It’s official: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is running for President in 2016. He made the announcement on his Twitter account:

The tweet included a short 30 second video with Cruz narrating, saying that it was “a time for truth, a time to rise to the challenge, just as Americans have always done.”

“I believe in America and her people, and I believe we can stand up and restore her promise,” Cruz continues. “It’s going to take a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again, and I’m ready to stand with you to lead the fight.”

As Breitbart Texas reported, Cruz teased the news with a tweet posted just after 7:00 p.m. Central Time, writing that around midnight — presumably Eastern Time — “there will be some news you won’t want to miss.” The Senator also made a similar comment in his appearance on the Breitbart News Sunday program on SiriusXM Patriot.

This makes Cruz the first Republican candidate to throw his hat in the ring. As Breitbart Texas reported, Cruz opted to go ahead and officially launch a presidential campaign, rather than continue to promote his activities through his leadership PAC or through an exploratory committee. Senior advisers close to Cruz had told the Houston Chronicle that the Senator was done “exploring” and wanted to get the campaign officially started.

read more:

Views: 2181

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Defund it ?  Heck just outlaw it - it is totally null and void since it is totally UN-CONSTITUTIONAL !

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

Here is a very urgent 20 min video you must see.

It effects us all.

I understand that and if that is the way it would go  - wonderful. But what I'm warning of is that DC will not allow anything to transpire that they do not control, either directly or by infiltrating spies on their behalf.  You are not understanding how DC operates.  THAT is my point.  States would have "delegates" and those would most likely be secret  OWG DC infiltrators.  That is what happened in 1787 and if the Founders could not stop their control, what makes anyone think they will be able to now ? What I'm saying is that things will not go as you plan them to - DC will not allow it.  They will not allow any of their self-given power to be mellowed in any way. I just do not trust DC and you shouldn't either - because the entire Constitution (Bill of Rights that DC has always hated) could be then "officially  eliminated"  completely and a new OWG one instilled to DC's liking. That would be a total loss for the people.  Things could be worse then they are now - at least right now  we HAVE a Constitution to stand on and throw in DC's face. 

I would like to know exactly HOW you expect to do that when no one can control DC now ?  What makes you think anyone would stand in a raid's way ?  They didn't in Texas that was just a 'state' meeting. They were treated like prisoners of DC that had no rights and were trying to escape.  So much for the "volunteer" membership in the DC union.   What will stop them from not taking over any convention of many states ?

And what faith do you have that delegates would be for the people and not infiltrators for DC ?

I would not trust anyone or anything at this point.

That Texas raid on February 14, 2015 was evidently the result of two individuals from the group reportedly having sent out “simulated court documents” — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosures. 

The raid on that peaceful meeting, seizing cell phones and laptops, along with forcibly taking every attendee's fingerprints and photographs, was a gross overstep and violation of law.

However the claims of the Republic of Texas, and assertion of Texas being unique, is considerably mistaken, and even silly.   The original colonies were independent entities, each with their own original charter, and are individually recognized to be  sovereign.  Furthermore,  Virginia and other States indicated their right to secede at any time, in their ratification statements to the Constitution. By the recognized Equal Footing Doctrine, upheld by Pollard Lessee vs Hagan, if any State has rights, even to secede, then so does each and every State.  By this, Texas is not at all unique relative to the other States. 

Under that Equal Footing Doctrine, again supported by Pollard Lessee vs Hagan,  there should be no such thing as the "Federal State of Nevada" with claimed 85% federal lands, nor should there be federal parks, all of which are corruptions to the Constitution resulting from the Civil War.

Man I love this .   Someone who knows the REAL LAW and REAL History !  So good to have others put  out REAL history other then me all the time.

Oren Long,

My position, eh?  it flies in the face of "why George Mason wanted an Article V"?  Did George Mason tell you this himself? Methinks you're putting words in the founder's mouths for utilitarian reasons. 

I respond to your post, not because I want to change your mind, but because of the tremendous hazard your beliefs pose to my own and others freedoms.

George Mason is not the best founder to use, but in a moment I will give you a Founder that presaged this country's history, and how we lost our rights to government, from Lincoln on through modern day, and things done now, this very past year, showing how even George Mason's views were wrong.

It's irrational to believe the answer to the government not abiding by the Constitution, is to only write more Constitution.

No, the entire purpose of a Convention of the States is  NOT "to go around an out-of-control Congress."  That's not the intent of Article V at all! You're trying to use a screwdriver to hammer a nail.  The Constitution's limits are there to limit Congress; the original ability of States to recall Senators are to limit Congress.  Article V repeatedly throughout the fairly short Article, again and again and again, indicates the control by CONGRESS over the amendment process,  quite obviously showing it is not intended as a means to "go around an out-of-control congress".

And yet you want a Convention of the States.

NO, I never said anything about the "Congress ALONE controlling the Amendment process", as obviously there are others controlling the convention, and then there's ratification by the States.  However these two influences are themselves serious cause for concern, given the rampant ignorance running amok in this country, with no one having anything approaching the wisdom evident in the founders themselves.   Only last year many supporters of restoring the Constitution's legitimate terms, were mistakenly upset over the decision from the Citizen's United decision, believing it somehow allowed Corporation's (such as Monsanto) to buy politicians, or freed them up from campaign finance limits. It did nothing of the sort; Citizens United only groups of people to combine their resources, and to provide information speaking out against the government and its mainstream media mouthpieces near an election. 

Yet these uninformed 'patriots' only last year foolishly supported the "Democracy For All" amendment which, for the first time ever in this country's history intended to amend the Bill of Rights was to be amended, introducing the very corrupt idea that the Bill of Rights actually GRANTS us those rights, when it does not and these "unalienable rights" might be changed by mere amendment!  That  Amendment was written so broadly it  gave Congress essentially a blank check to write laws defining legitimate free speech.  Still worse, it could be expanded  beyond mere political speech, to speech overall, and much more, likely including the ability to limit or remove other rights! These people would be at the Convention and running amok, already organized and funded.

And yet you want  a Convention of the States.

Only last year retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a book "Six Amendments", involving ways to improve the Constitution by amending it; he's sort of your progressive counterpart.  All of Stevens'' amendments are disastrous progressive corruptions to the Constitution, but none so bad as the idea that the Rights addressed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights actually originate from, and are provided unto us by that Document, and they might be amended, altered and removed,  when that's NOT the case at all!  The Bill of Rights only references rights existing outside the Constitution, only referencing them in terms of their relevance to the formation of the Federal government, with the 9th Amendment itself supporting this referencing other rights not so enumerated..  

You can Google the articles on Steven book even now, and none of them recognize the total illegitimacy of attempting to amend the Bill of Rights, and virtually all of them applaud the wholesale  overhaul of the Constitution, along with selective manipulations to that Bill of Rights. These enemies of the Constitution are undeniably ready for a Convention of the States, and have long been armed with plans to gut the Constitution.

And yet you want  a Convention of the States.

From the misguided intent to include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and the existence of Article V, people have mistakenly believed these rights to be proved thereby, and that they might be amended and entirely removed!  IN fact many have long believed that those "rights" therefore only apply to the federal government itself, and therefore the States are not subject to them, and free to ignore those rights, inclusive of the 2nd Amendment, with States writing laws that quite clearly do infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. 

And yet you want  a Convention of the States.

Mitt Romney showed a further corruption of Rights, in the first couple of Republican Primary Debates for the 2012 election, defending RomneyCare under a bastardization of 10th Amendment "States Rights" as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy", in which States are free to ignore people's rights, and those allegedly "unalienable rights" result in Americans becoming refugees in our own country,  having to flee from State to State in the hope that one State might still recognize those Rights!  And yet among all the Republican Primary candidates for office, NOT-ONE-AMONG-THEM had the intelligence to recognize the enormity of this corruption -- not Ron Paul, not Newt, not Rick Perry, not Herman Cain, none of them - not even Michele Bachmann, the "Tea Party candidate".  Every single one of them, by their silence, were indicating it was reasonable that our rights might be confiscated by the State governments, just not the federal government!

And yet you want  a Convention of the States.

Oren Long, it's clear even by your brief reference to George Mason  wanting an Article V convention, that you yourself believe the Bill of Rights was an important inclusion in the Constitution, and perhaps even sometimes mistakenly referencing that that Bill of Rights itself as providing us those rights.  There's another perspective on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution provided by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84, in which he warns that the inclusion of such a Bill of Rights into the Constitution was "dangerous", and would serve as a "colorable pretext" or an excuse, for the federal government to insert itself into the the business of rights.  In fact Hamilton was dead on-target with this, prescient, as every major corruption of the Constitution and our rights themselves has come about as a result of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, ..... from the nation's destruction under  Lincoln's Civil War, to the 18th Amendment's prohibition of Alcohol, to the corrupt Civil Rights legislation fabricating "collective rights" and putting government in charge of policing rights, to government writing laws directly applicable to the people of the states and engaging in social engineering, to even last year's attempted "Media Shield Law" intending to redefine the meaning of  "Press" solely to the benefit of government's own protection.  All of this and more, are corruptions invited by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. In fact it can be rather easily argued "How the Bill of Rights Enslaved Us".

And yet you want  a Convention of the States.

Oren, in fact by your very reference to George Mason, you become case in point of why we should not, and DARE NOT, have any sort of Convention of the States, with Americans being so ignorant of the terms of the Constitution, unaware of our own history,  and naively unconcerned about the undeniable intentions  to violate the Constitution, so as to deconstruct and further enfeeble it.

We absolutely must prohibit there being a Convention of the States at this time.

Oren Long,

I had no such "circular reasoning" in my reply to you, It was simple recognition of the overall ignorance and abundance of agendas intending to corrupt the Constitution. Your  charge of circular reasoning is direct dishonesty intending to cover your own disregard for that Constitution. 

It's irrelevant who the "driving force" was behind Article V, because it was a part of the Constitution as originally modified, not a corruption and clearly nowhere intending to be used "to go around an out-of-control Congress',  given the repeated references to Congress controlling that process.

There is still no "circular reasoning" involved in the fact that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution has consistently  corrupted that Constitution and been used to enslave us.   And this is not my own idea, but goes back to a warning by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84, before there was  a Bill of Rights even drafted, and is supported continually by this country's history!  Incidentally all of the States ratified the Constitution before there was a Bill of Rights was even drafted, making your assertion extremely ignorant.

In Federalist #84 Hamilton indicates that the inclusion of  a Bill of Rights is not only "unnecessary", since the federal government had no authority unumerated in the Constitution to do these things that recognition of rights prohibits,  but also  "dangerous", given that it would serve as a "colorable pretext" or excuse, for the federal government to insert itself into those rights, andareas that it has no authority:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Indeed, over the history of this country Hamilton has repeatedly been shown to be correct, from Lincoln and the Civil War praised for giving slaves their freedom yet the government overrode the lives of the people and the rights of the States - enslaving them, again during the Civil Rights movement where the federal government came into dictate to the States and to compel things like forced busing while ignoring the rights of those bused, and again did so under the NDAA  giving the President authority for Martial Law in a State if any group's "rights" are violated in that State, and only last year in the Media Shield Law they intended to redefine "Press" so as to limit the rights of the people and protect the government itself.  The list of these examples is as extensive as this country's history itself.  In fact the corruption to the  Media Shield Law was directly covered by Hamilton, who specifically considered the Press in Federalist 84.

We didn't "somehow" weaken Rights by there inclusion, but rather specifically corrupted those Rights by  inviting the federal government to be involved in them!  AND THIS IS THE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT ACROSS AMERICAN HISTORY!

Let me ask you a question, what possible need is there for a Bill of Rights, when the enumerated powers of the federal government do not include the ability to deny free speech, or dictate the terms of religion, or preclude freedom of assembly, or limit firearms?  The federal government does  not even have  power to write laws directly applicable to the people of the States, yet you ignore this, and would send us off to a Convention of the States!

If you have not recognized this consistent corruption to the Constitution, then I submit that you are UNFIT to be promoting a Convention of the States, much less assure of the nonsense about it, that you do.

Contrary to your claim validating the 14th Amendment, there was no need  for the 14th Amendment to ensure RIGHTS be recognized in the States!  The 14th Amendment was a total violation of the Constituiton only done by forcing states to ratify it before being admitted back to a country they never left, and imposed under martial law.  The 14th Amendment fabricated the falsehood of collective "Civil Rights" while putting the Federal government in the position of POLICING RIGHTS -- which is exactly what "RIGHTS" are recognized to prohibit - any federal action!  Yet again yourself entirely too ignorant of what is going on in this country for a COS to even be remotely a sane idea!

It's not that the 14th Amendment was "poorly written", but rather that it was a deliberate usurpation, a gaping hole ripped in the Constitution, and has only been ripped wider still by the very corrupt "men disposed to usurp power" (Hamilton), in order to gain more power!

I didn't quote Stevens at all, much less to "protect the Status Quo". which is nowhere involved in anything I indicated, and nothing but nonsense on  your part! I referenced Stevens' book because it shows the agendas to violate the Constitution. and corrupt beliefs regarding it, which incidentally you've repeatedly shown yourself to be a part of.   Furthermore, there's nothing inherently wrong with  Marbury v. Madison, and there's even much valid about  Dredd Scott, as the Court only recognized what the current social recognitions were, with the Supreme Court nowhere having the authority to engage Social Engineering, despite your own ignorance inviting that tyranny of a black-robed supremacy dictating our lives,  another reason you should be disqualified to support the COS.   It's quite clear that your false critical reference to "status quo" is nothing but you promoting a (forward-looking) Social Engineering ideology.

It's not that I condone anyone being enslaved (i.e. Dredd Scott), but the fact that the dictate by the federal government of the terms of society is NOT the way to liberate anyone, and only working  to enslave EVERYONE!    In fact, by the progressive ideology you continually have put on display, you're fast establishing yourself as the poster child of WHY we dare not have a COS!

 You cannot get Congress to even responsibly make a budget, so how do you imagine that Congress will reasonably check the Supreme Court by legitimately overruling Supreme Court decisions, when you yourself imagine that an Article V convention is to deal with an "out-of-control Congress"???   That Congress at one point would have undeniably thrown out Citizens United, despite the fact the only thing that decision did was allow collectives of citizens to pool their resources to  express their political opinion near an election!  Citizens United only gave citizens a voice to counter mainstream media propaganda. Your entire rationale is self-conflicted and irrational!

I gotta say that your assurance that a COS is safe, because some States have even made it a "felony to go rogue in the Convention" is the most ignorant, jejune, irrational and destructive things I've heard yet,  and serving to entirely underscore why the mental deficients leading this COS movement shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR OUR DAMN CONSTITUTION!  It's mind-boggling that there are people in existence that believe it rational to make it a felony to do what people were sent there to do, based only on a subjective evaluation of what they want, and that this might even fly under a Constitution where there are rights, due process, freedom of speech and nothing at all limiting the subject matter of a Convention of the States!  Such an attempt is nothing short of galactically stupid, and once again showing why this group as a whole SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE CONSTITUTION.

Your entire argument is laden throughout with support for the progressive  Social Engineering dictate of Society, and yet in most people's eyes,  preventing that social engineering federal dictate is THE prime reason they might support a Convention of the States at all, the one thing we want to prohibit most, and in others eyes, that very impulse to Social Engineering now accepted by so many is why we MUST prohibit a COS at all costs.   What your own argument serves to underscore  is that "Less is more" ; we do not need to remake what was already properly made, and we cannot force a government to abide by a Constitution they already ignore, by only writing more of it!

Rather than having a COS, what's the option?  

Well, it would be far more direct for us to burn the Constitution,  beg martial law,  invite United Nations global governance, and kneel down with our arms outstretched to accept the shackles.  Or maybe just blind ourselves with any stick that's handy.  Ive' no doubt if people got close to the Constitution right now, a great many people would be contemplating taking up arms.

You only have "no fear" because you have no awareness, an abundance of disregard, and very little valid constitutional appreciation.   As indicated by Attorney Edwin Vieira,"Prudent Fear of the Unknown is No Fallacy"

The only rational option  is "Enforcement", not Amendment.

TJ = I cannot believe you wrote that and still call yourself an American !  Only a Communist would state that the Bill of Rights "corrupted" the Constitution - that by the way the Founders rejected BECAUSE IT WAS A COMMUNIST SET UP FOR A DICTATORSHIP !  That is WHY they wrote the Bill of Rights - that gives FREEDOM and RIGHTS  to the people. Apparently what you do NOT believe in ! I'm speechless ! Why do you live in America if you do not believe in Rights and Freedoms for the people = who by the way the Founders gave ALL AUTHORITY TO ! There is to BE NO OTHER authority greater then the PEOPLE !

"Leave NO authority existing that is not responsible
to the people." -   Thomas Jefferson

 [If the govt becomes its own power and is no longer under the authority of the people, it is to be totally made non-existent !  TOTALLY  Destroyed ! ]

"It is the people, to whom all authority belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone." -- James Madison


Only yesterday you just praised me for knowing history and the Constitution. Maybe you should actually pause and consider what I'm saying.

The Bill of Rights in the Constituiton does not GRANT us our rights! We did not have to write a Bill of Rights in order to have rights!  They are INNATE to use, unalienable!

However the inclusion of that Bill of Rights in the Constitution has repeatedly served as an EXCUSE for the federal government to police those rights, dictate who and who does not have them, to apply rights against some people for the benefit of others, ... all of which is a  TOTAL CORRUPTION... because those rights are to protect us from federal dictate, nothing else!

Your rights are irrelevant to me or my rights, as mine are to you. Your rights dont entitle you to be heard by me. They don't obligate me to bake you a cake if I run a bakery. They don't obligate me to have a ramp into my private company any more so than my home.  Your freedom of religion does not entitle you to build a place of worship anywhere you choose, whether it is a cathedral or  a Mosque.  Your rights don't entitle you to wear a t-shirt in school, nor can they prohibit others from wearing a certain t-shirt in school.   And your rights don't entitle you to sue that school because they are not pandering to you.

The claim made on forums, blogs or radio shows  that people have a "right of free speech" to say what they want there is one of the more amusing ones.

All of these things, and more, are government's corruption of the Constitution via the Bill of Rights.

Recognizing the historical FACT, repeated again and again, that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution is how it has been corrupted, and how we have been enslaved, is not a "Communist" idea at all!  It's not suggesting we don't have those rights!  

It is in fact the reality.

However your insistence that those rights must be there in that Constitution,  believing that is where they come from, is the very mentality that has allowed us to be enslaved, and allows that those rights might be amended, to be entirely denied.

WE know that  Rights and even Freedom comes from God, but the Bill of Rights is meant to PROTECT THEM FROM THE POWERS OF GOVT TO  REGULATE  THEM.  They are to stand alone without Govt input or controls.  DC is suppose to TAKE ORDERS,  not give them.

The PEOPLE are who have the authority. Not be made into slaves FOR DC.  DC is not suppose to even be living off us as they do ! Taxes are extortion and UN-Constitutional.

The Bill of Rights is a CONTRACT that DC is meant to abide by.

It is to PROTECT the rights, not give them.




Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service