of his supporters force the question into court?

# # #

No moderator, only a timekeeper.

Cartoon credit: cagle.com

Television date: The next GOP primary debate is tomorrow, Feb. 13 starting at 9pm, live on CBS, that’s Channel 4 in the greater Cleveland Time-Warner cable network. Moderator is John Dickerson, with panelists Major Garrett and Kimberley Strassel. The field is down to six: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, and John Kasich.

The venue in Greenville, South Carolina holds under 2,000. Audience members are allotted tickets based on their allegiance to the party establishment. Via Sundance:

The New Hampshire debate audience was Old School Republicans who cheered Jeb Bush and jeered the ‘next-in-line-jumper’ Marco Rubio.  However, South Carolina has already shown their most preferential candidate in the North Charleston debate, where party insiders were majority Rubio supporters.  Expect Greenville to be more like the latter than former.

I always thought Newt had a better idea: let the candidates debate amongt themselves:   "No moderator, only a timekeeper.”

# # #

IRS Scandal is 1000 days old

Cartoon credit: teachufr.org

A few days ago, Glenn Reynolds (Mr. Instapundit) published a column in USA Today about the IRS scandal and Tea Party groups:

Last week saw the passage of a grim milestone in government corruption: Pepperdine University Law Professor Paul Caron’s TaxProf blog marked the 1000th day of the scandal involving the IRS’s deliberate political targeting of conservative “Tea Party” groups. 

. . .

But what happened in the IRS scandal wasn’t a case of bureaucrats slow-walking ideas they think are dumb. It was, instead, a case of bureaucrats targeting people because of their political views.

Ohio Tea Party activist Justin Binik-Thomas noticed in 2012 that the IRS was asking Tea Party organizations if they knew him. The IRS denied that it was targeting people based on their political views, then admitted that it was doing so but blamed low-level employees in the Cincinnati office.

Then it turned out that, as the Treasury Inspector General found, there was much more going on. The next day, the acting IRS commissioner resigned.

There was much talk about accountability, even from President Obama, but, in the end, we got something that looked more like a whitewash. 

As Caron wrote:

"On May 22, 2013, the IRS director (of exempt organizations) asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a House committee. She was placed on administrative leave. The following month, it was revealed that she received a $42,000 bonus. She retired in September.

"On Jan. 9, 2014, it was revealed that the Department of Justice attorney leading the investigation was a donor to the president's campaigns. A week later, the Justice Department revealed it would not bring any criminal charges. Attorneys for many of the targeted political groups complained that they had never been contacted in the investigation.

"On Feb. 2, 2014, the president stated in a televised interview before the Super Bowl that although there 'were some bone-headed decisions out of a local (IRS) office ... (there was) not even a smidgen of corruption.'

"On May 7, 2014, the House voted 231-187 to hold the former IRS director in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its investigation (six members of the president's party voted with the majority). The House also voted 250-168 to request the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate (26 members of the president's party voted with the majority)."

Of course, nothing happened. Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the U.S. Attorney was using "prosecutorial discretion.” That discretion protected [former IRS director Lois] Lerner from the grand jury.

Read the rest here. 

# # #

What's wrong with the GOP?

Art credit: Riehlpolitics.com

Some patriots may want to skip the links to Conservative Treehouse, because the principal blogger, Sundance, has come out in favor of Trump. Having disclosed that, here is the concluding section of a post from yesterday (here), summarizing why some of us are so angry at the GOP. You probably won't agree with every single point, but you will probably agree with most of the issues:  

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO

• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.

• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP

• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

[See yesterday's CTPP blog if you are not yet registered to vote.]

# # #

Register to vote in Cuyahoga County

If you are not registered to vote in Cuyahoga County, you have until February 16 -- that’s next Tuesday -- to register to vote in the March 15 Ohio primary. The County’s Board of Elections web site here lists the dozens and dozens of locations for registering and has more information on eligibility requirements.

# # #

Another GOP Debate tonight

Cartoon credit: cagle.com/tag/this-tall/

NOTE that some of the candidates caricatured here have suspended their campaigns.

The next GOP debate is tonight at 8pm from New Hampshire. Watch it on ABC News (channel 5 in greater Cleveland). Still too many candidates onstage. Still no objective moderators; from Conservative Treehouse:

Progressive favorites David Muir and Martha Raddatz will moderate the debate, and position the narrative to expose the Republican party to as much ridicule and marginalization as possible.

As of today, Real Clear Politics is showing the top five candidates:

Trump at 30.7

Rubio at 16.4

Cruz at 12.0

Kasich at 12.0

Bush at 9.1

Fiorina, Christie and Carson are in single digits.

# # #

Special interests, SuperPACS, and the presidential candidates

photo credit: natcom.org

The OpenSecrets website lists contributors to candidates, and also tracks the SuperPACS:

Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

As of February 03, 2016, 2,194 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $353,533,929 and total independent expenditures of $144,551,790 in the 2016 cycle.

The website further reports that

Super PACs allowed the [securities and investment] industry to gain an outsize share of the pie in 2015 as Wall Street gravitated to some candidates and utterly abandoned others. With billionaire investors giving right and left, total contributions from the industry to presidential super PACs rose to $81.2 million.

. . .

Investors made up the top donor industry to six of the current candidates when their campaign committees and super PACs are combined; the exceptions were retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

All four of those candidates nevertheless benefit from SuperPACS, including those receiving Wall Street money. Recently, the securities and investment industry donors are shifting to new favorites:

Despite huge contributions to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the first six months of 2015, securities and investment firms appear to have picked their favorite candidate on the Republican side: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

. . .

despite Rubio’s rise among securities and investment types, Iowa caucus winner Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) again showed evidence he has perhaps the strongest mix of funding sources in the race. Four of the top overall industries giving money were in the top five donors to Cruz super PACs and his campaign account: securities and investment, real estate (buoyed by huge contributions from the Texan Wilks brothers), oil and gas and retired individuals.

The leading five candidates in the GOP race, as of today via Real Clear Politics, are Bush, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. (And as most patriots know, Rick Santorum,  Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee  just suspended their campaigns.)

# # #

Cleveland Tea Party Patriots does not endorse Ted Cruz

Photo credit: democracychronicles.com

Cleveland Tea Party Patriots does not endorse Ted Cruz

Jenny-Beth Martin sent out a message from Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund with the following:

After four rounds of national voting, the supporters and activists of Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund have spoken. And they have decided to endorse Ted Cruz for President.

. . . [fund-raising pitch] . . .

Our mission now is to harness all the might and fury of the Tea Party movement to build a massive grassroots operation for Senator Cruz.

Unlike the TPP Citizens Fund,  Cleveland Tea Party Patriots does not endorse candidates. When we tabulate report cards on candidates based on positions related to the three core values of Tea Party Patriots, we leave it to the voter to decide for him/herself who to support.

In this case, Cleveland Tea Party Patriots emphatically rejects the above mandate that dictates that all Tea Party Patriots support Ted Cruz. What about patriots who support other candidates, whether, e.g., Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump?

In particular, Cleveland Tea Party Patriots is dismayed with the endorsement of Ted Cruz for several reasons, including Cruz’s decisions and actions within the Republican Establishment (GOPe). Not too long ago, when Glenn Beck withdrew his support from Sen. Rand Paul and transferred that support to Sen. Ted Cruz [via Conservative Treehouse]:

Beck claims he became disgusted with the Senator [Paul] when he made a deal with Mitch McConnell. 

. . .

The deal was to go along with Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell’s overall objectives, electoral objectives AND legislative objectives, as the GOP entered into the 2014 mid-term election cycle.

. . . [BUT]

Both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz agreed to stay out of the mid-term elections for incumbents at the request of Mitch McConnell.

Remember, this agreement is the set up to the Mississippi fiasco of 2014 with Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel.  The agreement gave both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz leadership approvals for their 2016 presidential race.

. . .

Remember the 2014 Mississippi Primary Fraud?

Here’s is a video/audio [Mark Levin on the radio] you must ABSOLUTELY listen to, in order to understand what’s going on today – AND – how radio host Mark Levin has been covering for Senator Ted Cruz for more than just a couple of months.

. . .

Senator Cruz states the campaign conduct in the Mississippi runoff was “incredibly disappointing” etc. and even goes on to say an investigation is warranted.

Eventually, [Sundance at Conservative Treehouse] found out who paid for those racist attack ads [against McDaniel], and who paid for the phone calls, and who paid for the Democrats to come out and support Thad Cochran in the Mississippi primary runoff.

. . .

It was the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

. . .

The NRSC, the actual Republican Party itself, was funding racist attack ads against its own party candidate, Chris McDaniel, in the runoff primary race.

Who was the Vice Chairman of the NRSC for Grassroots Outreach? TED CRUZ. Links galore to the videos of TV interviews, the FEC filing documents, and so on are here.

Treehouse predicted that Cruz would lose the Iowa caucus. As we all know, Cruz won. Treehouse’s prediction notwithstanding, the information on the blogsite is documented and linked. Check out the video and audio clips in particular.

For a previous CTPP blogpost on funding sources for Cruz’s campaign, go here.

# # #