Home » Featured, Headline, New Zealand, Social Movements

Let’s Get the Ted Cruz Coalition Rolling Folks!!!

Submitted by on January 9, 2015 – 10:11 pm EST22 Comments

Constitutionalists have to win the 2016 US Presidential elections or America (and every Western nation) is in deep trouble.

cruzzybaby

Time to get that Cruz Coalition rolling folks.

From my friend John Kirkwood:

Trevor Loudon had a dream:

“To win the next elections, to make it worth something, we need to unify the conservative base. You’ve got Libertarians over there, you’ve got social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense conservatives, 2nd Amendment fighters – they’re all fractured. You’ve got 2 million GOP’ers who stayed home last time. You’ve got several million evangelical Christians who don’t vote.

To get those people motivated, they all need something. To unify them, they need to be given something. If I was a man like Ted Cruz – I see him as the front runner and the most Reaganesque of the figures that are out there right now, I’d be wanting to unify that base right now, before Jeb Bush gets up a head of steam. So I’d go to them right now and say, ‘I’m running and the very first thing I’m going to do is put Allen West on my VP ticket, early, right now.”

dream team

So if Ted Cruz runs early, naming his Cabinet and running as a team, will you be inspired? Will you do everything in your power to help?

Imagine what a cabinet full of patriotic conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians could do to restore the Constitution and the historic role of the United States of America. Imagine the amazing legacy they could leave your children.

Urge Ted Cruz to declare early and gather around him a Cabinet/running team that will set the base alight.

Imagine your great country led by leaders of this caliber. You can make make it happen.

22 Comments »

  • RepublicanYo says:

    I vote a substitution for the Sec of Treasury. Rand will simply not accept this role anyway. How about another Libertarian in his stead. My choice, Gary Johnson. I don’t agree with all his ideas, but he seems to be far more honest and upfront about it than Paul. I also think he can be reasoned with.

  • DLo says:

    I pray he’s working on something big like this. I’ve been locked onto it since you first proposed it as brilliant, and something that has not been done similarly since Lincoln. He can’t just throw his hat in the ring with such an expected large field running …. He could take the country by storm!

  • Right on, Trevor- hard to imagine a better presidential candidate emerging than Sen Ted Cruz.

    The guy’s a Reaganite from top to bottom, and like the Gipper’s own KGB file referred to him in the 1980s, also a “principled and unbending politician for whom words and deeds are one in the same.”

    With you all the way on this one

  • Betty says:

    So if Ted Cruz runs early, naming his Cabinet and running as a team, will you be inspired? Will you do everything in your power to help?

    YES, I think the world of Ted Cruz. Or, if all those listed above plus Sessions, De Mint, King, and other anti-Establishment conservatives gathered and drew straws, after committing their support the to who ever drew the straw for P and vP, I would be over joyed.

    But you are absolutely right – it needs to be done right now !

  • lucybaba says:

    AMEN !! This is the team. The elite Republicans can not win if we get this going which I have tried to do for 2 years.

  • Peter for the Constitution says:

    Ted is ineligible for President or VP. Born in Canada to a Cuban father. He is a citizen of the United States., but he is not a natural born Citizen as required by the Constitution.

    • Dave Radetsky says:

      The problem with your argument, Peter for the Constitution, is that even though you may be right, it doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court has never officially ruled on the definition of “natural born citizen,” even though they have commented and other founder’s writings support your point that to be natural born you must be the child of two U. S. citizens. Because they allowed Obama to slip through, both Congress and SCOTUS will not go there for fear of accountability. Clarence Thomas has admitted that SCOTUS has avoided the subject. After seeing John Roberts sell out the Constitution on Obamacare, it’s clear that what’s “right” is not necessarily what you’d get from them in a ruling. And Congress won’t touch it because they know that if they did, they’d be in trouble for not doing something 6 years ago.

      Plus, if SCOTUS did rule that it required both parents be U. S. citizens at the time of birth, that would then cause problems with Obama’s presidency and they’d have a mess trying to undo it. All the laws he has signed would be invalid and the riots in the streets that would occur from Obama’s supporters would be enough to keep them from ruling according to the Constitution. If they ruled you can bet they would rule that natural born and naturalized are the same thing, thereby making Obama safe and with that, Cruz and Rubio are safe, too.

      So, Cruz is quite safe running without having to worry about that issue. And while it may be a twisting of the Constitution, Ted Cruz is more American and dedicated to our Constitution that anyone else who’s shown interest in running. Therefore, it would be crazy not to support his candidacy. He puts more fear into the left than anyone and that’s worth getting behind him. Remember, the louder the left (including the establishment GOP) scream about someone, the more they fear them. That’s a good gauge as to who would be a good candidate.

      On another point, not regarding anything Peter for the Constitution said, I would take issue with David Barton being Secy of Ed. Clearly Trevor has come up with this because of his friendship with Glenn Beck and Glenn’s love for Barton. But Barton has been proven to twist history and be inaccurate. People like him because he says things people want to hear, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right. I wish what he says were true, but a lot of it is not. We’d be much better off choosing someone else for that position or just not mentioning it specifically during the campaign.

      One last point, Cruz should also consider, if elected, appointing Mark Levin as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That would solidify a Constitutional commitment in the leadership of SCOTUS.

      • tinkabell says:

        Dave Radetsky, I agree with much of what you say…especially the part about the outcome of any impeachment etc against Obama…at this point not worth the problems it would create. I would LOVE him out but IF Congress would do their job by using the “power of the purse” he would be a non-issue. As for Rubio…he was born in the US, Born: May 28, 1971 (age 43) · Miami, FL. The only fear I have it that the Dems/Libs/Progs will make a HUGE issue of Cruz dual citizenship with Canada (which is normal for many countries). I think he would be GREAT. On the cabinet…I would want K.T. McFarland for Sec of State…she is awesome. I like Bolton a lot but maybe as a WH advisor? How about Mitt Romney at Treasury or Commerce…would be great. Michelle Bachmann could do the IRS…they NEED someone like her. Palin would also be good at EPA! Carson, since his foundation is specialized in Education maybe there? I would try to get rid of a couple of these agencies but IF we have to have them…at least have good leaders. The Republicans have a HUGE amount of talent, education and experience in their line up…it would be awesome to see a group of them be able to try to straighten this mess up.

      • Nathan Stein says:

        Yeahhhh . . . Minor problem with suggesting Cruz is eligible . . . Aldo Bellei.

        Aldo, like Cruz was born on foreign soil. Aldo, like Cruz had a foreign citizen father. Aldo, like Cruz had a mother who was a US citizen. Aldo, like Cruz became a citizen AT birth by statute.

        In the US Supreme Court case of Rogers v Bellei, BOTH the majority and minority opinions indicated that Aldo was a “naturalized” citizen. If Aldo was, then why wouldn’t Cruz also be? Are we then going to contend a “naturalized citizen” is the same thing as a “natural born citizen”? . . . o.O I don’t think so! [See: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=401&invol=815%5D

    • Mark Ridley says:

      Cuz’s mother was an American born and raised in Delaware.

  • Brianroy says:

    Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?

    Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

    And Ted Cruz just as much as Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Ted+Cruz

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

    For those who select aliens to the Constitution to USURP the Presidency of the United States and Overthrow the Constitution of the United States, and PRETEND they are not doing so by backing Ted Cruz. Answer these legal questions.

    1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?

    2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?

    4. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?

    By example as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
    Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”

    5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

    6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?

    7. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
    “…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
    The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
    and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
    …It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’
    or not?

    [The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
    see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
    Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]

    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
    “The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”

    “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.”
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167

    “No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President….”
    US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

    And further, how can you back Cruz when a prominently revered Democrat by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. was also born in Canada with both a United States Natural Born Citizen Father and a United States Natural Born Citizen Mother, and was KNOWN to be ineligible to be President of the United States?
    N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 – 4, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House.” … his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.
    That instance is known to being a legal fact. How then can you now PUSH a Cuban National Father and a U.S. Citizen Mother who is born in a Treaty Country which has jus soli birthright citizenship and loyalty holds upon a man who until 2014 REFUSED to renig on his loyalty and citizenship to Canada, how then can you go “poof” “it doesn’t count with Ted, because he’s OUR guy” and so grant Ted Cruz any kind of legal United States Natural Born Citizen Status except by an act of delusion and a “legal exceptions insanity” excuse in your own minds? At best, Cruz has U.S. nationality thirdly, after that of Canada first, and then a predominant Cuban nationality and citizenship through the father secondly.

    Ted Cruz is NOT LEGALLY FIT to run for President of the United States. That is a legal FACT.

  • Ted is my choice and naming his cabinet is something we have been suggesting for any conservative candidate. My only “maybe” is Rand Paul, an isolationist, as Sec of Treas. This set of conservatives will unite the true base of the gop, the Traditional Americans. The definition is mine and here: http://www.forums.traditionalamericanmovement.com/portal.php

    Excellent work Trevor!

    • john miller says:

      But Rand Paul will attract libertarians like no other candidate and that is important to unite the base. Plus, he would most likely either abolish or radically change the IRS for the better, which is critically needed. I have to admit that I’m no expert on the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, but if it was in his power, I’m sure he’d abolish the Fed, too. Those positions would attract voters in droves. Plus, even if he is an isolationist, that doesn’t really have much impact since he’d only be in charge of the Fed, not foreign policy.

      • tinkabell says:

        the Fed is a quasi private entity and is not actually controlled by our Federal Government (though I am sure at times the administration wishes they did control it). It is allegedly controlled/run by the banking institutions. See the book “Creature from Jekyll Island” on the history of who and how it was set up.

  • Dick Manasseri says:

    General Jerry Boykin for Secretary of Defense.

    Time to research how the Cruz Coalition could win outside of the GOP?

    The Chamber of Commerce ($136 miliion spent in 2012) will fund the GOP primaries and likely crush any/all opposition to their progressive agenda including cheap-labor immigration. They are likely to deliver Bush or Romney.

    The grassroots do not have the money to compete with the Big-Money GOP in a massively expensive primary season and still have funds for the general election.

    Outside the GOP, but somehow on the ballot in all 50 states in November 2016, the grassroots Constitutionaliats might just have the money and energy for one Cruz Coalition campaign against the progressive DEM and the progressive GOP candidates.

  • Gerald Cuvillier says:

    I agree with the constitutionalists. Just because Obama did it and Ted want’s to try it does not make it right. I would prefer Ted as Attorney General and either Allen or Trey as President. Then we could pursue dismantling everything Obama has done because he was illegitimate to begin with .

  • Trey Gowdy has a problem with U.S. Patriots since the amazing story broke about his relationship and appointment to the House Select Committee on Benghazi – lobbyist Philip Kiko, who advocates for Muslim groups. Read the article – and there are many more stories about this on the net.

    http://shoebat.com/2014/05/26/executive-director-benghazi-select-committee-recuse/

  • It was quoted on our State Coordinator call for Tea Party Patriots that Allen West in a personal conversation with one of the coordinators said after the Boehner vote that he is leaning towards a third party.

    Bill Pasco – TPP Legislative Update reporter took quite a bit of time to explain how difficult – impossible it is to create a third party and get standing in each of the 50 states . . .

    I think the fix is in to burn our time with angst until it is simply too late to do anything – but, I am working to support Trevor’s coalition idea and it will be in front of TPP before the next two weeks.

    I’m not feeling well about 2016

  • Mary Tygart says:

    Whoever Ted Cruz puts together on his Dream Team will
    will be far better than we have had in recent years AND
    far above Killary or any of the RINO’s running.
    I would LOVE to see him choose Allen West as a running mate

  • Scott Walker for President says:

    Where in the world did they get that photo?!?! It is NOT Scott Walker…

  • Bastet says:

    Where is the document that is required of all children born while the mother is living abroad? His mother needs to release that. If she didn’t sign it, too bad, Rafael Eduardo. No citizenship for you! “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.

4 Pingbacks »

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.