Politics

Did George Soros Rig The Utah Vote To Help Ted Cruz Defeat Donald Trump?

239 Comments

With yet another primary day out of the way, Donald Trump has taken another big step towards the Oval Office. Both parties held primary elections in Arizona and Utah this week, with the Democrats holding an additional caucus in Idaho (the Republican primary in that state was held two weeks ago). Trump cruised to victory in Arizona, but he suffered a larger-than-expected defeat in Utah, with winner Ted Cruz netting 69 percent of votes and the Donald languishing in third behind John Kasich.

While it was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose Utah—his outspoken personality and supermodel wife being an affront to the tweedy, porn-addicted Mormons who inhabit the state—Cruz’s landslide win defies both polling and common sense. Cruz’s support has been limited to Christian conservatives, and even in his home state of Texas, he only got 43 percent of the vote. What explains his 50+ point margin of victory in Utah?

The answer is voter fraud. Much in the same way that Microsoft may have rigged the Iowa caucus to benefit the dearly departed Marco Rubio, a George Soros-owned firm may have cooked the books for Ted Cruz in Utah. With the continued success of Trump’s nationalist campaign, power brokers on both the left and right have pulled out all the stops to shut him down.

Arizona Smart Smart Smart, Utah Very Dumb

All-About-Mormons

While polls consistently showed Trump lagging behind Cruz in Utah, they also consistently showed Cruz failing to break the 50 percent margin, let alone approaching the 69 percent of the vote he actually got. Utah is only a winner-take-all state (i.e. it awards all of its delegates to whoever wins the popular vote) if one of the candidates gets at least 50 percent: below that margin, losing candidates are awarded some delegates. With his landslide victory in the state, Cruz scoops up all of Utah’s delegates.

Because of this, there is a huge incentive for voter fraud in Utah. In the past month, the GOP establishment has openly stated that they are trying to force a brokered convention by denying Donald Trump the majority of delegates he needs to clinch the nomination. At this stage in the race, it’s mathematically impossible for either Ted Cruz or John Kasich to win the nomination: there simply aren’t enough delegates in play. However, by continuing to run, Cruz and Kasich can siphon off delegates from Trump, denying him a majority and allowing the GOP to steal the nomination from him in July.

As Breitbart reported earlier this week, Utah’s Republican online caucuses were managed by Smartmatic Group, whose chairman, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, is on the board of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Additionally, the Marxist protesters who attempted to shut down Trump’s rally in Phoenix last weekend were on Soros’ payroll:

Additionally, last week, former Massachusetts governor and failed 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced that he would be voting for Ted Cruz in the Utah caucuses. Notably, he did not endorse Cruz, because Romney and the GOP establishment don’t want Cruz to get the nomination; instead, their plan is to install a Wall Street-approved stooge such as Jeb Bush or Romney himself at a brokered convention.

While Soros’ vote fraud and Romney’s machinations may have denied Trump the Utah delegates that he rightly earned, they failed to stop him in neighboring Arizona, where he soared to victory with 47 percent of the vote. Trump’s triumph in Arizona was aided by his tough stance on illegal immigration, which has torn that great state apart, as well as endorsements from popular GOP politicians such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former governor Jan Brewer. Arizona is also a winner-take-all state, meaning that Cruz and Kasich will get no delegates from the state.

Berning Up

bernie-sanders

Tuesday’s primaries also saw a resurgence in support for Bernie Sanders: while he lost the Arizona primary by a significant margin, he won landslide victories in Utah and Idaho, taking close to 80 percent of the vote in each state. This is likely due to the fact that Sanders primarily appeals to white voters, and Utah and Idaho are two of the last remaining states where the Democratic Party is still largely white (because said states themselves are largely white).

While Sanders still remains a long-shot for the Democratic nomination, he’s shown that he has staying power among the white progressives who form the ideological core of his party. However, if he can’t broaden his appeal to the party’s minorities, he will inevitably lose out to Hillary Clinton.

The next primaries will be in Wisconsin and New York, and while the latter has already been written off as an easy Trump/Clinton victory, cuckservatives are pouring resources into the former hoping to stall Trump’s momentum. With even Jeb Bush returning to the fray to endorse Ted Cruz, it’s clear that Trump is the only choice for voters hoping to fight back against the globalist monstrosity that George Soros and his ilk represent.

Read More: Did Microsoft Commit Voter Fraud In Iowa To Ensure Donald Trump’s Defeat?

239 thoughts on “Did George Soros Rig The Utah Vote To Help Ted Cruz Defeat Donald Trump?”

  1. It wont matter. Trump already has more than both Cruz and Kasich combined, and over the course of the republican race that gap has only grown. It would require Cruz and Kasich to get 131 more delegates with trump winning 0 just for them to even get a brokered convention. At this point that is basically numerically impossible, Trump will consistently get AT LEAST 40% of the vote in every election from this point on simply due to the nature of voting patterns in these races.

    1. I like the sound of that. But it’s still worth pointing out what the bastards did in Mormondia

      1. Yeah, but they are Mormons. Don’t expect them to do anything politically logical. (In my state, Mormons basically made state ownership of the liquer retail industry for fuck all reason.)

        1. American conservatives of all colors and hues have to be canny and shrewd in this very critical election. If you get it wrong, it’s likely that republicanism could become split and un-electable for many generations because Trump supporters will feel even more betrayed by the party if he’s “done out” by the GOP grandees. It’s time to reflect and consider what a huge percentage of both the Republican and indeed Democratic centrist voters are saying. I have reservations about Trump as President, but, my concerns are less than the half measures and untruths that the professional politicians have been saying for decades to the electorate, so, I think the time has come for voters to at least consider someone outside the atrophied system in Washington.

    2. They want a brokered or contested convention. This is a critical juncture for the future of the GOP. If Trump is outsmarted and out-voted at the convention by the GOP grandees, it could spell the end for the party, when the most popular candidate for GOP voters is denied his rightful chance to run for the presidency.
      The GOP has to get this right and the shrewd strategy if they’re wise is to let him have it at this point. If he wins, well we’ll just have to work with him and give him guidance, any attempt by party grandees to manipulate the convention against his mandate will be severely detrimental to the cause of american republicanism for generations. This strategy will break and destroy republicanism at its very core and soul and will likely allow the Democrats to become the party of “Natural Government” for a long, long time and this would be profoundly unhealthy for America’s future.

      1. Like I said, they can’t get one. Trump has around 55% of the delegates and that majority has only been growing over the primary season. The Chances of them even getting him to 49% of the delegates (which will cause a brokered convention) is REALLY REALLY REALLY slim. Trump is leading in both California and Pennsylvanian by a wide majority, and keeping him from getting those two states are basically the only chance the establishment has at getting brokering. EVEN if the convention is brokered, Trump could still win.

        1. It’s not a done deal. Of he gets California and Wisconsin it’s done. But in California there is a huge campaign starting to get Democrats to cross over… If they’re successful Trump won’t beth nominee because hardly any pof the delegates are trump supporters

        2. People often dismiss California as a naturally liberal State that will “naturally” vote against the so-called extremism of Trump. I don’t buy this as the State has given America both Reagan and Nixon in the past and I actually think Trump will be the GOP candidate that naturally appeals more the Californian GOP voters more than any of the other candidates.
          As I said elsewhere, I don’t think Trump is that extreme apart from his immigration stance, he’s actually the most liberal candidate in the current field, so yes I bet you $100 he’ll win the golden State.

        3. It’s basically still has a good 40% of the population who are conservative, and Neo-Leftists make 55%. The only hard Liberal Regions are the The Coastal counties of North California, and LA county.
          Especially with all the Bernie Supporters anxious trying to defeat the sea hag (who is basically only winning though voter fraud), I don’t think any of them will bother going to the republic primary.

        4. So True. Orange County and San Diego county are very conservative but we get overshadowed by LA and SF.

      2. The last time the Democrat party was the party of “National Government” the seeds were sown for the Civil War. Keep in mind also this party’s track record as the feeder for the KKK.

        1. But that was a time when the Democratic party was the centre right party in the US. Times have changed…

        2. Indeed, but, that’s what I’m suggesting. This election has very important ramifications for America. If you’ve a spit GOP through a brokered convention for the next ten years, you’ll end up with a Civil War in the States. There is now, unlike in the past, a sizable portion of the US population who’ve been left behind by “progressive policies” both on the economic and social fronts by both parties. Trump has somehow grasped this obvious point, and, a failure of either party, but, particularly the GOP to address what Trump “has got” will possibly sow the seeds of a future Civil War in America.

    3. It’s not a done deal yet. Trump hasn’t got the ground game to get HIS delegates elected. They may be bound to him for the first vote but they are almost all establishment tools who’ll do what they are told to go too the convention every four years.

      1. “They may be bound to him for the first vote” Did you read what I said? The only way the delegates will be unbound is if Trump doesn’t get at least 50%. The chances of them getting him from is current 55% (and growing) majority are REALLY slim at this point. New York, California, Pennsylvanian, and New Jersey. All of those states are certainly going to be won (by wide margin) by Donald Trump.

        1. Look I’m in basic agreement trump is likely but not inevitable. His enemies are powerful. They control the process and have expressed a willingness to commit political suicide to stop him. And in California unless Hillary is way ahead there will be a ton voting against Trump

  2. The best part of this whole drama is how Jeb Bush is endorsing Cruz. Yeah… Cruz is truly the anti-establishment choice, huh? What a fucking joke.
    Needless to say… Gas the Mormons.

    1. If Bush would have wanted to hurt Trump he should have endorsed Trump. Romney too.

      2. I don’t know, but it’s starting to Break as news. Don’t know if it’s Credible or not, but we’ll find out.

  4. Cruz has been unmasked to be the total establishment tool he’s always been. But the bulk of the Republican party is still asleep to the fact that Rinos are basically Democrats with a few red meat taking points that they promptly forget when they’re elected. Trump is a phenomenon that has unmasked them. People used laugh at me are begrudgingly admitting they were fooled.
    Can you imagine how disheartening this election would have been if Trump didn’t run? Being awake is like watching a slow motion train wreck. Demographics and exponential growth will seal the Republic’s fate in a few years if Trump isn’t elected. Then our only chance will be fascism.

  5. Trump has funded lefties who have been destroying this country for decades. He is also indebted to Soros. There is a reason the establishment hates Cruz. He is the only committed conservative on every issue. If you support Trump you likely have a home that is mobile and several cars that aren’t. By nominating Trump you ensure a Hillary victory. She’ll make you even more poor and worthless than you already are and you will deserve all of it.

    1. Your post reeks of condescending self righteousness. Hit the snooze button and go back to sleep you brainwashed moron

      1. I have a MD/MBA so its pretty tough not being condescending to trailer trash Trumpians. I’m trying to be nice by supporting Cruz. He’d actually help the poor idiots who like Trump. If it’s Trump vs Hillary I’ll give a few grand to Hillary and me and my businesses will do just fine.

        1. What do you have your degree in, because Trump has a degree in economics, I wouldn’t consider him to be “uneducated’.

        3. He’s a twit probably from Redstate that thinks Cruz is an outsider who’ll change things

        4. His supporters are uneducated not him. I believe he is a very smart and a very manipulative man. As I stated I have my MD(I’m a neurosurgeon) and my MBA(I own a controlling share in several area hospitals).

        7. Maybe arrogant and condescending those who know me wouldn’t consider me a prick though.

        9. You’re welcome to have your doubts, but I doubt if you truly believed what you typed you wouldn’t have responded.

        10. I mean, someone smart enough to have those degrees and own a few hospitals would generally have enough intelligence to know that none of those things give you any sort of Authority in political discussions…

        11. Ah, Neurosurgery all doom and gloom my friend, still, we’re very unwise to consider Trump supporters as mere uneducated yokels. They’re the backbone (no pun intended) of any Nation and indeed patients you’ll see each day.

        12. Most Trump supporters couldn’t name their congressman. I have my congressman’s personal phone #.

        13. I pity them and realize they’re angry. Yet their support of Trump only guarantees a Hillary win and that would hurt them a lot more than me.

        14. “Most Trump supporters couldn’t name their congressman.” I can name my both Senators and everyone of the representatives in my state. That still isn’t relevant though.

        16. Why do people think this? Supporting Trump means Hillary will win? I think he’ll wipe the floor in debates with her, she’s all the baggage and he’s none.

        17. Bob, where did you conduct your Residency and Fellowship? Every surgeon I’ve shadowed this past year said that Obamacare is disastrous.

        19. Because you’re between patients because of a bed delay..and talking shop with ones colleagues is the last thing you need.

        20. Meh, as far as the long term effects on cost of the medical industry, it did nothing good at best and was a little harmful at worst, but that is still bad because everyone had to wast so much time with the paper and legal work.

        21. Anyone can be anything on the internet, so your “credentials” carry no weight in the argument.
          For example: I am a former Navy Seal, French Foreign Legion astronaut that pumped your wife last night. Then went home to my offshore floating mansion. I am coming back in three weeks to kick your face in.
          Suck it “Bob”…fucking shill.

        22. You’re likely a white male like me. Trump has incredibly high unfavorables among white women(most important demographic in elections). Hillary will play his refusal to denounce the KKK in commercials and blacks will show up in large numbers against him as latinos will obviously.

        23. I never said “Andrew cannot name his representatives” However, it is painfully obvious most Trump supporters are painfully ill informed and would be unable to debate the issues intelligently.

        24. Really? That is nothing.
          I am the leader of the shadow organizations that run the world. That guy Soros, yeah he is just one of my many front men.
          Everyone who reads this comment section is going to be dead within a matter of hours to keep this from getting out. I also live on Surface of Jupiter, that whole “gas planet” thing is a conspiracy.

        25. Well I’ll just say this. I know very little about what Trump will do. I know what Cruz (unelectable) Rubio and Hillary are going to do. The same shit we’ve been doing for decades with the same results.
          Trump is defined by his bitter enemies and he has all the right ones. I
          RNC ✔
          Dnc ✔
          Msnbcbsnbcfox ✔
          Bush ✔
          Clinton ✔
          Global elite ✔
          China ✔
          The lost could go on forever
          I’m sick of them all.

        29. If you were really a neurosurgeon you would know that you cannot judge intelligence by presidential candidate preference.

        30. Blacks love Trump. He doesn’t have any real opposition to welfare, he wants to bring back the manufacturing Industry, he is a New Yorker with a big personality. He is everything Blacks like.
          As for Mexicans, well all the legal ones move here because they want to get out of Mexico, not to bring it with them. Not to mention, Amerindian/Mestizo peoples can’t even elect one of their own in Mexico, you think they have much of an effect?

        32. Do you have a scientific study that shows more Cruz Supporters can correctly name their congressman than Trump supporters? NO! In fact, Cruz supporters are the kind of people who think there are WMD’s in Iraq and we just haven’t found them yet…

        33. I don’t know whether this analysis is correct. Women of all political inclinations will always, when all things are equal, vote for the male candidate in an election. Why? Because males are rightfully stronger and more decisive leaders than females and this is a biologically hardwired fact of our species. I wouldn’t underestimate this salient consideration with female voters when it comes to the vote between Hillary and Trump in this election.

        34. Polls over a130 and counting show Killary Slaughtering CHump by large margins. No one is disliked more than HRC except Chump.

        35. All the polls, including the ones that show Trump winning the primaries, peg him as having the highest unfavorables among black of all the candidates. Latinos make a difference in Colorado, Virginia, and Florida. Two of which are must win for the GOP.

        37. Polls at this point mean nothing. The conservatives were polled to loose the last election in the UK by a significant amount and they won it on the day with a huge majority.

        38. Trump supporters are a lot less educated than non-Trump supporters. He “loves the poorly educated” because he can fool them easily. Just because Trump is very masculine and his father was a successful businessman doesn’t mean you should support him.

        39. “All the polls, including the ones that show Trump winning the primaries, peg him as having the highest unfavorables among black of all the candidates.” Citation?
          “Latinos make a difference in Colorado, Virginia, and Florida.” Bullshit. Hispanics only make 8% of the population of Virginia, a large percent the “Hispanics” in Florida are Cubans (who are guess what, mostly white and not Mexican). Colorado? That has been a liberal state for a WHILE and Hispanics only make up 20% of the pop.

        40. That was only because of the First past the post voting. The polls were actually pretty accurate, giving them 30%, and they got 35% of the popular vote in the actual election. They only won 51% of the seats because of district system.

        41. Very selective school. Being that you own controlling share in several area hospitals, you wouldn’t mind me contacting your HR department to request you by name and setting up a time to shadow you in a procedure?

        43. Didn’t conduct a study, but lets just say none of my colleagues and partners support Trump.

        44. 5% is a huge difference. I predict Trump will win in a contest against Hillary. Her foreign policy errors and her lack of human warmth will trip her up.

        45. Compared to Hillary who has a shit-ton of skeletons in her closet, some of which are coming back to haunt her in supposed yet TBD court trials. If Trump loses the election because of stupid shit like that then no Republican candidate would have had a snowball’s chance in Hell against her.

        46. Well I know you aren’t really a doctor, because any doctor knows the plural for anecdote IS NOT TRUTH!

        47. Yeah. I really hope he goes after the colossal waste of time and breach of human rights known as the invasion of Libya.

        48. I appreciate your directness. Are you going to say, “I found Bob commenting on ROK comments section”? I’m in a managerial role now. I’ll ask around to see if someone would be willing. So long as you live in the Seattle metro area.

        49. We don’t care that you are on ROK, we want to know if you are telling the Truth. And by the way that you keep being reluctant to give us your full credentials, you look like an impostor.

        51. Of course, I’m not gonna give out my info. Did you see all the hubub associated with Roosh? You think I want to risk losing suppliers and harming my reputation. My desire to preserve my reputation and business is much greater than my desire to satisfy your curiousity.

        52. Yeah, but your opinion is foolish. You are basing your opinion on fallacies, that is a major testament to how intelligent to you are.

        53. No, it’s cool. I’m willing to travel. When HR asks how I found out about the hospital, I’ll tell them Dr Bob______ recommended me. This approach lead me to shadowing opportunities in LA and NYC.

        54. Yeah, but you are a neo leftist troll, you would be praised by the SJW’s. Also you apparently own your work, who is going to fire you? Yourself?

        55. Are you familiar with anti-transgender Houston bathroom ordinance. I was a major donor (anonymously of course). How would sjws feel about that? Obviously, I’m not going to fire myself. I still do not want risk damage to my reputation or monetary losses.

        56. Take a look and compare the people at a Trump rally vs a Kasich rally. It will be a revealing comparison.

        57. “Are you familiar with anti-transgender Houston bathroom ordinance” What the hell does that mean?

        59. Do you know what that ordinance was and the referendum to replace it? It required people to use the bathroom according to their biological gender. I was a major donor to it.

        60. Well shit, you shouldn’t have said that, because up until now SJW’s would have liked you.

        61. Half the people at Trump rallies are anti Trump, while nobody except maybe Mother Jones gives a crap about Kasich, that is a horrid comparison. It still isn’t scientific.

        62. Haven’t a fucking clue mate! Gender in my mind is a pure social construct. You are born anatomically as a defined sex because of accepted measures that can be asserted as biological facts. The etiquette of bathrooms and the words like “gender” we use to denote such experiences do not modify how and what we do in such times.

        63. Bob. Cut that shit out! I just blew my wine out my nose because I was laughing so hard.

        66. He’s at a bar having a drink to steady his hands before he opens the next cranium.

        68. There also that little matter of her possible indictment under the espionage act. She’d be disqualified from running if that comes down. If the FBI and Justice Dept. try to bury it, Trump will have a field date.
          I know the cat ladies, uneducated minorities, and other assorted losers who vote for anything with a “D” next to their name won’t care but many more will.

        70. It’s always entertaining when someone starts out bragging about how educated they are, then proceeds to write an incoherent comment full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.

        72. Happy Bunny double-majored in sarcasm and mockery. And beating my older brother Bugs until he cried like a wuss.

        74. Our recruitment projections for the next 5 years indicate a major influx of pissed off Westerners.
          Business is good.

        1. Yeah, well you’re going to be really popular here. What do you plan to accomplish here? Because I can tell you right now you’re not going to convince anyone here. Oh, and stop liking your comments, it’s fucking pathetic when people do that.

        5. How am I crying? I’m on the winning team here, your lashing out sounds more like crying.

      2. Haha look, a “neurosurgeon” on an alt right site who supports a losing establishment shill of a candidate. Only credible neurosurgeon I’m aware of is actually endorsing Trump.

        1. Way to avoid the question Bob. Personally I wouldn’t buy a blender from him. He’s the kind of guy 20 years ago who would be peddling fake Rolex’s outside a Vegas hotel.

    5. Trump used to fund the democrats after calling the reform parties “too radical” for his tastes……

    6. “….you likely have a home that is mobile and several cars that aren’t.” killed me with this one.

  6. Why does every member of the globalist cartel look like a zombie (Kissanger, Soros, David Rockefeller) ? It’s time for the fire to sweep aside these gnarled old tree stumps so that life and growth can take place again.

  8. How to spot a fake Doctor online:
    Ask him for the HR contact number to the hospital for a chance to shadow him.
    [Scroll through the comments below and you’ll know why this is relevant.]

      1. His vernacular is off by the way he responded to my request to shadow him in a procedure.

        2. Reading ROK doesn’t mean anything. Plenty of SJW’s read it, just like how plenty of Conservatives read the daily beast, Huffington Post, and Mother Jones. “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” – Unknown.

        3. Surgeons do not have to go through HR to set up a shadowing session. That was a trick question.
          Secondly, a hospital does not ask “How do you know Dr.____?” They couldn’t care less.
          Thirdly, when you own majority share of any business, you are your own boss. The worst that can happen is minority stake shareholders can ASK you to step down. Of course you can refuse.
          Our friend Bob is in a multimillion dollar business and his contractors will not stop the money stream because he reads ROK. His alleged funding against gender neutral bathrooms would’ve caused a far greater uproar in the medical community.

        5. if your a community leader you may not want to get outted as reading a website that is tagged as promoting rape (I know it doesn’t but that’s the narrative).
          I’m just saying….
          On top of that, who the fuck in their right mind is going to let some random person from the comment section of ROK come job shadow them??? Especially if the guy is who he says he is… all the more reason not to let the crazy guy from the comment section come to job shadow you…
          just saying not much is proven by either party.
          the internet.
          /end

    2. Who’d be a neurosurgeon? One’s imagination would be filled with the image of a grave yard filled with those you’d failed?
      No, cowardly and honest surgeons operate on knees and hips not skulls and what lies beneath.

  10. Cruz is toast outside of the bible belt and mormon land. Iowa went huckabee and santorum in the not so distant past so they can be disregarded. Ohio had a dog in the race but will go Trump.

  11. Utah is I think the most religious state in the nation. Trump, with his casinos, multiple divorces and supermodel wives, and anti-religious persona, doesn’t go over too well in Mormon country. Cruz is the faux evangelical candidate–it makes sense he would win Utah. No conspiracy here.

      1. Yes, and then it makes the real conspiracies less credible. I’m sure there has been and will be more fraud involved in primary voting. And the establishment has several tricks up its sleeve to prevent Trump from taking the nomination. But losing in Utah was not one of them. This does, however, make the real cases of fraud and conspiracy less believable, as you come off as the boy who cried wolf when there is really something amiss.

        1. I know, right? It makes finding real conspiracies harder when morons who don’t get what they want cry “conspiracy!” So when a real conspiracy comes by, most people won’t believe it until it’s too late.

      2. Yep, powerful men never meet in private to discuss mutually beneficial strategies.
        Anyone who thinks they do is a crazy wingnut who needs a tinfoil hat.
        Right?
        You guys kill me…

        1. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don’t. There are such things as conspiracies, but real conspiracies are hard to find out because there’s so many people who cry wolf…..

        2. And sometimes these powerful men purposely put out bogus conspiracies as a means of throwing people off the scent of a legitimate coverup.
          But by all means, keep chasing the deer scent someone sprayed in the air to make you follow like the lemming that you are.

        3. That’s probably gonna more than half the conspiracies out there. They’re distractions. Like Anita Sarkeesian and the SJWs.

    2. +1.
      I have a pretty good ear to the ground in Utah, and 69% for Cruz is not even remotely surprising. No conspiracy required. Can’t imagine Soros being stupid enough to bother spending a dime on such an already foregone conclusion. Mike Lee (Utah Senator) is essentially Cruz’ right hand man in the Senate (As well as it’s most reliable conservative, aside from Rand, and sometimes Cruz himself). Cruz is pitching himself (not entirely without substance) as an “originalist” on constitutional issue, and Mormons consider the constitution of the US at least partially divinely inspired. Idaho went to Cruz on account of the Mormon vote, as well.
      Polling will almost always underestimate the Mormon vote, since the more conservative they are, the less they respond to polls, or even interact with the “mainstream.” But they come out to vote. Most commonly coming out hard against gay marriage, gayscouts etc. But also more generally, for candidates like Cruz.

        1. “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

          two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi1645➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsHub/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi1645…….

      2. ye are conveniently ignoring his points.
        1, It is a take all state once you go over the threshold of 50%,hence the incentive to make sure he got them all and tump none
        2,polls consistently showed he never broke the magic 50 mark
        I am not saying he did or didn’t but don’t just ignore the points he raised

        1. “2,polls consistently showed he never broke the magic 50 mark”
          Polls are not a perfect science, they merely gauge how a percentage of a population is feeling at the moment, so a fluctuation from 50 to 69% is not unheard of. Only people with tin foil hats try to make a conspiracy out of everything.

        2. And only people with oatmeal brains try to deny that anything at all is a conspiracy.

        3. Given your remarks, are you attacking me or agreeing with me?I just want to make absolutely sure.

        4. now now daniel,dont be stalking me like the bitter the ex because i made a FOOL of you in the other thread !!! hahahahahah im not even going to engage you,take that as victory if you want but i am above following people around on the internet making things personal like a little girl !!!! remember this as i ignore you every time you comment on my posts YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MY TIME

        5. he doesnt even mean it adam,i stung him on another thread and in particular with the use of quotes,he is quite the parrot must give him credit for at least recognizing something successful and copying it. he blatantly ignores me saying at the end “I am not saying he did or didn’t ” such is his want to ignore and pretend you said something else other wise his retorts are irrelevant ! like acting like i said polls were absolute,he is too STUPID to understand my point was that the lads posts didnt address the points raised in the article not whether the points raised were themselves correct or not, daniel ramos call your minder into the room retard,its dangerous to be online unsupervised : )

        6. Utah is predominantly Mormon. Mormons vote Cruz. And not just vote, support as well. Carson had a good bit of early support, and Mitt’s “let’s be reasonable” wing may swing Kasich “for tactical reasons.” Trump will always draw someone, but in Mormonia, both the “mainstream” vote and the “protest” vote gels around Cruz. Hence, 69% is not at all surprising. 80% wouldn’t even set off “conspiracy” alerts.
          And as I pointed out, amongst Mormons, polls consistently and systemically under report support for the most conservative candidate. For the simple reason that the most consistently conservative Mormons, do not interact sufficiently with the media to be polled all that often. But they do come out to vote. Like the hard line conservatives in Israel. Almost always surprising “everyone” with how much support there actually is for conservative causes.
          Furthermore, there is a bit of “political awakening” going on amongst Mormons. They are realizing that their superior fertility, is enabling them to have much more influence than they previously considered possible, or perhaps even “proper”. Hence, are more willing to press “their” issues. Rather than being content to make the best of it in a world designed by and for others.

        7. very well put and i understand you. I have no problem with reasonable arguement and debate. Seems logical and to make sense and i was wrong you did address it originally. Whether you are actually right or not i do not know but it has the ring of truth to it .
          Ps I in no way believe or insinuated polls were infallible,i understand they arent or else they’d be the actual election !! .

        8. LMAO you didn’t make a fool of me, you made one of yourself. You are probably some butthurt simpleton I tore apart before who created this troll account to mess with me.
          And you are being hypocrite by saying I’m “following you around” when you were the one who responded to me with trolling bullshit because I criticized your master Trump.
          I will however take your bitch ass copout here as a victory, and I invite you to come back anytime so I can show you what it’s like to repeatedly get your ass handed to you by me 😀

        9. LOL keep revising history asshole, maybe someday you will start to believe your own horseshit as true 🙂
          I must admit your ramble was amusing to read…not simply because of the horrendous grammatical structure, but because you want to believe so badly that you’ve bested me that it feels like you’re screaming out loud while tapping on your keyboard.
          Haha!

        10. I am getting a salary of 6900 dollars each week. Over a year ago I was in a horrible condition ,,odf jobless and no bank credit . Thanks to one of my friends who showed me a way where I was able to gather myself and making average of 58 d/h. So it can change your life as it has changed mine. Why not try this.
          Look here for details
          ppaa..

        1. Total bullshit…2 of the girls already have denied it. Muckracking at its finest.

        2. If ROK has taught me anything it’s that women are always honest about their past sexual history.

      4. I was a precinct chairman in Utah and I can tell you there was ZERO rigging of votes going on.
        As Stuki Moi says, it is a very conservative state and doesn’t like immoral candidates especially those who are mean, nasty and disrespectful of other people.
        Trump lost fair and square in Utah and I can’t imagine anyone thought there was a REMOTE chance for him in that state.

    3. Conspiracy has a bad connotation. It means people wearing tin foil hats.
      But, that doesn’t mean that certain people don’t get together and advance their personal interests. And George Soros has certainly driven his agenda in such a manner.

  12. I find it interesting that Romney has relocated to Utah, a state to which he has no connection other than the dominance of the local government and culture by his co-religionists. He grew up in Michigan, and I suppose had to escape the Massachusetts shithole that he helped create.

  14. Not that I advocate anything illegal, but Soros probably goes out in public on occasion.

  15. I think it was Lenin who said “It doesn’t matter who votes; it only matters who COUNTS the votes.”
    The notion of electronic voting was a deliberate plan to cut the citizens out of choosing. There is no audit trail whatsoever.
    Yes, Cruz’ numbers in Utah were a shock. He was my first choice but after he blamed Trump for the Chicago riots, he lost my support.

  16. It’s obvious that Trump is a Clinton operative. He is being directed to destroy the GOP and then lose to Hillary.
    Trump is using Saul Alinsky tactics of the left. Big Dawg Clinton also knows the working class white demographic well from his time in Arkansas. This demographic is being pit against the rest of the GOP, thus ending in fracture.
    In the end, one has to admire the machiavellian skill of the Clintons. Bill recognized the appeal of the alpha male archetype, especially to segments of the marginalized right.

    1. Trump is an egomaniac I just can’t see him trying to undermine himself ever.

      1. A few possibilities:
        1. A a reality TV star, much of what Trump is doing is an ‘act.’ His egocentric persona is for effect.
        2. He’s not undermining himself, but is receiving something in exchange. And keep in mind that powerful people are driven by much more than money.
        3. Trump might not even be aware that he’s being directed by the Clintons, as they are using surrogates to guide him in a false flag campaign.

    2. Your appointment for your new tinfoil hat has been rescheduled for next week.

    3. Conservatives HAVE to start using Saul Alinsky tactics. Look at what has been happening to the world with the left using them for so long.

  18. Wait a minute! I’m reading conspiracy theorists at NRO saying Soros is funding Kasich’s campaign in order to siphon off votes from Ted Cruz. I can’t keep my Soros theories straight any more.
    Ted Cruz aligns better with my political views than anyone else since Rand Paul left. But unless Kasich quits, Trump wins the nomination outright and easily.

  19. The more Trump wins the more main stream media panties are getting in a wad, the hatred and spread of lies just make me wonder these are the same people who talk about freedom of choice, due process and other shit…., if their candidate is losing then everyone is stupid …. wow ….

  21. So called “alpha males” are all supporting a New York liberal who lies about being conservative. But because he is alpha, they snivel along after him, irregardless of the fact that his views and Hitlery’s political views are so close you need a surgeon to separate them. Disgusting how many manospherians fall in line and follow “the cool kid” just like back in high school. Yup, Ted ain’t alpha. And is kind of a dork. But his views are conservative all down the line. While Donald was playing “You’re fired” Ted was fighting the GOPe and progressives every step of the way.

    1. Trump acts like one sometimes – then starts yelling “I’ll sue you” to anyone who gets under his thin skin – and the alpha image collapses.
      The only alpha running was Jim Webb.

    2. Ted Cruz only fought progressives when his fight didn’t matter. When a socialist bill was going to pass there was Ted Cruz in the spotlight making a big show of fighting it. When a socialist bill was in doubt of passing Ted Cruz was not to be found. When TPP was in doubt Ted Cruz shut up and voted for it. Then when it came back to the Senate and it was assured passage Calgary Ted fought against it.

      1. Exactly this.
        He was also nowhere to be found for the audit the fed bill and the CISA bill.

        1. Ok, i give you the audit the fed bill. He should have been there for that, although he was in NH campaigning and he was correct when he said that his presence there would not have helped it pass.
          As far as CISA is concerned, the same thing applies. His vote wouldn’t have mattered.

    3. Immigration??? Trade deals??? Cruz won’t touch these cause he has to butter his masters. Cruz is the worst kind of conservative, a chicken hawk and evangelical social conservative. Exactly which issues does Cruz win over Trump?

      1. Worst kind of conservative? What kind of intellectual jellyfish are you?
        Cruz was fighting against illegal immigration back when Donald was still donating to democrats. Get a clue loser.

    4. Agree with everything you say but not the part about Ted.
      Calling Mcconnell out on the floor of the Senate as a liar took balls, alpha balls.
      Going to the SCOTUS to stop an illegal alien rapist from using international law to get off the hook, even while President Bush was asking him to, takes alpha balls.
      Taking Trump’s flak and giving it right back to him but smarter, also takes balls.
      Remember…an Alpha isn’t just the best looking guy in the dating pool, he’s the guy who doesn’t back down from his beliefs here or in person no matter how much flak he gets.
      Just wanted to mention that.

    5. This subculture fetishizes the ‘alpha male,’ but remains woefully naive about politics.
      In all likelihood, Trump is actually working as an operative for the Clintons. Everything he has done so far is undermining his electability for the general, essentially handing the Presidency to Hillary.
      I admire the machiavellian tactics of the Clintons, who are the real red-pillers in the race.

      1. No. Trump’s refreshingly healthy attitude towards women is by all accounts genuine. He would never bend the knee to Hillary Clinton.
        On the contrary—under President Trump Hillary might finally be forced to accept the consequences of her aiding and abetting enemies of the United States.
        I look forward to his driving the old bitch to whimpering for Huma at the debates.
        That, and the Tweet where he relates giving the order to have the bitch put down.
        “Signed Hillary Clinton’s death warrant this morning. Damn that felt good. #MakingAmericaGreatAgain”

        1. He was already bending the knee to Clinton long ago, when he was throwing money at her and her Democrat allies.

  23. Christcucks strike again.
    Also, it’s always satisfying to watch Bernouts get frustrated over the minority vote. They pushed for diversity for years and years and now their colored pets aren’t voting the way they want.

    1. They promoted Afro-centric curriculum and more handouts at the same time, they are now “strong and independent” and don’t need the hipsters and Bolsheviks trying to hit them with that white man knowledge. Always nice when radicals get the blowback they deserve

  24. I’m sorely disappointed in you Matt. You’ve turned into another selllout Trumpeteering mouthpiece for the Donald Trump campaign.
    “porn addicted mormons” really? That’s the best you can do to wipe Trump’s ass and excuse his loss?
    “Cruz’s landslide win defies both polling and common sense. Cruz’s support has been limited to Christian conservatives, and even in his home state of Texas, he only got 43 percent of the vote.”
    No it doesn’t, not when you factor in that capitalists tend to identify with the Cruz campaign, and libertarians would begrudgingly support Cruz over a Donald Trump presidency, especially given Trump’s many excuses for abusing eminent domain, pushing for bailouts, socialized medicine, among other leftist staples. Also and perhaps more importantly, real Christian evangelicals will NOT support Trump under any circumstances.
    You also don’t seem to realize Trump himself has NEVER scored higher than a 50 percent margin in ANY State he’s won thus far. The highest he’s achieved to date is 49% when he won Massachusetts. For all his bluster, Trump has fluctuated between 30-40% of support, and this in a race with more than a handful of contestants up until just recently. The only reason Trump has done as well as he has is because a race with multiple opponents has benefited him, since he has a populist following that while limited, is more organized and loyal than those of his opponents, save perhaps for those of Cruz.
    What you’re also not factoring in is the “#NeverTrump” sentiment that is increasing in popularity, the more that Trump opens his mouth and paints himself as no different than the left. That in addition to his progressive beliefs are increasing the population of the aforementioned demographic opposed to him, which is why Trump has record levels of unpopularity not seen since the days of Nixon. If this had been a two man race from the beginning Cruz would have surpassed him long ago. They are going to offset those who vote for him out of fanatic loyalty, which is why he’s going to lose to Hillary. The #NeverTrump movement, which consists primarily of Cruz people but is not necessarily limited to them, is growing larger than the populist movement that backs Trump if it hasn’t done so already. If this was not the case, Trump would have won at least one State with more than just half of support.
    “What explains his 50+ point margin of victory in Utah?”
    The #NeverTrump sentiment, which DT feeds every time he opens his mouth and exposes himself as an ignorant, crass idiot. Even if i don’t agree with Mormons they at least hold more religious devotion than the sorry state of so called southern Christians who voted for Trump based on nothing more substantial than “hope and change.”
    “The answer is voter fraud. Much in the same way that Microsoft may have rigged the Iowa caucus to benefit the dearly departed Marco Rubio, a George Soros-owned firm may have cooked the books for Ted Cruz in Utah. With the continued success of Trump’s nationalist campaign, power brokers on both the left and right have pulled out all the stops to shut him down.”
    Voter Fraud? So an internet rumor making the usual rounds is the “answer” to you? You’re basing your entire article on a RUMOR? Wow. I’d expect this from Jezebel not from ROK. First of all, Soros has had financial deals with Trump so they already have a connection of sorts. Where has Soros had any kind of dealings with Cruz? To make this kind of dubious connection between Soros and Cruz, one would at least have to find some philosophical common ground between them, and NOWHERE has either Man expressed support for the ideas of the other. Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to conjecture that Soros MAY have used voter fraud in Utah, but NOT for Cruz’s benefit, but instead Kasich? Given that he is the default establishment representation in the race? The entire issue is moot until this can be investigated further by the proper authorities, but in the meantime you could have made a far more substantial argument by at least using some credible conjecture, and not merely anti Cruz pro Trump bullshit of the type the left likes do to for Hillary against both Cruz and Trump. As Gomez in the Addams Family would say: “dirty pool old man!”
    “While polls consistently showed Trump lagging behind Cruz in Utah, they also consistently showed Cruz failing to break the 50 percent margin, let alone approaching the 69 percent of the vote he actually got”
    That’s the thing about polls, they are NOT an exact science. If they were we would be using them to elect our Presidents and not the voting booths themselves. Polls were showing Romney to be in the lead over Obama and we all know how that turned out don’t we?
    “Because of this, there is a huge incentive for voter fraud in Utah. In the past month, the GOP establishment has openly stated that they are trying to force a brokered convention by denying Donald Trump the majority of delegates he needs to clinch the nomination. At this stage in the race, it’s mathematically impossible for either Ted Cruz or John Kasich to win the nomination: there simply aren’t enough delegates in play. However, by continuing to run, Cruz and Kasich can siphon off delegates from Trump, denying him a majority and allowing the GOP to steal the nomination from him in July.”
    No, there is only a rumor started by ONE GUY and a few news articles reporting it as if it was fact, and now your article reporting on it as if it was proven fact. As far as i recall, it’s only been Kasich who has openly argued in favor of a brokered convention, and he appropriately is catching flak for it. As i said earlier, Trump has not won a single State with more than half of the State’s support, if he doesn’t a brokered convention is a very real possibility but hey, if he can’t show he can win more than half of a State, how is that anyone’s fault BUT Trump’s? Even with the GOP using underhanded methods?
    I also find your remarks about it being a “mathematical impossibility” for Cruz to be able to win the nomination as sheer absurdity. You are right about Kasich but wrong about Cruz. Cruz currently has 465 delegates, with 944 still up for grabs. That therefore makes it indeed possible for Cruz to win the nomination, even if it is improbable…the word you should have used had you chosen to write your article with more than just a motivation for pro Trump bullshit.
    While Trump may indeed end up getting screwed out of the nomination because of a technicality, again, he is at fault for not being able to show himself as the clear frontrunner in a race that has mostly benefited him to date. Your earlier remarks make me think you believe they’d give it to Cruz, not realizing or not caring that the very reason Kasich is still in the race is because he is probably hoping that they will give it to him instead, screwing both Cruz and Trump out of the nomination the way they did with conservatives and libertarians back in 2012.
    “Notably, he did not endorse Cruz, because Romney and the GOP establishment don’t want Cruz to get the nomination”
    Well thanks for making at least ONE legitimate intelligent remark here Matt. Much appreciated. It’s also a reversal of your belief that the GOPEST would somehow cheat for Cruz, instead of doing so for their preferred establishment pick, Kasich.
    “it’s clear that Trump is the only choice for voters hoping to fight back against the globalist monstrosity that George Soros and his ilk represent.”
    You used the word “cuckservative” in this article, but the irony here is that you are coming across as a cuck for supporting a guy who believes in socialized medicine, TARP level bailouts, ran from a question asking if he’d defend the Constitution from sharia law, used illegals as part of his business ventures, has ties to the mafia, called for a ban on assault weapons and longer wait for handguns, admitted to owning Hitler’s speeches, favors the abuse of eminent domain such as he tried to do with Vera Coking, uses vile tasteless remarks about his opponents the same as the left, has done business deals with George Soros, owes millions if not billions to banks, lies consistently and even more than Obama, defends planned parenthood, supports homosexual marriage, supported democrats financially until just a few years ago, praised Obama and Hillary and invited the latter to his wedding, and so forth. YOU and all those who agree with you are the “cucks” here Matt. Get a clue.
    This is the 17th pro Trump article on ROK so far….so will someone finally admit to me some of the writers here are clearly in the tank for him? Because i’m seriously starting to wonder.
    Ted Cruz is the ONLY Constitutional conservative…the ONLY choice if any of you really are serious about trying to undo all the progressive damage done to the republic. If you vote for Trump, a guy who all those faults i listed and then some, you are only serving to replace the bullshit we’ve been fighting against with more of the same bullshit with a R attached to it.
    As Davy Crockett would say: “To hell with all of you, i’m going to Texas.”
    If this site turns into more of the same kind of bullshit i see from the left, i’ll be the first to say FUCK ROK and go somewhere else. I may just have to start my own site, since it’s becoming increasingly hard to find a site that doesn’t eventually sellout before long.

      2. Lmao oh man his wife worked there! Get a fuckin grip, Trump has been in bed with the worst of Democrats yet you parade him as some true conservative. You tell me what dude at 69-70 years old just up and changes into a conservative?

        1. Ted Cruz is a sleazy used car salesman that panders to Evangelical Christians when his record as a Christian is dubious at best. He’s a typical republican neocon warmonger. Any candidate is better than a neocon.

        2. And Trump threw money at Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy-literally the Holy Trinity of Established Democrats.

      1. I was born here through 2 immigrants that came here and became naturalized. How positively cliched of you to attempt to attack me with such a primitive endeavor. Yawn.
        Your master Trump has a Mother that was born in Scotland so given his own sciolist pedestrian remarks, he would be disqualified from the presidency as well.
        Come on Matt…let me show you how a real researcher demonstrates his penchant for communication. Let’s go tit for tat on Trump and Cruz and see who makes the real “cuck” argument.
        I’m calling you out Forney…if you’re not busy riding Trump’s jock that is.

      2. So what’s the fucking answer? Was it rigged yes or no? Why do I have to read a whole article about you pondering that question when I can do that myself?

      3. Forney, why don’t you go work for Trump? You once said that if you’re good at something, you should never do it for free. You’d make a great PR agent. Stop pretending to be independent and make your relationship with Trump official. At the very least, he’ll pay you, and you can stop asking for help online with Trump dollars in your coffers……

    3. Ted Cruz can’t constitutionally run for president. Ted Cruz shares a bed with a woman who belongs to an organization whose mission is to end US sovereignty. Ted Cruz dad is a fake minister to a church that doesn’t exist. Ted Cruz is the used car salesmen of congress. Ted Cruz want to have sex with rats (not making this up) http://www.prisonplanet.com/ted-cruz-i-wont-have-sex-with-rat-trump.html
      And for all those who say trump is a liberal his businesses are in New York City, Dade County, and Atlantic City. He had to support liberals to play ball.that’s how it works.
      Oh and another thing this whole Alpha male thing is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. This country is not a dog pack. And if you really want to know what a true alpha is its the guy who takes care of the group. Dogs don’t follow the head dog because he can kick their ass they follow him because he can lead them to the best hunting grounds and fight off the wolves and bears. Alpha behavior isn’t showing off who has the biggest balls or who can cause the biggest scene that’s beta behavior trying to pass as Alpha behavior. That’s why Ted Cruz will never be Donald Trump.

      1. No…wrong.
        Look up the concept of “Jus Sanguinius.” Its been in effect for years in the US ever since the naturalization act of 1790. Under the US Constitution Congress can add to existing naturalization laws which is what they have been doing piecemeal ever since, by basically making laws that allow people to possess citizenship even if they are born overseas or have one parent that wasn’t born here. Ask yourself how convoluted it would be if a pregnant American Woman gave birth overseas while on vacation? Jus Sanguinius sorts these sorts of matters out. By the way, were you aware there was no “born” American before the US even materialized? What do you think…the pilgrims were born here? lol
        And youre wrong about Heidi. She isn’t a member of the CFR, she was invited to attend a lecture with regard to global foreign policy, when it was her turn to speak she disagreed and said America had to retain its sovereignty in the global marketplace. Next time check your facts better. Ill provide proof if you so request it.
        And if you want to bring family into this, how about Melania being the daughter of a communist and a likely communist herself? Didn’t know that did you?
        And youre so hopelessly ignorant you don’t realize the “ratfucker” comment Cruz was referring to in his remark is an insider term used to describe someone who mudslings for a living. He was talking about Roger Stone., infamous GOP shit tosser. Get a clue.
        “he had to support liberals” way to wipe his ass by making excuses for him. What about Donald financially supporting democrats while they were pushing for amnesty? Was he ‘forced” to do that too? Youre pathetic.
        Trump isn’t an alpha so your words there are meaningless. A guy that has to mess with another man’s wife because he’s too chickenshit to debate him face to face is a pussy omega NOT an alpha.
        Face it…you support an anorchous cowardly shit talker who would get his ass handed to him in a figurative and literal fight with Cruz.
        You support a big money RINO who is a liberal posing as a republican.
        You have done no research on Trump, or you just don’t care that he sucks.
        Do not respond to me again or I will expose you further as his official nut sucker. Piss off.

        1. Hey guy lots of volume doesn’t equal intelligence and you’re also factually wrong about everything you said. Better work in those arms if you’re going to be Cruz’s personal water carrier.
          1. Heidi cruz on a CFR task force http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
          2. Jus sanguis only applies for US natural born citizen if both parents are citizens.
          3. Ted Cruz said that Donald Trump is a rat then said he would not copulate with him. Weird.
          4. Alpha vs Omega is dumb not worth a response. And actually it does matter who the first lady is. Case in point Hillary Clinton.
          5. Please do not result to name calling it weakens your argument and makes you appear very insecure. But then again you’re a Cruz supporter.

        2. Oh really? Let’s take a look at what you cited for proof then.
          1: Heidi Cruz disagrees with the CFR on their agenda
          http://blogcritics.org/anatomy-of-a-smear-heidi-cruz/
          2: Prove it.
          3: You didn’t bother to look up how the term fits today did you?
          http://www.salon.com/2015/01/28/roger_stone_vs_the_world_inside_the_conspiracy_filled_mind_of_legendary_gop_trickster/
          4: And did you realize Donald and Hillary are connected? He invited the Clintons to his wedding and has praised her in the past
          http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160314/donald-hillary-800.jpg
          5: Ok, conceded. You happened to catch me in a grump mood so my apologies. For the record i ask that you do a lot better research since many of your remarks to me before and now have been proven to be highly ignorant…no wonder you’re a low information Trump guy.
          Oh by the way, since you’re a fan of the mature approach, tell me why you support a guy who uses vile epithets often, such as when he called Cruz a pussy?

        3. 1. Did Heidi Cruz disagree with the CFR agenda when she was working as a top deputy to U.S. Trade Rep Robert Zoellick? Did her work for Zoellick support US sovereignty or did it help the globalist agenda? How about when she was working for Condelizza Rice in the Bush Administraition on the National Security Counsel as director for the Western Hemisphere? As for writing a few paragraphs against the agenda well that just goes to show that a Cruz will do one thing and say another, they don’t call her husband Lying Ted for nothing you know.
          2. Natural Born Citizen means a persons loyalty is beyond dispute. Therefore a person born a dual citizen or a person whose parents have conflicting citizenship cannot be a natural born citizen. (Ted Cruz falls under both categories)
          Here are four Supreme Court cases that confirm this:
          The Venus 12 U.S.8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
          Shanks vs Dupont (1830)
          Minor vs Happerset (1875)
          United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898)
          they are summed up here
          http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
          3. You are 100 percent right I didn’t read the article, I have now and you are correct. I still think it is a weird comment.
          4. I am aware. Donald Trump is a developer, among other things, Development at Trump’s level in metropolitan areas requires a lot of political maneuvering, with a lot of terrible politicians. So I don’t hold this against him.
          Just for the record I am not a Trump fan so to speak. I believe he is a very immoral person and an egomaniac. However the path of the globalists is the path of destruction so my support for him is because he is the only nationalist running.

        4. 1: When you can actually cite some evidence to support your copy pasted remarks here, i can begin addressing it piece by piece. Until then, i will continue to take your beliefs as highly dubious, especially since i proved you wrong on the Heidi Cruz so called CFR support.
          2: LOL Not aware that Donald Trump’s Mother was born in Scotland are you? Or are you going to say that Donald isn’t eligible either, since only one of his parents was born here, just like with Cruz? 😀
          Your 4 cases don’t actually support your premise. The one i’m familiar with: US vs Wong Kim Ark, actually found that the children of chinese immigrants who had come here to establish a business presence were indeed citizens. So D’oh! on you there!
          Now here’s some links for you:
          The Congress is authorized by the Constitution to create immigration law:
          “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
          https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf
          This includes the immigration act of 1790, which allowed the children of immigrants to claim citizenship regardless of the area of their birth.
          http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1790_naturalization_act.html
          Birthright citizenship in the US is not simply a matter of being born here (Jus Soli) but also a matter of whom the child in question was born to when born here in the US (Jus sanguinius)
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
          Now as far as legal precedent itself is concerned, bear in mind that to my knowledge every case brought against Cruz on the basis of him being ineligible has been thrown out, with this being the latest:
          http://conservativetribune.com/new-york-drops-surprise-cruz/
          The Venus SCOTUS decision had nothing specifically to do with children, it was a dispute primarily about trade. It spoke of children as a theoretical example and remarked that they were subject to the citizenship of the country they were born in, but it does NOT say anything about whether a child being born in the US with another parent born outside of it was therefore not a citizen. If you want to make that argument, it means you would have to allow for Cruz since his Mother was born here just as Trump has a Father born in the US. If you really want to make the case that Cruz is ineligible because of what was said in Venus, then you must therefore include Trump as well as being ineligible.
          Shanks Vs Dupont likewise doesn’t deal with natural birth citizenship, especially considering the revolving nature of the citizenship in question of the plaintiffs and the age in question of the plaintiff with regard to inheritance issues. This consideration as you take it was even rejected in US vs Kim Ark, which you cited earlier.
          https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/the-apuzzo-files-2/the-apuzzo-files-shanks-v-dupont/
          Your Venus and Shanks examples are further invalidated by the 14th amendment, which states:
          “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
          Since Cruz was born to a US citizen (His Mother) her rights and privileges to have him be considered a citizen himself as per Jus Sanguinius principle, as per the legal Constitutional right of the US Congress to decide since the immigration law of 1790, are valid.
          If what you said was correct then 1868 Blacks themselves would not be able to be considered citizens per the 14th, because they were all imported here prior to the passage of the 14th amendment when they were still considered property. We are living in a post 14th amendment world in case you weren’t aware.
          You do realize Minor vs Happerset was invalidated by the 19th amendment right? And since Chief Justice Morrison Waite said that the Constitution “”does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens” why would you believe that the Constitution would therefore deny Ted Cruz to be declared a natural born citizen when his place of birth is NOWHERE declared to be invalidated, especially given his Mother is a US citizen?
          Naturally born simply means being born to someone who was literally born in the US, like it was with Cruz’s Mother. This is different from merely using the word “born” which would indicate a literal birth in question. The Constitution uses both terms…ever stopped to wonder why?
          3: Good for you. I can work with you then.
          4: You are making excuses for him. Will you make excuses for his mob connections as well?
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
          5: Trump may be a nationalist but you say that like it’s necessarily a good thing. Hitler was a Nationalist too…would you have supported him as well?

        5. Are you aware that there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen, with the latter being a term well defined by common law however not specifically defined by the constitution? As for the 14th amendment invalidating previous court decisions this is false, the 14th amendment does nothing to redefine the term natural born citizen and has everything to do with emancipation of slaves.This was the explicit purpose of the 14th amendment and was well understood at the time if you are an originalist. The court decisions I provided you were to show the cases in the supreme court that defined Natural Born citizen. NBC is also well defined in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (which was written before the constitution, was well known to the founders, and is considered to be the defining book of common law for that time period) as such: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of whose parents are citizens.”
          The whole reason that the term natural born citizen was created was to disallow a person to be president who had mixed loyalties. Ted Cruz was a dual citizen of Canada and America until 2014 you do not deny that do you?
          Trump is Hitler, really?
          Robert Zoellick one of the biggest NWO, CFR guys out there the fact that Heidi Cruz served as his right hand under Bush is honestly all the evidence I need, yes I know it is guilt by association. However if you want to have a higher standard fine, but at what point do you think whom a person surrounds themselves with becomes pertinent in defining who they are? (example Obama and Bill Ayers, Saul Alinski, and Frank Davis)

        6. “Are you aware that there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen, with the latter being a term well defined by common law however not specifically defined by the constitution?”
          Very much so. I wrote a lengthy dissertation based on my analyses of the Constitution and current US law. I can post it for you if you like, You apparently don’t care for the fact that US law still operates by the Jus Sanguinius principle that states that a person may still be a citizen even if they are born overseas.
          Oh but please tell me how a pregnant US citizen giving birth in another country while vacationing automatically gives birth to a non US citizen? Please show me where the SCOTUS has proven this to be the case.
          “As for the 14th amendment invalidating previous court decisions this is false, the 14th amendment does nothing to redefine the term natural born citizen and has everything to do with emancipation of slaves.”
          No..WRONG. You were trying to make the case in your SCOTUS examples that natural born meant someone being born here, and since the 14th effectively makes it law that someone NOT being born here can still be considered a citizen (Like slave imported Blacks) my citation of it effectively proves you wrong, since Constitutional amendments > SCOTUS verdicts. If this wasn’t the case, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land even with the passage of the 14th.
          “The court decisions I provided you were to show the cases in the supreme court that defined Natural Born citizen.”
          No, they didn’t, their remarks on it were part of their obiter dictum and not part of a binding immigration precedent. If they were then this matter would have long since been settled and not still raging today.
          “NBC is also well defined in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (which was written before the constitution, was well known to the founders, and is considered to be the defining book of common law for that time period) as such: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of whose parents are citizens.””
          Irrelevant. We don’t operate by the “law of Nations” we operate by the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. By the way, were you aware 9 Founding Fathers were not born in the US? How then could they be considered citizens according to your logic?
          “The whole reason that the term natural born citizen was created was to disallow a person to be president who had mixed loyalties. Ted Cruz was a dual citizen of Canada and America until 2014 you do not deny that do you?”
          Prove it with regard to your remark about Cruz. Show me the facts. You keep ignoring the fact that Cruz has a US citizen parent, which makes your declarations questionable at best. You might have better luck making this argument against Rubio, since his parents were BOTH born in Cuba and they became citizens AFTER he was born here, making him an anchor baby.
          But just to quote from the immigration act of 1790 in order to show you why you’re wrong:
          “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
          “SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.”
          George Washington himself signed this bill into law…so yeah…tell me again how Cruz doesn’t fall under the auspices of this legal text?
          “http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
          “Trump is Hitler, really?”
          Strawman. I didn’t say he was Hitler, i said they both rose to power in the same way.
          “Robert Zoellick one of the biggest NWO, CFR guys out there the fact that Heidi Cruz served as his right hand under Bush is honestly all the evidence I need, yes I know it is guilt by association. However if you want to have a higher standard fine, but at what point do you think whom a person surrounds themselves with becomes pertinent in defining who they are? (example Obama and Bill Ayers, Saul Alinski, and Frank Davis)”
          It’s all the evidence you need because you want the results to match your bias. You dislike Cruz so any connection no matter how thin will be all the proof you need. You really think i can’t do the same with Trump? How about his dealings with George Soros? How about his connections to the mafia? His dad being arrested at a KKK rally? His White supremacist support? How about the many loans he has to large banks like Chase and JP Morgan? See how that works? Did you bother to investigate any of that? Probably not right?
          Who is more likely to have connections to the NWO? A simply politician or a billionaire captain of industry like Trump who has done dealings with a CFR affiliated oligarch like Soros?
          Oh by the way, you are aware Melania Trump is the daughter of a card carrying political communist…right? Does this mean that you support another communist spy gaining access to the WH?
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3279399/Will-Lady-Melania-Trump-s-extraordinary-journey-card-carrying-Communist-s-daughter-teenage-model-White-House-favorite-s-wife-revealed.html
          Spare me your bias.

        7. Where in the 14th amendment is the term “Natural Born Citizen” used? Could you please show me? Naturalized and NBC are not the same.
          Again there is a difference between citizen and NBC a person may be a citizen but not a NBC.
          As for the Travel thing I believe an argument can be made that a child was a NBC if both parents were citizens. Children born on military bases and embassies abroad are still considered NBC’s after all. Ted Cruz does not fit this however as his parents were residents of Canada at the time of birth and for four years after and his Dad was not a citizen.
          The US Judicial System operates under Common Law, Common Law is the dictionary so to speak that the words of the Constitution are given definitions by. “One third of the world’s population live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Common law originated during the Middle Ages in England,[7] and from there was propagated to the colonies of the British Empire, including India,[8] the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states)” from Wikipedia.
          Just curious reducto ad absurdum: Do you believe if you were to impregnate an Irainian hooker in Iran then that child could run for president of the US?
          The 1790 bill says that persons born oversees are to be “considered as” NBC’s, because they are not NBC. the 1790 act, in relation to NBC, was a temporary legal extension to allow people presidential eligibility that were the children of ambassadors during the revolutionary war.
          It was also fully repealed 5 years later for that aforementioned purpose.
          Furthermore the immigration act of 1790 was a limited bill designed to grant citizenship for the people of America as there had been no America before the revolutionary war. The Declaration of Independence, our most important national document, states that this country was founded for us and our posterity, the 1790 bill was created to establish the Americans at that time and their posterity as citizens.
          here is a good article on the subject of NBC if you would care to read it:
          https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/excellent-article-on-natural-born-citizenship/
          Trump and Hitler most certainly did not rise to power the same way that you would make that statement is ridiculous.
          The point with the Cruz’s remains the same: from 2000-2012 they spent there lives working with people and for causes they now claim to be totally against. As for Heidi Cruz working for Robert Zoellick that’s the equivalent of Pat Robertson’s wife working for CAIR in my estimation.
          To be honest I do not know much about the Trump connections you have listed, I will say however that Donald Trump works is very connected to a diverse group of people. Donald Trump is also independent financially which would grant said group much less leverage over him, unlike the Cruz’s who have spent entire political careers under a specific wing of the Neocon movement as apparatchiks.
          I got the attached image from CNN BTW http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politics/ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/
          I would further like to add that Canada does not recognize dual citizenship and until 2014 Ted Cruz would therefore be considered a sole citizen of Canada

        8. “Where in the 14th amendment is the term “Natural Born Citizen” used? Could you please show me? Naturalized and NBC are not the same.”
          I didn’t say it was in the 14th amendment, stop misinterpreting me. I said that in the US Constitution both “born” and “natural born” were used to distinguish how one becomes a citizen and one becomes a President here. Please try to keep up.
          “Ted Cruz does not fit this however as his parents were residents of Canada at the time of birth and for four years after and his Dad was not a citizen.”
          No…WRONG. She never became a permanent resident, never registered to vote, never applied for Citizenship and never renounced her US citizenship. Your remarks about his Father are ergo irrelevant.
          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
          “The US Judicial System operates under Common Law”
          The judicial system operates under the US Constitution, through which the Congress is legally tasked to create immigration law as per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, which is what they did when the passed the Naturalization act of 1790, which established that the children of immigrants were to be considered citizens. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that Cruz’s Mother was born here, which is what you keep ignoring. Show me what current US law says that a child of at least 1 US citizen parent born here is ergo NOT a US citizen themselves unless both parents are born here.
          “Just curious reducto ad absurdum: Do you believe if you were to impregnate an Irainian hooker in Iran then that child could run for president of the US?”
          Ad absurdum remark. This doesn’t apply at all to what we are discussing, since Cruz’s Father didn’t remain in Cuba. To answer you though: the child in your hypothetical would likely be an Iranian since the Parent was likely an Iranian citizen. Me impregnating her wouldn’t confer US citizenship since i would be considered a visiting tourist. Now conversely if a non US citizen visited the US and impregnated a US citizen female, that child would be a US citizen because of current US law vs the laws of other nations.
          Your argumentum ad ignorantiam arguments keep failing, since you constantly try to make the claim that Cruz isn’t eligible because he in essence hasn’t been proven to be eligible and fail to provide a legal basis for this consideration.
          “The 1790 bill says that persons born oversees are to be “considered as” NBC’s, because they are not NBC. the 1790 act, in relation to NBC, was a temporary legal extension to allow people presidential eligibility that were the children of ambassadors during the revolutionary war. ”
          “Natural” as it pertains to US Law since the act in question, was established to mean a person who was born from a US citizen parent. This is what i was trying to make you understand earlier. Born and “natural born” are not necessarily the same, which is why the US Constitution clarifies both. You have to be a “Natural born” citizen (one born from a US citizen born here) or simply a “citizen” to be President, whereas in the 14th it clarifies that a person simply need be “born” or “Naturalized” to be a US Citizen.
          Since you would need to be born here (to a legal US citizen in the US) or Naturalized (going through the naturalization process of the US) to be considered a legal US citizen, this therefore means that you would have to also be legally born to a US citizen (a Parent with a child naturally born to them regardless of the location) or a citizen (one already having established a legal precedent with the necessary conditions mentioned before) to be able to run for President. US law has supported this and even today Judges have constantly thrown out birthright cases against Ted Cruz. If you disagree please show me where US law says that since Ted Cruz has only one parent legally born in the US, with the other emigrating legally to the US, he therefore cannot be President. Prove it for me with US law, not with your interpretations of US law.
          And where does the 1790 law says that this legality as applied to children was “temporary?” Quote it for me.
          “It was also fully repealed 5 years later for that aforementioned purpose.”
          It was repealed and replaced BUT the provisions regarding children were not invalidated. US law simply continued operating on the premise that the children born of these types of immigrants were to be considered Natural so long as the basic conditions were met. Prove me wrong.
          “Furthermore the immigration act of 1790 was a limited bill designed to grant citizenship for the people of America as there had been no America before the revolutionary war. The Declaration of Independence, our most important national document, states that this country was founded for us and our posterity, the 1790 bill was created to establish the Americans at that time and their posterity as citizens.”
          One wonders how “limited” the bill was given that it was signed into law for the States by George Washington himself for the benefits of the States.
          Regardless, this still doesn’t invalidate the 14th and how it made people NOT born in the US citizens. Tell me, if Ted Cruz’s Father had been born a slave outside the US and imported from Africa TO the US, would he therefore NOT be considered a US citizen in your eyes even after the 14th Amendment? What would that then make Ted, especially given his Mother was a US citizen? I’m curious to hear your answer.
          “here is a good article on the subject of NBC if you would care to read it:”
          I read some of it, the most relevant parts since it’s rather lengthy. Now let me cite something for you to read, and let me do so more cogently. Please look at the screencap I’ve provided, taken from a book called: “Paths to Inclusion: The Integration of Migrants in the United States and Germany”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3499e8222d21ac43935bf52e781046c0810e77e6685fa32fd2586a020bca0261.png
          https://books.google.com/books?id=KoUR2fcXSKQC&q=weiner#v=onepage&q=outside&f=false
          “Trump and Hitler most certainly did not rise to power the same way that you would make that statement is ridiculous.”
          Oh really? Did Hitler not use the same populist appeal to the masses that Trump does now? Did Hitler not use White Nationalism in order to do so? Did Hitler not ostracize certain undesirable segments of the population? Did you know that Trump keeps a copy of Hitler’s speeches by his bed, by his very own admission?
          http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/donald-trump-marie-brenner-ivana-divorce
          “The point with the Cruz’s remains the same: from 2000-2012 they spent there lives working with people and for causes they now claim to be totally against. As for Heidi Cruz working for Robert Zoellick that’s the equivalent of Pat Robertson’s wife working for CAIR in my estimation.”
          So Donald Trump working with George Soros directly means less than Cruz working for the Bush administration indirectly? Does it also mean less than Donald’s indirect connection to the CFR? Please find me Heidi’s name on the membership roster of the CFR by the way. You can however find Soros’ name on there.
          http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html
          And that’s just it…it’s in “your estimation” that a second hand connection between Cruz to neocons means less than Donald’s direct progressive connections to the CFR affiliated George Soros, or his many donations to democrats, or his many loans from banks, or his own second hand connection to political communists in Slovenia. You are biased, plain and simple, so your words don’t surprise me here.
          “Donald Trump is also independent financially which would grant said group much less leverage over him ”
          That all depends on how much he actually owes these banks, doesn’t it?
          http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/22/every-bank-wall-street-owns-donald-trump/
          Oh but of course…Cruz is owned by banks because Heidi works at one and they took out one loan from them, but Trump isn’t even though he’s taken out SEVERAL loans from banks right? Not to mention he owns shares in Goldman Sachs? lol.
          http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/not-just-ted-cruz-most-gop-candidates-have-financial-ties-to-goldman-sachs/
          “I would further like to add that Canada does not recognize dual citizenship and until 2014 Ted Cruz would therefore be considered a sole citizen of Canada”
          Under past present and current US law, Cruz is indeed a citizen and therefore legally qualified to run for President because he was naturally born to a US citizen parent. You have not proven that Ted was a “dual citizen” and until you do this like all your other remarks are found seriously lacking in merit.

        10. “I didn’t say it was in the 14th amendment, stop misinterpreting me. I said that in the US Constitution both “born” and “natural born” were used to distinguish how one becomes a citizen and one becomes a President here. Please try to keep up.”
          The Constitution was written in the simplest, clearest terms of the time every word in it was chosen carefully which is why I make a point to illustrate the distinction between citizen and NBC, every amendment carries with it this tradition; that the powers not enumerated specifically in the Constitution are reserved the states and to the people, not congress.
          Now I asked this because Congress does not have the authority to change what an NBC is Article 1 Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” Furthermore the 10th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can legislate who is and isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. And if you understood the Declaration of Independence you would know why.
          But I will leave it to the honorable representative from Ohio to tell you why you are hilariously wrong on the issue:
          “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
          There you go from the man who wrote the 14th Amendment himself: an NBC is a child born from 2 citizens on American Soil! And Congress can’t change that!
          “No…WRONG. She never became a permanent resident, never registered to vote, never applied for Citizenship and never renounced her US citizenship. Your remarks about his Father are ergo irrelevant.”
          I meant she lived in Canada with Tike Ted.
          http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…
          “The US Judicial System operates under Common Law”
          “The judicial system operates under the US Constitution, through which the Congress is legally tasked to create immigration law as per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, which is what they did when the passed the Naturalization act of 1790, which established that the children of immigrants were to be considered citizens. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that Cruz’s Mother was born here, which is what you keep ignoring. Show me what current US law says that a child of at least 1 US citizen parent born here is ergo NOT a US citizen themselves unless both parents are born here.”
          Straw Man we are not debating citizenship, we are debating Natural Born Citizenship.
          “Just curious reducto ad absurdum: Do you believe if you were to impregnate an Irainian hooker in Iran then that child could run for president of the US?”
          “Ad absurdum remark. This doesn’t apply at all to what we are discussing, since Cruz’s Father didn’t remain in Cuba. To answer you though: the child in your hypothetical would likely be an Iranian since the Parent was likely an Iranian citizen. Me impregnating her wouldn’t confer US citizenship since i would be considered a visiting tourist. Now conversely if a non US citizen visited the US and impregnated a US citizen female, that child would be a US citizen because of current US law vs the laws of other nations.
          Your argumentum ad ignorantiam arguments keep failing, since you constantly try to make the claim that Cruz isn’t eligible because he in essence hasn’t been proven to be eligible and fail to provide a legal basis for this consideration.”
          Just curious how tourism invalidates jus sanguine?
          Here is another question then with less wiggle room: every year American women marry Saudi nationals and most all of them go back to Saudi Arabia with their husbands. After giving birth some manage to escape that hellhole leaving behind their children. When that child turns 21 and then moves to the US what would prevent said child from running for president at age 35?
          Better yet due to jus soli foreign nationals giving birth on us soil have their children considered citizens. That child then spends no more than a day in this country goes back to their native land and then gives birth to a child sometime in the future with a father of said native land. What would prevent the latter child from then coming to the US at 21 and running for president at age 35?
          Will you not at least concede that the spirit of Natural Born Citizenship was designed to prevent such occurrences?
          “Natural” as it pertains to US Law since the act in question, was established to mean a person who was born from a US citizen parent. This is what i was trying to make you understand earlier. Born and “natural born” are not necessarily the same, which is why the US Constitution clarifies both. You have to be a “Natural born” citizen (one born from a US citizen born here) or simply a “citizen” to be President, whereas in the 14th it clarifies that a person simply need be “born” or “Naturalized” to be a US Citizen.”
          “(one born from a US citizen born here)” – Ted Cruz was born in Canada
          14th amendment does not change this as shown above
          No “Natural” as in Natural Born Citizen, a term clearly know at the time through the works of Vattel to mean 2 parents one land. This is to not allow for foreign influence per Jon Jay when he wrote to GW at the constitutional convention: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”[emphasis added]
          As further proof (as well as tying into why the 1790 immigration law was written and repealed) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html too lengthy for me to post here. (it has interesting things to say about Canada too)
          As you can see the spirit of the law was to disallow any person from the presidency who would be subject to foreign influence IE Cruz born and lived in Canada, was a Canadian citizen, Cruz’s dad was a Cuban national at the time of his birth.
          Laws are not based on innuendo they are based on clear terms which is why Natural Born Citizen is used in lieu of citizen it is meant to describe two different things.
          “Since you would need to be born here (to a legal US citizen in the US) or Naturalized (going through the naturalization process of the US) to be considered a legal US citizen, this therefore means that you would have to also be legally born to a US citizen (a Parent with a child naturally born to them regardless of the location) or a citizen (one already having established a legal precedent with the necessary conditions mentioned before) to be able to run for President. US law has supported this and even today Judges have constantly thrown out birthright cases against Ted Cruz. If you disagree please show me where US law says that since Ted Cruz has only one parent legally born in the US, with the other emigrating legally to the US, he therefore cannot be President. Prove it for me with US law, not with your interpretations of US law.”
          I’ve already demonstrated that a Natural Born Citizen was considered to be from 2 parents born on US soil. I’ve proven this from the works of Vattel, and this can be seen through the opinions of John Jay and the commentaries of the constitution.
          Because every presidential before BO had the good sense to be an NBC, as I have argued the term means, there are very little cases out there and most all if not all have been dismissed because of lack of standing. Why do you think there have been no candidates until BO and Ted who have not qualified as an NBC as I have described it in our entire history I ask?
          But here are three more Supreme Court cases for you:
          Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
          The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
          Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
          “And where does the 1790 law says that this legality as applied to children was “temporary?” Quote it for me.”
          My mistake in not explaining thoroughly: it was temporary because it was always meant to be repealed. The 1790 bill amongst other things acted as a grace period for people who fought in the revolution (many POW’s were held oversees), and who lived on the frontier to get right with the new government. The clause was temporary in that it was meant to expire and the loophole would no longer exist in five years. Not temporary for the children who would be grandfathered in it.
          “It was repealed and replaced BUT the provisions regarding children were not invalidated. US law simply continued operating on the premise that the children born of these types of immigrants were to be considered Natural so long as the basic conditions were met. Prove me wrong.”
          Yes it is invalidated, that is what repealing a law does it invalidates it. That is why that clause is conspicuously absent in the 1795 bill. That was too easy are you getting desperate Daniel?
          “Furthermore the immigration act of 1790 was a limited bill designed to grant citizenship for the people of America as there had been no America before the revolutionary war. The Declaration of Independence, our most important national document, states that this country was founded for us and our posterity, the 1790 bill was created to establish the Americans at that time and their posterity as citizens.”
          One wonders how “limited” the bill was given that it was signed into law for the States by George Washington himself for the benefits of the States.
          Regardless, this still doesn’t invalidate the 14th and how it made people NOT born in the US citizens. Tell me, if Ted Cruz’s Father had been born a slave outside the US and imported from Africa TO the US, would he therefore NOT be considered a US citizen in your eyes even after the 14th Amendment? What would that then make Ted, especially given his Mother was a US citizen? I’m curious to hear your answer.
          Limited in time-see above.
          14th amendment-see above
          If Ted Cruz’s dad was imported as a slave then he would have been a citizen and his mother would have been a citizen which would have made Ted an NBC if Ted had been born after 1865. However Ted’s dad did not receive citizenship till 2005 a full 35 years after Ted was born (natural BORN citizen) and Ted was also not born in America so your query falls short of its goal.
          “I read some of it, the most relevant parts since it’s rather lengthy. Now let me cite something for you to read, and let me do so more cogently. Please look at the screencap I’ve provided, taken from a book called: “Paths to Inclusion: The Integration of Migrants in the United States and Germany”
          https://books.google.com/books…
          I completely agree citizenship is granted by these methods, NBC is a much more stringent standard.
          “Oh really? Did Hitler not use the same populist appeal to the masses that Trump does now? Did Hitler not use White Nationalism in order to do so? Did Hitler not ostracize certain undesirable segments of the population? Did you know that Trump keeps a copy of Hitler’s speeches by his bed, by his very own admission?”
          Hitler rose to prominence by inciting an Armed Revolution in Bavaria, Trump rose to prominence by building structures in Manhattan.
          Hitler wrote Mein Kamp, Trump wrote Art of the Deal
          Hitler had a private army, Trump has supporters.
          Weimar Republic =/= U.S. Constitutional Republic
          Hitler was a National Socialist, Trump runs on the Blue Dog Democrat platform of the 80’s
          Hitler was a sexually frustrated loser before he came to power, Trump was not.
          Just about every southern democrat from Jim crow to the 80’s used populism, white nationalism, and ostracized minorities (far worse than Trump might I add) were they Hitler?
          Hitler blamed the Jews for loosing ww1 by stabbing Germany in the back, Trump says Mexico sends a disproportionate number of criminals as illegal aliens.
          Hitler did not use white nationalism he used German Ultra Nationalism.
          Thousands of politicians study Hitler’s speeches they are famous in their ability to persuade people.
          Trump ostracizes segments of the population because those segments of the population have racist tendencies themselves and are used to white people bending backwards over for them. Trump is also an ass I give you that.
          “So Donald Trump working with George Soros directly means less than Cruz working for the Bush administration indirectly? Does it also mean less than Donald’s indirect connection to the CFR? Please find me Heidi’s name on the membership roster of the CFR by the way. You can however find Soros’ name on there.”
          Ted Cruz worked directly for Bush he even got Bush to appoint John Roberts to the SCOTUS. Yes it does mean less: Ted/Heidi Cruz spent their whole professional lives working for those types, Donald works for himself.
          “And that’s just it…it’s in “your estimation” that a second hand connection between Cruz to neocons means less than Donald’s direct progressive connections to the CFR affiliated George Soros, or his many donations to democrats, or his many loans from banks, or his own second hand connection to political communists in Slovenia. You are biased, plain and simple, so your words don’t surprise me here.”
          If your case is that Donald Trump has skeletons in his closet and may not be who he says he is I concede. If your argument is that this makes Ted Cruz better than him I disagree for the fact that Ted Cruz is far more aligned with these nefarious elements than Trump. I use in my estimation because conspiracy is nearly impossible to prove btw. Illustration: if you were to draw a Venn diagram with Trump and the elements you described you would see a big circle overlapping with a lot of little circles. With Ted Cruz you would have one circle.
          “That all depends on how much he actually owes these banks, doesn’t it?”
          Pure speculation, besides Trump’s brand alone is worth Billions.
          “Oh but of course…Cruz is owned by banks because Heidi works at one and they took out one loan from them, but Trump isn’t even though he’s taken out SEVERAL loans from banks right? Not to mention he owns shares in Goldman Sachs? lol.”
          Never made that argument: I myself have a home loan with a bank I am not controlled by the bank. Or am I? lol
          “Under past present and current US law, Cruz is indeed a citizen and therefore legally qualified to run for President because he was naturally born to a US citizen parent. You have not proven that Ted was a “dual citizen” and until you do this like all your other remarks are found seriously lacking in merit.”
          I have indeed proven Ted Cruz was a dual citizen I gave you his renouncement of citizenship, for you to state otherwise reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Unless of course it is because I have not proven he is a citizen of America.
          As for proof for the NBC argument I have given you the definition of NBC as defined by the Framers of the Constitution, the source book of said definition, what the author of the 14th amendment thought of NBC, and 7 SCOTUS cases.
          Your rebuttal to said proof has been a minor clause in a repealed bill, zero SCOTUS cases, and a faulty understanding of the 14th amendment.

        11. “Now I asked this because Congress does not have the authority to change what an NBC is Article 1 Section 8: ”
          Wrong. That is the very power that the Constitution is granting them precisely because it leaves the term itself ambiguous for future generations. For Congress to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” it would therefore be necessary to flesh out what rules of naturalization cover what types of people applying for citizenship or having their citizenship in question because of place of birth. You seem to forget that the native Americans were the ONLY naturally born peoples of the US, since before July 2 1776 EVERY American in British controlled America was considered a British subject, so therefore any such laws that confer legal naturalization, literal or figurative, would have to take as a starting position the fact that no one here originated naturally in the first place.
          If this was not the case, why then did the Constitution not specifically define what exactly a “citizen” was and was not? I’ll tell you why. Because the Constitution was the opening framework of the US, a binding point to be used as a reference for any such laws that were to be built on top of it. It was not meant to be all encompassing, which is why the Founders left us the amendment process (for us to Constitutionally add to the Constitution) as well as what powers specifically the FED is tasked with operating or otherwise enforcing, the definitions of citizenship included.
          This is why your “Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can legislate who is and isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. And if you understood the Declaration of Independence you would know why” is fundamentally flawed. You ignore what powers the FED is tasked with because of your solipsist belief that you know more than the Founders or the Constitutional scholars of today that follow in their footsteps. You also ignore the fact that the Constitution doesn’t just list obvious powers, but “implied” powers as well, such as Naturalization laws and the definitions they contain.
          Oh but please, having read the DOI on more than one occasion, please provide for me what specific reference from it that supports your premise here.
          As far as your quoted remarks about Bingham, bear in mind he was ONE of FIFTEEN Men who were directly responsible for the creation of the 14th amendment and as such, his opinion as it stands and as you would have it be considered, is NOT binding Constitutional precedence unless otherwise noted. If you think otherwise, please cite for me from the Constitution where his remarks as you quoted to support your argument exist as part of the Constitutional historic record…if you can.
          Where did Mr Bingham address the issue of a person having one citizen parent, and how that would therefore invalidate their presumed legitimacy to being considered a legal US citizen? Can you quote that for me please?
          “I meant she lived in Canada with Tike Ted.”
          Irrelevant. There are American citizens living abroad who are STILL considered American citizens in spite of such. No less an authority than the IRS speaks to this.
          https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-and-Resident-Aliens-Abroad
          “Straw Man we are not debating citizenship, we are debating Natural Born Citizenship.”
          Then you are debating a specious argument, since you don’t seem to want to touch the fact that Cruz’s Mother being a born citizen of the US automatically makes him one as well per Jus Sanguinis.
          “Just curious how tourism invalidates jus sanguine?”
          Because it would conflict with the Citizenship laws of the Country in which the child was conceived, putting the US Constitution in opposition with those laws. See the Elian Gonzalez custody case for a basic and tethered understanding of this principle.
          “Here is another question then with less wiggle room: every year American women marry Saudi nationals and most all of them go back to Saudi Arabia with their husbands. After giving birth some manage to escape that hellhole leaving behind their children. When that child turns 21 and then moves to the US what would prevent said child from running for president at age 35?”
          In that kind of less orthodox instance, other factors come into play. I’m assuming you are de facto designating the Father as being a naturally born citizen of that “hellhole” so my response will be derived from therein.
          This website of current US law cites just what the likely outcome would be given your example:
          ​
          “4. Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother and Foreign National Father​ [10]
          ​
          A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:​
          ​•The child was born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934;​
          ​•The child’s father is a foreign national;​
          ​•The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and​
          ​•The child’s U.S. citizen mother resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth.​”
          (Most of the above perfectly qualifies Ted Cruz to be considered a US Citizen, given that his family meet most of the listed criteria per the current US CAIS policy mandates.)
          Now as far as your specific example is concerned, Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5 of the US Constitution makes it abundantly clear that in order to be eligible for President, the person in question also has to have been: “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
          So to answer your question, that former child/legal adult would have to wait 14 years after his 21st birthday before he could attempt to run for President as per the eligibility requirement of the US Constitution.
          https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
          “Better yet due to jus soli foreign nationals giving birth on us soil have their children considered citizens. That child then spends no more than a day in this country goes back to their native land and then gives birth to a child sometime in the future with a father of said native land. What would prevent the latter child from then coming to the US at 21 and running for president at age 35?”
          What kind of foreign “national” are you referring to? There is more than one kind so the question itself is murky at best. And before i answer any more of your questions you will have to start doing the same, since you have ignored my questions to you thus far, such as my “What if Ted Cruz’s Father was born a slave” query.
          “Will you not at least concede that the spirit of Natural Born Citizenship was designed to prevent such occurrences?”
          It was designed to prevent conflicting loyalties, but given that 200+ years of legal US law has been at odds with 200+ years of conflicting layman’s views, one realizes that the issue in question is not going to be solved unless an understanding of both sides of the argument is weighed against the facts of the matter.
          ” Ted Cruz was born in Canada
          14th amendment does not change this as shown above”
          His Mother was born here. You cannot strip citizenship from a child because only one Parent at the time of birth was a US citizen. See my earlier citation of current CAIS law.
          “No “Natural” as in Natural Born Citizen, a term clearly know at the time through the works of Vattel to mean 2 parents one land. ”
          Vattel was a philosopher who died before the US Constitution was even ratified, and NONE of his remarks are considered part and parcel of the US constitution. You might also stop trying to cherry-pick from Vattel, given that he also said this:
          “[De Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations.”
          As you can see, it’s not as clear cut as you make it seem, since even Vattel acknowledges that the immigration/citizenship laws in question of these Countries would need to be acknowledged as undeniable regardless of his suppositions.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ee15be7a92d8501d8ebfcd9bcf0ce2ad2533e1fa609cd11a1f090d4b2ebc354.png
          https://books.google.com/books?id=6UUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA673&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
          I see your John Jay remark and raise you one from the author of the Constitution, James Madison, when he defended the citizenship of William Smith (born under British sovereignty) when he said this:
          “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.”
          Madison was essentially making the case that because Smith WANTED to be considered a US citizen (Jus Sanguinis) despite being born to British subjects, and despite being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence, he should be considered one, since he never swore allegiance to the Crown and South Carolina’s independence (part of the US independence) effectively removed any British sovereignty laws over the Continental US and all subjects therein…including him.
          So is Madison wrong When he said all this in 1789? By your logic, he should have found Smith a non citizen, since he was a British citizen prior to July 2 1776 because of his British Parents.
          http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
          This doesn’t even touch on judge Zepheniah Smith’s remarks on the subject, when he said this some 6 years later:
          “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.””
          But please…show me where he made an exception for the office of the Presidency…if you can.
          https://books.google.com/books?id=dBE4AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA163&ots=V8MmgscC2n&dq=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20an%20established%20maxim%2C%20received%20by%20all%20political%20writers%22&pg=PA163#v=snippet&q=aliens&f=false
          Your last link doesn’t invalidate the current US CAIS law, and unless you can find where in the Constitution it is illegal, your admission there is considered null and void.
          “IE Cruz born and lived in Canada, was a Canadian citizen, Cruz’s dad was a Cuban national at the time of his birth.”
          Cruz’s Father had become a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth in Canada but the Constitution makes no exception for a person having only one US citizen parent in order to strip them of being ineligible for President. You have as yet failed to provide any Constitutional basis for this line of thinking’ you’ve only provided supposition and a specious understanding of Constitutional principle as well as cherry-picked remarks from people long since deceased.
          “Laws are not based on innuendo they are based on clear terms which is why ”
          Which is why Cruz is eligible to become President. The Constitution supports it, Constitutional judges support it, current US law supports it.

        12. “Wrong. That is the very power that the Constitution is granting them precisely because it leaves the term itself ambiguous for future generations. For Congress to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” it would therefore be necessary to flesh out what rules of naturalization cover what types of people applying for citizenship or having their citizenship in question because of place of birth. You seem to forget that the native Americans were the ONLY naturally born peoples of the US, since before July 2 1776 EVERY American in British controlled America was considered a British subject, so therefore any such laws that confer legal naturalization, literal or figurative, would have to take as a starting position the fact that no one here originated naturally in the first place.”
          No Naturalization is the process of an immigrant becoming a citizen, NBC’s are not immigrants so Congress is not granted authority to write laws regarding them. Think of it this way the Constitution grants congress the right to levy tariffs, import duties, and excise taxes, however Congress could not tax income as income tax was not a specifically enumerated power and therefore had to pass the 16th amendment to do so.
          The Constitution Specifies three types of citizens NBC’s, citizens, and those people who lived at the time of the constitution. It would obviously be absurd if we naturalized everyone the same way as at the beginning of the republic. That argument is not really germane to this debate. Furthermore the Preamble of the Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” So there is your starting point.
          “If this was not the case, why then did the Constitution not specifically define what exactly a “citizen” was and was not? I’ll tell you why. Because the Constitution was the opening framework of the US, a binding point to be used as a reference for any such laws that were to be built on top of it. It was not meant to be all encompassing, which is why the Founders left us the amendment process (for us to Constitutionally add to the Constitution) as well as what powers specifically the FED is tasked with operating or otherwise enforcing, the definitions of citizenship included.”
          Yes I agree except that nowhere in the constitution is congress allowed to define what citizenship is. If congress can define the terms used in the constitution then the constitution not really a binding document at all now is it. This type of thinking is what has allowed congress to abuse the commerce clause and the general welfare clause for decades.
          “Oh but please, having read the DOI on more than one occasion, please provide for me what specific reference from it that supports your premise here.”
          I will try to be a succinct as I can because this is a fairly philosophical point.
          The Declaration of Independence is a document of Natural Law, the Constitution is a document of the laws of Man. The constitution was also written to be in accord with natural law. Natural Born Citizen is Natural law (in its most basic form it means that you have more of a right to the country than the government does). As such any law from congress to regulate NBC would put congress in conflict with natural law. Furthermore if congress can regulate who is and isn’t a Natural Born Citizen then it has the power to dispossess the people of the country from their lands and rights. This is further contrary to what the DOI stands for as most of the DOI consists of the abuses of the King of England.
          “As far as your quoted remarks about Bingham, bear in mind he was ONE of FIFTEEN Men who were directly responsible for the creation of the 14th amendment and as such, his opinion as it stands and as you would have it be considered, is NOT binding Constitutional precedence unless otherwise noted. If you think otherwise, please cite for me from the Constitution where his remarks as you quoted to support your argument exist as part of the Constitutional historic record…if you can.”
          “Where did Mr Bingham address the issue of a person having one citizen parent, and how that would therefore invalidate their presumed legitimacy to being considered a legal US citizen? Can you quote that for me please?”
          It’s a very strong proof, and I believe he addressed it when he stated that an NBC was of two citizen parents born in America.
          “So to answer your question, that former child/legal adult would have to wait 14 years after his 21st birthday before he could attempt to run for President as per the eligibility requirement of the US Constitution.”
          Do you see a problem?
          It was designed to prevent conflicting loyalties, but given that 200+ years of legal US law has been at odds with 200+ years of conflicting layman’s views, one realizes that the issue in question is not going to be solved unless an understanding of both sides of the argument is weighed against the facts of the matter.
          Good obfuscation. Fact: Ted Cruz was born in Canada as a Canadian citizen to a father who had Canadian citizenship.
          His Mother was born here. You cannot strip citizenship from a child because only one Parent at the time of birth was a US citizen. See my earlier citation of current CAIS law.
          No one is stripping Cruz of citizenship, Natural Born Citizenship was simply never conferred to him.
          Did you know that Ted Cruz will not release is CRBA form? And all other documents related to his citizenship status are sealed?
          http://northamericanlawcenter.org/ted-cruz-is-in-the-u-s-senate-illegally/#.VwcngPkrLIU
          “[De Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations.”
          Citizen vs NBC again we are not debating naturalization.
          “As you can see, it’s not as clear cut as you make it seem, since even Vattel acknowledges that the immigration/citizenship laws in question of these Countries would need to be acknowledged as undeniable regardless of his suppositions.”
          https://books.google.com/books…
          Vattel is basically saying that if a person becomes a citizen through naturalization, then marries a citizen their children would be an NBC if said child is born in the country, which is correct. He further says that children born of citizens may themselves be citizens if born in another country, he does not however say that said children would be considered natives, or NBC.
          “Thus the rule of Vattel is controlled by the intention with which the father takes up his abode in the foreign country” Fact: Ted Cruz dad immigrated to Canada, became a Canadian Citizen, then had Ted then stayed in Canada for 4 years after his birth. By Vattel Ted has a stronger claim to Canadian citizenship than American Citizenship.
          “I see your John Jay remark and raise you one from the author of the Constitution, James Madison, when he defended the citizenship of William Smith (born under British sovereignty) when he said this:”
          “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.”
          “Madison was essentially making the case that because Smith WANTED to be considered a US citizen (Jus Sanguinis) despite being born to British subjects, and despite being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence, he should be considered one, since he never swore allegiance to the Crown and South Carolina’s independence (part of the US independence) effectively removed any British sovereignty laws over the Continental US and all subjects therein…including him.
          So is Madison wrong When he said all this in 1789? By your logic, he should have found Smith a non citizen, since he was a British citizen prior to July 2 1776 because of his British Parents.”
          For this reason the “considered as natural born citizens clause” was added to the 1790 Naturalization and Immigration act. I refer you to the Commentaries on the Constitution.
          § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.
          http://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/
          This doesn’t even touch on judge Zepheniah Smith’s remarks on the subject, when he said this some 6 years later:
          “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.””
          Because the 1795 immigration and naturalization act had not been passed yet. Hence the considered as.
          Its been a good debate Daniel, but I don’t have the energy to keep this up I will read your response if you choose to make one, however I am sure that I will end up just agreeing to disagree with you.

    4. If Trump wins the nomination, half the established conservatives and their followers will join up with Hilary Clinton rather than see a celebrity TV star who got bankrupt become president. Not to mention that serious conservative Christians would rather eat lead rather than have a guy who built casinos with strip clubs and got multiple wives become President of the United States.

      1. I can’t condone a vote for that hag. I’ve spoken with people on my side who are seriously contemplating a scorched earth approach because of Donald Trump, which is one i don’t agree with. I’d rather they stay home and not pervert their vote than vote for that p.o.s.
        I understand their anger, i just don’t agree with it. Anger tends to cloud the issues and causes stupid decisions, such as the anger voters felt at Bush nearly 8 years ago.
        Obama= one big ass mistake America.

        1. I don’t necessarily support Clinton either. But I can see the republican elites backing a demon they know against a freak that they don’t want to know.

        2. True, which is why they’re hedging their bets, or at least giving the impression of such.
          There’s a lot to factor in, such as:
          – Trump bragging about getting support from them. Exactly what was discussed?
          -Then there’s their support of Ted Cruz, which is nothing more than “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle being played to full effect.
          -Then there’s Kasich. Why is he still in the race, unless he believes there’s some real advantage to it? Perhaps he thinks he’s in a win win situation…Trump or Cruz or even Clinton (as he recently remarked) might offer him a VP spot, or the GOPEST themselves might cheat one of the others or both out of the nomination and reward it to him through brokered convention treachery. At this point his involvement benefits Trump, because it prevents a united AntiTrump vote.
          At this point, even if Trump wins, he might be another Bush or even worse, and he’s sure to guarantee a D winning in 8 if not 4 years, just as Bush jr led to Obama.
          All this is meaningless to me, since i’m already resigned to the belief that Trump will beat Cruz, and Hillary will beat Trump, and the US will be formally reinvented as the United States Socialist Republic in 3 years or less.

        3. Funny enough, most of the Trump-supporters I speak to see him as the only way to defeat Hilary Clinton. The sad truth is that the opposite is true: If Cruz wins, the Trump fans have no choice but to vote for him because he’s the lesser of two evils. If Trump wins, a healthy number of Republicans will vote for Clinton because they’d rather not see the White House fall to a celebrity with no political experience and no statesmanship. A win for Trump is a guaranteed way for Clinton to get to the White House, since nobody with so much as a D in political science would vote for a whore-mongering celebrity billionaire who got bankrupt before and whose best talent is his ability to piss people off.
          It’s just funny to see these people who pride themselves on bringing the truth that the media won’t give you suddenly turn into propaganda machines for a guy who lacks substance in his ways. A former advocate of gun control and abortion is now suddenly the Republican frontrunner? Just because he can piss off SJWs? The debate against the SJWs is a cultural thing, but one that is absolutely juvenile when compared to politics that determine where billions of dollars of taxpayer money goes and which country to ally with. Just because someone says something against SJWs doesn’t guarantee that person is automatically perfect for the job of ruling. I learned that myself the hard way when my alt-right “friends” turned on me for “advocating R-type positions” and for not being a white supremacist who cries about “white genocide”. The same idiots who peddle “Game” and advocate sex with whores over creating families are the same morons crying and panicking about how white people are getting out-bred by brown people. God damn, these people are fucking idiots………

        4. Not to mention his current belief in socialized medicine. Sure he won’t outright say it, but he uses the semantics of “having the government pay for it” which is what we have now in essence with Obamacare.
          These people who oppose Obama because of Obamacare and opposed Romney because Romneycare led to it, now find themselves supporting the Man behind Trumpcare because…because…well because “TRUMP SAYS HE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” as they put it in their infinite groupthink endeavors.
          Your remarks are really spot on. I like to tell them that if we are going to get behind someone because of how non PC he is, well then why don’t we vote for Howard Stern, or Stone Cold Steve Austin since they are both pretty non PC and tell it like it is.
          You are spot on in your latter remarks as well. I always smirk when i see White guys decrying the near extinction of their race/culture, yet these are the same guys who bang every girl that comes along, most of them non White girls (because they’re too “problematic” according to them) and end up getting them pregnant, which ends up creating multiracial progeny which adds further to the extinction of White people as a whole that they were originally bitching about. Where is the logic in this?
          Damn, near everything you said might as well have been pulled out of the cognitive center of my brain. Good show. It’s always a blast to know i’m not the only one thinking these thoughts.
          Right now even ROK isn’t safe from Trumpolicism, there’s been at least 17 articles in support of Trump (i must confess to being responsible for one of them but in my defense i wrote it BEFORE he went off the deep end) and there will undoubtedly be many more, especially since Roosh himself endorsed Trump and through a mistaken interpretation of Cruz’s involvement in the entire Heidi Cruz-Melania Trump fiasco, which the media of course is playing to the hilt. Forney’s latest article (the one we’re commenting on) is probably the worst, go reread it for yourself and tell me if it doesn’t come across as Trumpaganda. It’s also interesting that because my last name implies a latino correlation, Forney himself said that my disagreement with Trump and his supporting article of him must be because i am an illegal alien…nevermind the fact that my Parents came here legally and became naturalized, ergo i am not illegal in any Constitutional sense of the word. I personally think all the illegal aliens should be thrown out, i just don’t think Trump will deliver, especially given his past exploitation of them for their cheap labor. Forney of course, would prefer to ignore this.
          My own article discouraging Trump was turned down, and i strongly suspect politics was the principal reason. I will try again with another article just to see if this was coincidental or if it is deliberate censorship in order to protect Trump.

        5. >I’ve spoken with people on my side who are seriously contemplating a scorched earth approach because of Donald Trump, which is one i don’t agree with.
          Yes, I’d agree a guaranteed Hillary victory is about as “scorched earth” as it can get. It’s what the Soros-owned establishment wants, though.
          All those poor women. They’re the primary victims of war, you know…
          http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-women-have-always-been-the-primary-victims-of-war-women-lose-their-husbands-their-fathers-hillary-clinton-47-10-70.jpg

        6. If she follows the trend of progressive presidents, she will try to out do Obama when it comes to screwing over US liberties and sovereignty…and she will succeed.
          Given that she is beholden to muslim overseas interests (perhaps Benghazi was her way of demonstrating loyalty in addition to her espionage role) and adding to her feminism and bisexual nature with the concomitant effect of her potentially having the ability to nominate 1-4 justices within her lifetime and all of them being more radical that the garbage we have in SCOTUS right now, you can pretty much kiss legitimate Constitutional rights goodbye.
          This hag represents everything that is wrong with females, and everything that we here at ROK oppose.
          Given that Trumpo and her are probably still friends, he’s probably running as a favor to her, since i seriously doubt he wanted to be President before he felt that he had a real shot thanks to the collective ignorance of the lotophage American blue collar masses.

        7. The government always pays for everything with taxes culled from the populace. And Trump, the supposedly libertarian candidate, not only wants to use taxes to pay for healthcare, but also wants to tax the rich. You know what that will do? Drive the rich away and give people less jobs in this already-jobless society. If I want socialism, I’ll vote for Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton. I guess this is what my old History professor meant when he said that Trump had an “astonishing lack of substance”. The guy tries to seduce libertarians and right-wingers, but he has the tactics of a damn socialist. And this is their Messiah? This is the guy that they’re giving cult-like allegiance to? I’d rather vote in Pope Francis as a joke candidate for the presidency. At the very least, he’d have the support of more than half the world in international affairs, and he would have the same support back home.
          I don’t know Howard Stern, but I like Stone Cold Steve Austin. I like him as a wrestler and his no-nonsense, smash-some-beer-cans attitude. I like the cut of his jib. But that doesn’t mean I’ll vote him into an office which gives him responsibility for international affairs or access to nuclear missiles.
          Hahahahahahahaha…….that’s fucking hilarious. These chumps always shit on me when I tell them I’m half-Roman (last name was from a Roman noble family) and half-Filipino, trying to make it seem like I have no voice in Western matters and I should be booted from America. And yet these chumps, instead of breeding more whites, are making more half-breeds like me thanks to their sexual escapades! And you know the best part? My Filipino side has Spanish blood. Which means my kin, the Spaniards and Italians, were the first white people here in America. Most of these racists are Eastern/Central Europeans and others who came to America AFTER the Spanish and Italians, who think all nonwhites should be booted from the West. Considering Spaniards and Italians were here in America before most white folks were, (thank you Christopher Columbus) if the mentality of these racists were to be correct, then I have every right to tell them to get the fuck off my continent! These lands are domains of the Spanish crown, dammit! XD
          I once believed these fools concerning white women, but now that I’ve been exposed to them more in real life, I retract whatever statements I made to support their claims that white women are too feminist and problematic. It’s just that these women can smell their shit from a mile away and choose not to open their legs. They know they’re in for a fuck-and-chuck with these chumps, so they choose not to participate.
          I wouldn’t throw out all illegal immigrants, I would throw out the ones who harm Americans, and I would even go so far as to execute those who kill Americans-to set an example. Illegal immigrants will always be among us because corporations need cheap labor and will always find a way to sneak some into this country. I would just slap a small penalty tax on those who hire illegal immigrants and give tax cuts to those who hire Americans.
          But yeah, Forney seems to easily fall into that trap of judging someone by their last name. Not to mention the fact that Forney sounds like an Irish last name, and Irish people were once considered by the native Anglo populace of the US to be drunken degenerates who should never be given a job. Irish and Italian people also suffered discrimination, so Forney should know what it’s like to be singled out because of your heritage to be persecuted because of it. The Klan and the Mafia were big enemies back in the day…….
          And for the love of fuck, Trump having multiple wives makes whatever Cruz did look like small potatoes. One tiny affair is nothing compared to someone repeatedly divorcing and remarrying and peddling flesh at his casinos. Trump’s handling of marital affairs makes Cruz look like a saint.
          It probably is deliberate censorship to protect Trump. If this site has come out in support of Trump, then don’t expect to be able to write articles disparaging the guy. They’re already Trump cultists. Not even my friend is that blind in supporting Trump. He even listens when I criticize the guy.

        8. Agreed, we’ve had the opportunity to see this on a federal and State specific scale with regard to businesses leaving the US entirely or outsourcing the bulk of their business outside of the US (try calling the customer assistance hotline of many businesses and see if you can end up with someone that doesn’t sound like Mohandas Gandhi) thanks to high taxes, in addition to seeing conservative individuals like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh flee from NY because of their high rate of taxation. Bernie, Hillary and Trump would all prove disastrous if they follow through on their promised taxation plans.
          Howard Stern is a non PC shock jock here, probably the most famous one ever. Trump speaks a lot like him, and their friendship means that one of them has likely rubbed off on the other. They both make for some interesting non pc commentary but just like you said, that doesn’t necessarily mean i would vote either Man into office.
          “Hahahahahahahaha…….that’s fucking hilarious. These chumps always shit on me when I tell them I’m half-Roman (last name was from a Roman noble family) and half-Filipino, trying to make it seem like I have no voice in Western matters and I should be booted from America. And yet these chumps, instead of breeding more whites, are making more half-breeds like me thanks to their sexual escapades! And you know the best part? My Filipino side has Spanish blood. Which means my kin, the Spaniards and Italians, were the first white people here in America. Most of these racists are Eastern/Central Europeans and others who came to America AFTER the Spanish and Italians, who think all nonwhites should be booted from the West. Considering Spaniards and Italians were here in America before most white folks were, (thank you Christopher Columbus) if the mentality of these racists were to be correct, then I have every right to tell them to get the fuck off my continent! These lands are domains of the Spanish crown, dammit! XD”
          Ohh shit…i had to re quote all that just to say FUCK YEAH. THOUSAND LIKES AND THEN SOME. You should write an article yourself, i’ll bet it would be remarkable 😀
          I’m a half breed myself, and you summed up my remarks on the subject nicely. Bravo 🙂
          “It’s just that these women can smell their shit from a mile away and choose not to open their legs. They know they’re in for a fuck-and-chuck with these chumps, so they choose not to participate.”
          Agreed. All US Women are subject to feminism, not just White Women. The biggest reason they get shit on is because American feminism tends to focus on White females primarily instead of non White females, so they become the makeshift postersbitches for it. Race and ethnicity has less to do with feminism and its cancerous effects than the type of parental units these girls grow up in, which means absentee Fathers are first and foremost responsible for allowing their girls to be only raised by Mothers who may raise them to be feminists out of resentment for the Father. While some Mothers drive away the Fathers of their daughters, there are some Fathers who refuse to stay Fathers because of their irresponsibility, and their actions therefore make their daughters perfect victims for antimasculine philosophies like feminism.
          We can agree to disagree on all illegal aliens being deported…i just don’t want criminals to be romanticized in our society simply because of an image that evokes a pathos repsonse, such as one with a grandma or grandkids on it. I’m pretty hardcore though, i’d report my Mother if she had come here illegally. Needless to say, i’ve caught flak from other hispanics for my views. I tend to piss off every demographic because i don’t subscribe to sacred orthodox belief if in fact i find it lacking in merit.
          “The Klan and the Mafia were big enemies back in the day…….”
          And the weird thing is, they are both connected to Trump either by direct connection or indirect support. Trumps’ dad himself was arrested at a KKK event. While i won’t say that he was a KKK member or not, Donald’s reluctance to denounce them as well as his family’s background with civil suits brought against them by Blacks, are telling.
          http://boingboing.net/2015/09/09/1927-news-report-donald-trump.html
          Here is Trump’s connection to mob connected figures.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
          Trump’s even bragged about bedding Married Women, (plural) in his book and in public record.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/25/gop-senator-calls-out-donald-trumps-affair-in-lengthy-tweetstorm/
          I’m hoping that ROK won’t go the way of other sites and simply cherrypick what criticisms they allow and which they won’t. I like this site too much to write them off as “sellouts” just yet, which is why i will try again with another antiDonald Trump article.

        9. And the sad thing is, people who would be usually very informed when it comes to combating the SJW and Marxist influences in our society have fallen head-over-heels over a guy who would just implement the same measures of socialism. As I said before, if I wanted socialism, I’d vote Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton in. It’s amazing how many folks who are supposed to be smarter than this descend into being propaganda mills for a candidate that as we discussed, lacks substance. Whenever people ask him for details over his plans, he becomes vague about them. All he cares for is brand recognition and popularity. That’s even worse than voting in an evil mastermind. At least the evil mastermind would have a damn plan all laid out in advance. People like Petyr Baelish and Emperor Palpatine laid their plans out before making big grabs for power.
          As I said, I liked some anti-SJW people and anti-PC people. I like some of their stuff, and they sound smart now and then. But that doesn’t mean they’re White-House ready. I’d gladly take an establishment candidate over them any day. All they’re ready to do is talk-they don’t have the chops to govern.
          I would write an article, but I bet more than half these alt-right manosphere echo chambers will shit on me for not whining about “white genocide” or for even advocating tolerance for half-breeds.
          Feminism is just a natural outgrowth of the post-familial, modernist society that we have. To blame feminism for all the ills of modern man is like blaming the snot on your nose for the common cold. It’s a symptom, really, not the root cause. Women turn to feminism and feminist movements because of the atomization of the family and the natural human need to identify with something being left unfulfilled. With old nationalities and religions in decline, and family becoming less and less important, people turn to movements like feminism or MGTOW or SJW-ism or the Alt-Right. And the sad fact is, these movements, like Trump, are good at speaking and luring people in, not solving their actual problems.
          Thanks for the links. Here is my link on why I am greatly suspicious of Trump. At first, I didn’t think much of these establishment Catholics, but they made a very good argument to not vote for Trump:
          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/27/influential-catholic-group-condemns-donald-trump/
          Here are some of their points:
          “4. “Trump is a successful businessman who will make great deals”
          If you believe the headlines, you would assume everything Donald Trump touches turns to gold. Not so. Trump has only demonstrated an ability to make deals that benefit him personally. Four times he bailed on his own casinos to shield himself from their impending bankruptcies. And then there is Trump Magazine, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks/Steakhouse, Trump Vodka, and most famously Trump University, to name only a few — all bankrupt or closed, and massive failures. “Losers” as Trump is fond of saying.
          He has constantly cozied up to big government to trample the little guy, either by abusing private property rights, or selling out small contractors and vendors, many of whom lost their life savings. Just ask elderly widow Vera Coking, whom Trump attempted to displace via eminent domain laws to make way for a limousine parking lot for his New Jersey casino — the same casino he put into bankruptcy. Vera stood tall against the politically-connected billionaire Trump for years in court, enduring his practice of belittling personal attacks. She eventually won and called Trump a “maggot, a cockroach, and a crumb.”
          5. “Trump will end illegal immigration”
          Trump has pledged to build a massive wall on our southern border and to make Mexico pay for it. Meanwhile he has promised to deport 11 million+ illegals, without explaining how, then plans to allow them all back in legally according to criteria he has yet to fully explain.
          We agree illegal immigration is a problem that must be solved. Trump’s solution is delusional, strikes us as xenophobic — and truthfully, will never happen. If anything, Trump’s demagoguery on immigration showcases the emptiness of many of his promises. As President Obama has learned, American presidents don’t dictate laws. The Senate and House would have to pass any change of this magnitude, and such a solution has little to no chance of being approved. Border security and immigration enforcement are realistic fixes. Rounding up 11 million+ people and sending them back to Mexico is not practical or realistic, let alone humane. Those who rightfully want to solve the problem of illegal immigration deserve more than crowd pleasing platitudes. And it’s certainly worth noting that Donald Trump criticized Mitt Romney for being too harsh on immigration back in 2012. This is just another issue where Donald Trump had a very recent and rather convenient conversion.
          Several other presidential candidates have outlined more realistic policies to deal with problem. And that’s what real leaders do. They outline solutions and build consensus. Hyperbole and demagoguery are tools of salesmen (see above) out for your money or your vote. Trump’s lack of detail reminds us of another famous politician who proclaimed: “we have to pass the bill before you can see what’s in it.”
          6. “Trump will fight the Establishment!”
          This defense of Trump is somewhat rich, given the irony that Trump himself has boasted of playing the game, paying off politicians and enriching himself from the very system he now purports to reform. Case in point: in the past week a growing number of so-called “establishment Republicans” have warmed to supporting Trump, people like Bob Dole and Trent Lott — including establishment Republicans in Iowa like Gov. Terry Branstad. Why? Because they believe, rightly in our view, that Trump doesn’t have any principles at the end of the day. He’s someone who will wheel and deal — and you and I will be stuck with the bill.
          Electing Donald Trump would send the pro-life movement back to the 1990s, when the Republican Party wanted to run away from defending the unborn. In fact, Trump recommended his own sister, Maryanne Trump Berry, for the Supreme Court. She’s the federal judge who overturned New Jersey’s ban on grisly partial-birth abortions. The next President may choose as many as three or more new justices. Trump’s suggestion of his pro-abortion sister as an example ought to worry anyone who cares about the Court. And let’s not forget he once said Oprah would make a great Vice President. Enough said.
          7. “Trump is one of us”
          Trump’s political conversions have all happened at very convenient times. As recently as 2000, Trump was firmly “pro-choice,” even refusing to oppose partial birth abortion! He was in favor of gay civil unions. He is open, even now, to subsidizing abortion giant Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars. He considers gay marriage a settled issue and has offered no plan to protect religious freedom. He is pro-universal health care, supported the stimulus package and government bailouts, supported gun control and a host of radical positions. Trump is like many Democrats we know. He is a political opportunist”
          And again, it’s funny to see people who are whining about white genocide not only supporting “Game” and pick-up culture over creating new families, but also voting for a guy who beds married women and makes a mockery out of marriage. Marriage and family-formation is the key to solving this “white genocide” that these manospherians and alt-right folks cry about all day, yet not only are they not going off and making families, but they’re also supporting a candidate that makes a mockery out of marriage.
          I see you’re one of them Cesar Chavez Latinos. I respect that. Funny that people tend to forget that one of the first Latino-American civil rights activists here in the USA was a big enemy of illegal immigration. He had friends in the government called in whenever corporations use illegal workers as replacements for workers on strike. My only opinion is that there always will be illegals, hence why I think it’s a waste of time trying to deport them all.
          Face it, ROK is practically on its way to being the reverse of Cracked.com-just as Cracked went from a website with interesting articles into a glorified SJW blog, so too will ROK be an echo-chamber for Trumpagandists and alt-right, race-baiting idiocy. The more they talk about women, the more insecure they make themselves look in the face of the rest of the world. I know modern women have their problems, but the same can be said of men-and one can also say the same with men and women of the past. Granted, women respond to men with vision and the impulse to lead, but that doesn’t work for everyone. There’s some very shy men I knew who had girlfriends and wives.

        10. >Trump is probably working for Clinton because they took a photo together some decade ago!
          >Yeah, and have you noticed the unusual number of incredibly wealthy Jews with their noses deep inside this con job, too?
          >OHMAIGAWD what’s with the conspiracy theories, you filthy anti-semite?! :^)

        11. Cosign on 99% of what you said.
          I also want to add, Vera Coking wasn’t an isolated incident. Trump’s been doing this overseas as well, as demonstrated in the documentary “You’ve been Trumped” which chronicled his fascist efforts to push through a golf course in Scotland despite the protests of the locals.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ve_Been_Trumped
          Let’s not forget the left’s endorsments of him, such as Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter
          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/harry-reid-says-trumps-his-man-gop-race/
          http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/03/jimmy-carter-endorses-donald-trump-over-ted-cruz/

          All of their remarks make it clear they consider him “malleable” aka a guy who would sell out his platforms in order to make deals or make friends. The Trump strumpets who vote him in will find themselves royally screwed over when they see him backtracking on everything he said.
          Here he is saying that the NYtimes audio of him allegedly backtracking on his immigration views is “negotiable.”
          http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/ted-cruz-new-york-times-immigration-tape/
          Shoot, his connections to progressive icons like George Soros, a CFR shill should have been a red flag to these morons. For all their bullshit talk of Heidi Cruz being INVITED to speak at one of their gatherings, they ignore the FACT that Soros himself is a card carrying member. He’s listed on their membership roster. Heidi Cruz IS NOT.
          http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=S
          We could be here all day listing his faults. This guy is even more obvious a scumbag than obama yet his sheeple will ignore it because…because…HE’S GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
          SMH!

        12. Goes to show how stupid these propaganda mills of him are at the end. I can’t believe I used to see these guys as as smart and wise. They’re falling for an obvious con, and yet they do their best not to see it. Worse, they shit on anyone who tries to show them how they’ve fallen for a lie. It’s not like Trump is even trying that hard, when both of us came across proof that he’s more like Hilary than his Republican rivals are, or how malleable his positions are. And I used to trust these people………..God, I can’t believe I’ve been had…….I suppose next time I should choose my friends better-I need more qualifiers than “they hate feminists”.
          As I said, I’d rather vote for Pope Francis as president seeing as how he’ll have more than half the world supporting him on both domestic and international fronts. I came back running to the establishment Catholic position right after I learned that these Manosphere alt-right scum are whining about white genocide while endorsing “Game” and the pickup culture over making families. Not to mention the fact that they hate half-breeds like me. Well, here’s to Trump making fools of them all. If he does win the office, he’ll be more likely to be a compromise candidate than anything. And then we’ll see these idiots squirm. XD

  26. IMO Ted Cruz is better than Donald Trump. No offense but all these Trump articles ROK have been posting just reek of “Sellout”. And I actually like ROK

  27. Does Trump know about our site? I hope he reads this article, maybe his administration can take precautions in the next round against possible globalist ploys.

  29. The establishment is now trying to get faux Trump delegates. They say they will support Trump, but not really. So after the first ballot, they will switch to the establishment ordained candidate.
    Watch for riots in Cleveland this summer, either if Trump gets or does not get the nomination.

  30. I think this is getting really old. Every time Trump loses, Forney says it was rigged. Is Trump God or something? Even God says many are called but few get chosen.
    This fringe right wing bullshit is upsetting. I don’t come to RoK for this crap.

    1. Welcome to the new Alt-Right, my friend.
      Forney should work for Trump. After all, he once said that if you’re good at something, you shouldn’t do it for free, and Forney is good at being Trump’s PR man here in the Manosphere.

      1. I mean I’ve lost all respect for the guy, and this is coming from a guy who doesn’t care much for muslims and arabs and indians etc. Thing is , subconsciously, he thinks Trump will solve the problems of his life which he “thinks”(apologies to the word “think”) is caused by an “invasion” of ambitious and hardworking people.

        1. At most, Trump would be just like Bush, with a little added rudeness. To try and reshape him as a messiah is downright ridiculous. Even if I supported Trump, I wouldn’t consider him the answer to everything. It’s the same shit with Obama eight years ago….people thought he would solve everything. They tried to make him a messiah. But at least Barry had some political experience. Trump is a corporate mogul who got bankrupted. Not even the kind of economist who would look like he had the skills to fix the economy, let alone the country.

  31. they stole Ohio with Microsoft counting the votes, and being Rubio’s #2 donor…. banana republic…Of course they stole Utah.

  32. You are kidding? Trump is Soros’s dream candidate for the Republicans since he can never win the general elections and Hillarity will take the presidency easy peasy!

  34. And days after cruz’s ‘victory’, it comes out that he had 5 affairs. Those ‘ultra-religious’ mormons must be feeling very stupid right now.
    Picture related. Good for a laugh.

Comments are closed.