VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine, the GOP, and the Uniparty

Richard Fernandez (Belmont Club at the PJ Media blogsite) has a good analysis of the GOP official website statement about Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary’s pick for Vice President. Fernandez call it a “stunningly awful” statement, an almost GOP-lite endorsement of Kaine:

A Career Spent Taking Cautious Positions 

Anathema To The Party's Liberal Base

. . . It is as if Reince told the interns to "Come up with something that makes Kaine as likable as possible to our people."

For Tea Party readers who have been following Sundance’s blogs at Conservative Treehouse over the past couple of years, the mushy GOP website statement on Kaine comes as no surprise. The GOP establishment, and party chairman Reince Priebus, are reluctant, at best, to support Trump’s candidacy. At worst, some of the GOPe are downright hostile to the Trump candidacy, as seen in the “Never Trump” delegates from Iowa and Colorado who marched out of the Republican National Convention in a huff.

For Tea Party people who have not heard of the terms “Uniparty” or “Splitter Strategy,” nor followed Sundance’s “Tripwire” predictions based on his “Uniparty” analyses, today’s blog on Conservative Treehouse here gives a handy summary. At the bottom of the article, you’ll find links to Sundance’s previous blog posts that outlined the “Uniparty” theory, linked to the new GOP primary rules state-by-state to define the “Splitter Strategy,” and then calculated the Tripwires or predictions that give credence to the Uniparty theory. It was the accuracy of the many predictions – in sequence – that persuaded many readers to change their minds about what was unfolding. Not politics as usual. (Maybe readers will want to bookmark the page to go through all the posts linked at the bottom, as time permits.)

Once readers recognized what the “Uniparty” was, the behavior of the political class, the donor class, and the media became more comprehensible, albeit more reprehensible. Scrolling through the reader comments at Treehouse can be helpful and even reassuring; it’s a bit unnerving when we find ourselves in such uncharted waters.

Link to Sundance / Treehouse: click here.

# # #

Jeb! reneges

photo credit: observer.com

Back in December, and shortly before Jeb! dropped out of the race, Guy Benson at Townhall reported on the GOP candidates' loyalty oath to support whoever became the eventual nominee for President. The headline then was “Jeb: I'm Considering Breaking My GOP Loyalty Pledge if Trump's the Nominee":

By declining to raise their hands when prompted by Fox New anchor Bret Baier, every other candidate on stage that night made a promise to voters: No matter who is nominated, they'd throw their backing behind his or her campaign, and would rule out an independent run.  

Ironically, that question was crafted specifically for Trump, but now it applies at least as much to moderates like Bush and Kasich as it does to the capricious frontrunner.  If you're seeking the Republican nomination, and if you've vowed to endorse and support the Republican nominee, you shouldn't go back on your word -- neither out of genuine frustration and disgust, nor as a campaign tactic. 

Not only would this be a breach of trust, it would reek of spite. Trump's been smacking Jeb around as a low energy loser for weeks; if the former governor were to follow through on this quasi-threat, Trump could tweak his taunt and cast Bush as a low energy sore loser.  

Jeb and friends have spent tens of millions of dollars so far, yet the campaign has failed to gain traction with voters (to put it kindly).  Reneging on the pledge now would be akin to pouting in the corner -- yet another indignity.  

Sure, guys like Bush and Kasich could use Trump's odious conduct and controversial proposals as a fig leaf to justify their potential reversals, but that would require them to feign shock that Donald Trump is comporting himself like...Donald Trump has always comported himself.  

Plus, it would infuriate a large segment of the Republican base, who would accuse the establishment of demanding party unity in support of "safe" nominees, then refusing to abide by the same standard when they don't get their way. 

Today, The Hill reports that Jeb! has reneged on his pledge.

“In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life,” Bush wrote in a Facebook post.

Jeb! does not seem to have a clue about “conservative” principles, nor why Trump would appeal to conservatives who are sick and tired of “conservative” GOPe legislators who promise conservative values on the campaign trail and embrace the liberal agenda once in office.

# # #

Michelle Malkin at CPAC: GOP Sold Out Movement Conservatives

Michelle Malkin at Occupy the Truth Rally in Cleveland, 2012

Photo credit: Pat J Dooley

Michelle Malkin at CPAC: GOP Sold Out Movement Conservatives

Legal Insurrection reports on Michelle Malkin’s explosive speech at CPAC:

Many speeches were given at CPAC this weekend, but one stood out from the rest.

Conservative author, activist and entrepreneur Michelle Malkin gave a fiery speech in which she reminded movement conservatives that they have been repeatedly betrayed by the Republican Party.

Malkin began her speech by saying:

“It’s not people outside the party that have thrown the conservative grassroots base under the bus. It’s the people who have paid lip-service to limited government while gorging on it.”

She was only getting started. In the course of her seventeen minute speech, she went after Republicans for the Gang of Eight, Common Core, cronyism, immigration and more.

She slammed the party elites who smear and sneer at the conservative grassroots as fringe while pretending to support causes they care about at election time.

When it came to Common Core she named names, singling out John Kasich for claiming he believed in local control of education. About Bush, she said:

“There are three reasons why Jeb Bush failed. His last name, his support for amnesty and his cheer-leading and cashing in on Common Core.”

This was the first time Malkin has spoken at CPAC in 13 years and it was well worth the wait. Once you start watching this, you won’t be able to stop.

The video is on the same page here.

# # #

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?

# # #

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.)

# # #

GOP campaign financing: Part 3

Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk

GOP campaign financing: Part 3 ~ Jeb!

Full disclosure: Conservative Treehouse (Sundance) is a blog that has come out in full support of Donald Trump. However, Sundance’s analyses of and reporting on other campaigns have been in depth and educational, especially when it is difficult to identify the donors. From an August 29, 2015 blog post:

It is always important to remember, in 2015/2016 there are two types of funds for each candidate now: traditional campaign finance (which has rules, laws and limits – albeit changed this year), and Super-PAC funding (no limits).

The campaign funding behind Jeb Bush falls primarily into the Super-PAC category, in this case, a Super-PAC called the Right to Rise Super PAC. 

From an earlier blog on August 16, Sundance reported that:

The Super-PAC [Right To Rise] that Jeb Bush constructed, well, Jeb and Tom Donohue, and Mitch McConnell and the Wall Street power brokers who planned the entire gig, prior to the announcement of his candidacy, have a plan.

And then comes the big question: “So who exactly is behind this Right To Rise USA Super-PAC?”

At least 20 individuals each wrote checks of $1 million or more to the super PAC. They include billionaire health care investor Miguel Fernandez, the group’s biggest donor; California billionaire William Oberndorf; Iranian-American diplomat Hushang Ansary and his wife Shahla; and hedge-fund manager Louis Bacon.

Right to Rise also got about 236 six-figure checks from several notable donors, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Citadel Investment Group founder Kenneth Griffin and Houston businessman Robert McNair.  

Treehouse linked to a July 2015 Politico article that reported:

With help from two former presidents and hundreds of other wealthy Wall Street and K-Street donors, the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC raised a staggering $103 million in the first six months of the year.

The information at Treehouse and left-leaning Politico are consistent: Bush has the backing of Wall Street mega-financiers. The Bush campaign has been spending heavily on TV and direct mail. As of today, RealClear Politics shows Jeb is in 6th place (at 3.3%), behind Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Christie.

For background on Chris Christie’s fund-raising, posted earlier on this blogsite, go here.

For background on Dr. Ben Carson’s fund-raising, posted earlier on this blogsite, go here.

# # #

Chuckle of the Day

Art credit

Even The Onion can't make this stuff up. The headline from Allahpundit at Hot Air says it all:

Blast off: 

Shaky Jeb Bush campaign 

ready to soar 

thanks to coveted 

Eric Cantor endorsement

# # #