Recently, Mr. Joel Crospey, encouraged me to provide evidence for the lack of bonafide conservatism in Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz and why a vote for Sen. Rafael Cruz would be inconsistent with either conservatism or Biblical Christianity. Mr Crospey also asked me to sustain the fact that Sen. R. Cruz’s eligibility to be President is at the very least questionable.
This is my good faith attempt at doing just that. Keep in mind that I am not voting for any of the current Republican candidates for President. I have no dog in this fight. My only desire is to just expose these candidates for who they are. In previous posts on Iron Ink I have provided the same kind of evidence for the lack in Donald Trump as I am now going to demonstrate in Sen. Rafael Cruz. I do not believe that Biblical Christians should be voting for either Trump or Cruz.
First we will seek to demonstrate, how it is uncertain that Sen. Rafael Cruz is qualified as a natural born citizen. To demonstrate this we have to realize that there are several different opinions on how the Constitution should be interpreted. We will examine Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President of these united States based on his own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. Sen. Cruz holds to the view called “Originalism.” This theory of interpretation understands the Constitution as having a stable meaning according to the original meaning of the words and the understandings of those words as used by those who penned and ratified the Constitution. The Originalist then takes the text seriously as well as the intent of those who penned and ratified the Constitution as a document.
When we come to the issue of who qualifies and doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen,” the course of the Originalist is to look at the meaning of “natural born citizen” as that was used when the Constitution was penned and ratified. When we do just that we discover that when the Constitution was penned and ratified there were two methods by which it was determined whether or not someone was a natural born citizen. The first of these two was that a newborn belonged to the Sovereign or nation who ruled the territory upon which said child was birthed. This was part of English common law, which the fledgling unites States adopted as their own. The second method shifted from looking to soil as being determinative of natural born status to looking to blood as being determinative of natural born status. According to this methodology in determining natural born status one was natural born in keeping with the loyalty of the patriarch who sired the newborn, regardless of what or whose soil the child was birthed upon. By this “law of blood,” children born to those serving as diplomats in foreign lands would still be considered natural born of the country from which their diplomat Father haled.
By an Originalist understanding of the US Constitution, Sen. Ted Cruz is not natural born to these united States and so is not qualified to be the US President. Sen. Cruz was neither born in these united States, nor was Cruz’s Father’s loyalty, being Cuban born and living in Canada, a loyalty vouchsafed to these united States. Sen. Cruz, by his own Originalist understanding of the Constitution, thus is not a natural born citizen, and so is not qualified to be President of these united States.
Now, I am well aware that other arguments have been made to support Cruz’s natural born eligibility but my only task here is to support the idea that Cruz’s natural born eligibility is a open legal question not yet legally determined by the SCOTUS. For anyone to insist that it is undoubted that Sen. Cruz is qualified as natural born to be President is a insistence born of wishing and not the facts.
If any questions remains this lecture from a Constitutional Scholar reinforces my points.
https://vimeo.com/154765379
Having dealt with the questionable status of Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President I now turn to a more explicit treatment of why a vote for Sen. Cruz would be inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. This is a cumulative argument and I will move from the more serious reasons to reasons that might be deemed less serious.
1.) The greatest reason that a well informed Biblical Christianity would forswear voting for Sen. Cruz for President is his effusive praise for the Marxist murderer Nelson Mandela upon Mandela’s death.
“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free.
We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”
By Sen. Cruz’s words here we see Proverbs 10:11 incarnated.
“The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.”
This praise of Mandela by Sen. Cruz is instructive as to the Senator’s worldview. If Cruz counts the tyrant Mandela as a “inspiration for defenders of liberty” what must liberty mean to Cruz? The whole language of “equal liberties,” is seen as a lie when one considers the abuse of the Boers in South Africa. Could not Cruz see this by the time of Mandela’s death? The idea that South Africa is “free” would be news to the Boer population.
Does Cruz know of Mandela’s involvement, via his terrorist organization, of the bombing for which Mandela is responsible? This includes the bombing of public places, wherein a killing of piles of more judicially innocent civilian bystanders (women and children inclusive) than the killing of Mandela’s enemies. Does Cruz know that Mandela stayed in prison, despite the offer of release that only stipulated that Mandela quit killing people? Mandela died with the blood of tens of thousands of people, both black and white, on his hands. Whether Sen. Cruz actually does believe what he said about Mandela, or whether it is the case that Sen. Cruz demonstrated a gross display of ignorance and lack of discernment, this praise of Mandela by Cruz means that Biblical Christians should not be voting for Sen. Cruz.
2.) Sen. Cruz refused to support the bill Dr. Ron Paul tried for years to get passed to audit the Federal Reserve. The problem with fiat money as printed by the FED, may only have competition with the issue of illegal immigration as the number one threat to US nationhood, and yet Sen. Cruz refused to support a bill that would have moved forward setting boundaries for the Federal Reserve. Now, when you combine this lack of support with Heidi Cruz’s (Raphael’s wife) connection to Goldman Sachs, which works hand in glove with the FED, one wonders about Cruz’s lack of willingness to support Congressman Paul’s vote.
Biblical Christians support responsibility in fiscal matters. Cruz’s lack of support for Congressman Paul’s legislation, when combined with all these other concerns, should cause Biblical Christians to understand that a vote for Cruz is not consistent Christianity.
3.) Sen. Cruz has indicated support for a Constitutional Convention. This support underscores, again, a lack of discernment on the part of Sen. Cruz. A Constitutional Convention would be sure to open a Pandora’s box for revising the Constitution in a Marxist – Progressive direction. Support for a Constitutional Convention would be to take us from the frying pan to the fire.
Biblical Christians understand that any action that is going to open a door for the advance of Marxism is contrary to Biblical Christianity and so would not vote for those who are in support for such an open door.
4.) Heidi Cruz, has worked for the Council of Foreign Relations which is a globalist organization. Are we to believe that Sen. Cruz is not compromised by his wife’s association with one of the premier organization’s dedication to a New World Order that envisions the end of Nation State sovereignty?
Biblical Christianity is opposed to all attempts to build a Babel New World order.
5.) Sen. Cruz seems to have a inordinate passion for Israel’s interests. Will that passion for Israel’s interests be prioritized over his work to advance the interests of the nation state that he is not a natural born citizen of?
Of course any conservative worth his salt wants a chief executive that is not beholden to foreign interest.
6.) Sen. Cruz’s record on immigration is cloudy. Was he trying to add a poison bill to the “gang of 8” immigration legislation? Was he trying to massively expand the Hb1-B visa program to ridiculous levels? Is he serious about the one issue that is the number one threat to the continuance of America as a definable nation state? My estimation is that Sen. Cruz is a typical grifter politician who is not to be trusted in the least in terms of being able to believe what he says about anything.
Immigration is the issue in 2016. Sen. Cruz’s cloudy doublespeak is a positioning that no conservative can support.
7.) Cruz’s complete inexperience as a young Senator weighs in here. The country just elected, in 2008, a young inexperienced Senator like Cruz. I shouldn’t think we’d not want to make this mistake again.
8.) Sen. Cruz support for Legislation S.306. If Cruz were truly conservative, he would know that in the history of homeschooling, once a state has called homeschools “private schools” just so that homeschoolers could have access to sports, band, tax rebates, etc…. That’s when they expanded it to be a requirement, and after that came mandatory standardized annual testing, and after that came cover schools who must meet with you to check your progress several times throughout the year. Aka, what homeschoolers in California have to do every single year.
9.) If Cruz were truly a conservative, he would know that the government has no business in education. A truly conservative presidential candidate would abolish the dept of education, so that instead of being “allowed” to call ourselves a private school (and thus be kept in a database) so that we are “allowed” to keep some of our own money tax free, we would simply eliminate the tax entirely because we’d do away with the $77 billion dollar education budget! Cruz’s support for the abolishing of the Department of Education is inconsistent with his support for S.306.
In conclusion, it is clearly seen that Sen. Cruz’s is not a natural born citizen, per his own Constitutional theory and that Sen. Rafael Cruz is not a bonafide conservative, nor is he championing Christian positions.
________________________
Hat Tip to Mrs. Mickey Henry on points 9 & 10 above
Great job, brother. That is a very thorough, yet easy to understand , Biblical examination of the issue at hand.