Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Chuck Baldwin: 'Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons'

  1. #1

    Chuck Baldwin: 'Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons'

    Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons


    Published: Thursday, March 26, 2015
    Texas Senator Ted Cruz made his candidacy for President of the United States official this week. He is the first Republican to officially jump into the presidential race. He chose my alma mater, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, to make the announcement. Readers immediately inundated me with requests for my thoughts on his candidacy. Today’s column will attempt to answer those requests. Mind you, these are preliminary thoughts, subject to change one way or the other as I learn more about Senator Cruz.

    Before I list what seem to me to be more obvious pros and cons of his candidacy, let me say that it is extremely obvious that Mr. Cruz is wanting to “corner the market” on the Christian conservative vote and make them the ideological and political base of his campaign. The fact that he chose Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the country, to make his announcement makes it crystal clear. And if some of the early reactions to the senator’s strategy are any indication of whether Senator Cruz succeeded or not, it may seem that he has taken a big step in that regard.


    While the politically potent Religious Right of the Reagan/Bush era is only a shell of its former self, it is a stark reality that no Republican since Richard Nixon has won a presidential race without the enthusiastic support of Christian conservatives. Republican presidential candidates must at least APPEAR “conservative” enough to attract the base of religious conservatives or face a thumping in the general election. If you don’t believe that, just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney. And even though G.W. Bush was no conservative, Karl Rove and Company did a stellar job of packaging him that way. And as we know, more often than not, image garners more votes than reality. Sad but true. Former Texas Governor, Rick Perry, attempted the same thing in his presidential campaign in 2012, but was never able to make it stick.


    By casting himself as the “Christian” candidate, Ted Cruz is trying to follow the campaign script of fellow Texan (and the last Republican to actually win the White House), G.W. Bush. And, of course, Cruz actually worked in the Bush campaign, so he has first-hand experience with it. And this is not something that Cruz feels uncomfortable doing. He is the son of an evangelical pastor and graduated from a Baptist high school. Accordingly, Cruz can naturally talk the language.


    Since Jerry Falwell passed away, there is no evangelical leader with the ability and clout to coalesce, lead, and speak on behalf of enough Christian voters to make a lot of difference in Republican politics today. Plus, as a whole, the Religious Right has compromised its principles (and showed itself very ignorant of New World Order issues) so many times, and has disenfranchised so many religious conservatives that, as a movement, the Religious Right really doesn’t even exist today.


    However, if one wants to get an idea of what the remnant of the old Religious Right is thinking today, read what my friend Richard Viguerie has to say. Richard is one of the original founders of what became known as the Moral Majority and then the Religious Right. He is still very influential with those who would identify themselves as part of the Religious Right. And Richard has glowing words for Mr. Cruz:


    “Today’s official announcement that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is running for president changes everything in the 2016 presidential campaign.


    “Ted Cruz isn’t running for Vice President or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Jeb Bush administration.


    “Every Republican candidate for president will have to move to significantly to the right, starting with Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, and define their position on amnesty for illegal aliens, on fighting and winning the war radical Islam has declared on America, on spending, the deficit and the debt, and on repealing Obamacare, against the positions Ted Cruz will talk about and campaign on in the coming months.


    “They will all have to move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite.

    “Ted Cruz’s base is the conservative movement, and although other Republican presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan, such as Gary Bauer and Michelle Bachmann, looked to movement conservatives for their support, they were never able to expand beyond their starting base of support into the top-tier of candidates.


    “Ted Cruz is the first top-tier movement conservative candidate since Reagan.”
    See Richard Viguerie’s complete statement: Cruz is the First Top-Tier Movement Conservative Candidate Since Reagan


    I don’t remember Richard making such a statement about Rick Perry in 2012, so the above remarks regarding Senator Cruz from someone of the stature of Richard Viguerie mean that Ted has succeeded (at least initially) in establishing himself as the “Christian” candidate in the 2016 presidential race.


    Before leaving this section of the column, let me say that I believe MUCH has changed from 2000, when G.W. Bush was first elected. The compromise and demise of the Religious Right as a political movement means that pseudo-conservatives, such as G.W. Bush, are going to have a much tougher time winning the support of principled freedomists--many of whom are Christians who are fed up with the compromise of professing “Christian” candidates--and many who would not even identify themselves as Christians, but who were once attracted to the political principles of the Religious Right, and who now have lost all respect for the old Religious Right in general and the Republican Party in particular.


    Too, the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2008--and especially in 2012--has FOREVER changed the political landscape of America (for the better). The defection of the “Paul Revolutionaries” from the Republican Party has been massive. Yes, many of Ron’s supporters are still very much involved in the GOP, but they are NOT LOYAL to the GOP.

    Meaning, any Republican candidate for President will have to EARN the vote of these people. They will not receive their vote simply because they wear the Republican label. Again, ask McCain and Romney, if you don’t believe that.

    Therefore, while it is still good strategy for a Republican presidential candidate to court the evangelical vote, it will not, by itself, carry the same momentum throughout the primary and general election seasons like it did with G.W. Bush in 2000. And as far as Cruz pulling the rest of the GOP field to the right, most every Republican candidate attempts to characterize him or herself as a “conservative” during the primaries, a Ted Cruz candidacy notwithstanding.

    Of course, Jeb Bush is counting on the big dollars of country club, NWO elites to buy him the nomination. Big-Government globalists everywhere must be salivating over another potential Bush vs. Clinton (not that Hillary has the Democrat nomination sewed up, because she doesn’t) presidential election. It would mean the Crime Family (no matter which one would win) would be back in the White House.

    At any rate, here are some of my preliminary assessments of Ted Cruz.

    Pros

    The “Christian” candidate



    His ability to cast himself early on as “the” Christian candidate will definitely be a plus as he approaches the primary season.


    On a personal note, I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, Christians on the whole are very naïve to vote for political candidates based on his or her “Christian” profession alone. Just about every politician in the country claims to be a Christian. That, by itself, means very little to the actual performance of most elected officials. It SHOULD, but it doesn’t. But for the purpose of this column, I’m saying that Mr. Cruz’s decision to not shy away from a Christian testimony should not be regarded as a negative--especially in light of all of the anti-Christian bias in the establishment media.


    His voting record in general
    He has a cumulative voting record of 89% by The Freedom Index of The New American magazine. The Freedom Index is one of the best barometers of a congressman or senator’s constitutional voting record that I know of. That Cruz is right at 90% on The Freedom Index is nothing but a positive.

    See his rating on The Freedom Index: Ted Cruz's Profile-The Freedom Index

    His leadership against illegal immigration and executive amnesty

    Senator Cruz must be regarded as one of the senate’s most outspoken opponents of Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order in particular and illegal immigration in general.

    As far as I can tell, Mr. Cruz is solid on the Second Amendment and pro-life issues

    For me, these two issues are deal breakers. I will not vote for ANY candidate that compromises either one of these two issues. In this regard, potential GOP presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, is going to have problems, as he is on record as strongly advocating additional gun control.

    Cons

    His place of birth

    Much was made in the Republican Party over Barack Obama’s birthplace. In my personal opinion, those concerns were very legitimate. I’ll say it outright: I believe Obama’s U.S. birth certificate is a forgery. In all likelihood, Obama is indeed the first President of the United States to not be born in the U.S. But, unfortunately, he won’t be the last.

    The Republicans nominated John McCain for President in 2008, and McCain was not born in the United States, either. Yes, he was born on a U.S. military installation overseas and his parents were both Americans. So, in the minds of everyone in the Republican Party, McCain met the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution. But with Senator Cruz, there is no question regarding his place of birth. The man was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father was a native-born Cuban who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, and his mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware.

    This fact will probably not hurt Ted during the GOP primaries, but should he win the nomination, you can bet that Democrats will make it a huge issue in the general election, especially after all of the controversy that Obama endured over the subject.

    Plus, if Ted Cruz should win the White House next year, it would doubtless open the door for just about anyone to run for President no matter their place of birth. Remember, this was the issue that stopped Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for President not too many years ago.

    Obviously, many take the position that as long as a person is born to a U.S. citizen, he or she automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of the location of his or her birth. But there is no question that Democrats will make Ted’s birthplace an issue in the general election, should he win the Republican nomination.

    His pro-war foreign policy

    In my opinion, this is where the establishment Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is at its WORST. G.W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine turned the national GOP into a pro-war leviathan. Like most every Republican in Washington, D.C., (except Rand Paul) Cruz has bought into the global “war on terror” apparition that is spawning the New World Order abroad and a Police State at home.

    There is nothing about Ted Cruz that leads me to believe that he would do anything to stop America’s militarism and hegemony that is wreaking havoc around the world and that is leading our country toward nuclear war.

    And one further note on this point: though it is going to be difficult for Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination, as he is the establishment elite’s most dreaded candidate, Dr. Paul would in all actuality be the most formidable Republican presidential candidate in the general election.
    More people than ever are not voting. More people than ever are claiming to be political independents. More people than ever have developed strong opinions against both major parties in Washington, D.C. And one of the biggest reasons for this phenomenon is the Warfare State that both parties in D.C. have created. In reality, Rand Paul’s foreign policy is in sync with more Americans across the board than any other potential candidate from either the Republican or Democrat party. Again, pro-war Republicans might look askance at Rand Paul, but in a general election, his appeal would be massive. Look at how popular Dr. Paul is becoming on the college campuses of America. But if the national GOP follows suit, they would rather lose with a candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney--or any other pro-war candidate--than win with a constitutional foreign policy candidate such as Ron or Rand Paul. But we’ll see. Rand is not officially in the race yet.

    His wife

    Ted Cruz is married to Heidi Nelson Cruz. Heidi will be lauded by everyone in the establishment media as very smart, educated (she is), and nothing but an asset to Ted’s presidential efforts. But Heidi gives me nothing but red flags.

    Heidi worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice. Heidi is head of the Southwest Region in the investment Management Division of Goldman Sachs & Co, and was also an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Heidi is an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the CFR which reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community.” This project was headed by longtime CFR member Robert Pastor and is universally regarded by constitutionalists as the prototype for a North American Union. Of course, Condoleezza Rice, herself, is a longtime CFR member.

    In my opinion, there is no more nefarious organization in the country than the CFR. Without a doubt, it has been the most influential organization over America’s foreign policy affairs of any organization to ever exist. It is the CFR that has long pushed the United States into regionalization and globalism. It is the CFR that is most responsible for pushing America into a New World Order. CFR members litter the presidential administrations of both Republicans and Democrats, which is why no matter which party assumes the White House, nothing changes in the direction of America’s foreign policy. And, of course, Goldman Sachs is, by far, the largest and most influential international banking system in the country. Everything that is harmful to the economic independence of America is spearheaded by Goldman Sachs.

    Yes, I realize that there are good people who have been part of the CFR (Admiral Chester Ward, for example), and doubtless there must be a few good folks who work for a company as large as Goldman, but Heidi’s longstanding connections with these two organizations do give me pause. Mind you, at this point, I am not condemning, just pointing out red flags.

    His infatuation with Israel

    Ted Cruz recently spoke before the non-partisan group “In Defense of Christians” (IDC). In so doing, he began to laud, not the Christians who are suffering in the Middle East (which the organization is designed to help), but the modern state of Israel. When he did this, he was booed by the audience. Cruz became very angry and walked off the stage, saying, “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.”

    But that was not the point. The IDC is all about helping persecuted Christians in the Middle East. And, yes, sometimes it is Israel that does the persecuting. Senator Cruz apparently has no cognizance of the fact that Christians are often persecuted by both Muslims and Jews. Either Mr. Cruz didn’t understand the purpose of the IDC and the plight of Christians in the Middle East, or, the for the sake of a publicity stunt, he deliberately chose to throw the Jewish factor in the face of those folks knowing the sensitivity of their feelings at Christians sometimes being persecuted by Jews. No one but Ted Cruz knows his heart in the matter.

    See the IDC website: In Defense Of Christians

    As he is trying to establish himself as “the” Christian candidate, it is understandable that Cruz would try to ingratiate himself to conservative Christians. And, unfortunately, most evangelical Christians and pastors have the same basic approach to Israel that they have to civil government. The misinterpretation of Romans 13 causes them to say, “Obey government no matter what.” And the misinterpretation of Genesis 12 causes them to say, “Support Israel no matter what.” Both of these positions are not only unscriptural, they are very dangerous to America.

    Instead of demanding that Middle Eastern Christians “stand with Israel,” Senator Cruz should have encouraged them to stand faithful to Christ, which is the message that those folks needed and were looking for. And given Senator Cruz’s outspoken Christian profession, this is the message they thought they would hear him give. After all, why else would such a group invite him to speak in the first place?


    When the day comes that an American Christian senator (and maybe President) will lend credence to suffering Christians in the Middle East being more loyal to the political policies of a foreign country (in this case, the United States) than to those poor suffering souls being faithful to their Savior, Jesus Christ, demonstrates that something is VERY, VERY wrong with the religion of American Christianity.


    There you have it. These are my preliminary thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Senator Ted Cruz. I reserve the right to adjust these thoughts, one way or the other, as I learn more.

    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles...-And-Cons.aspx
    Last edited by William Tell; 03-27-2015 at 12:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    How influential is Chuck Baldwin, in evangelical circles? (I ask for information, as someone from outside that faction)

    Because, plain as day, Baldwin alludes that Rand is the better candidate. (Bolding for emphasis in below quotation is mine)

    ...Too, the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2008--and especially in 2012--has FOREVER changed the political landscape of America (for the better). The defection of the “Paul Revolutionaries” from the Republican Party has been massive. Yes, many of Ron’s supporters are still very much involved in the GOP, but they are NOT LOYAL to the GOP.

    Meaning, any Republican candidate for President will have to EARN the vote of these people. They will not receive their vote simply because they wear the Republican label. Again, ask McCain and Romney, if you don’t believe that...

    ...• [Cruz's] pro-war foreign policy:

    In my opinion, this [pro-war foreign policy] is where the establishment Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is at its WORST. G.W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine turned the national GOP into a pro-war leviathan. Like most every Republican in Washington, D.C., (except Rand Paul) Cruz has bought into the global “war on terror” apparition that is spawning the New World Order abroad and a Police State at home.

    There is nothing about Ted Cruz that leads me to believe that he would do anything to stop America’s militarism and hegemony that is wreaking havoc around the world and that is leading our country toward nuclear war.

    And one further note on this point: though it is going to be difficult for Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination, as he [Rand] is the establishment elite’s most dreaded candidate, Dr. Paul would in all actuality be the most formidable Republican presidential candidate in the general election.
    More people than ever are not voting. More people than ever are claiming to be political independents. More people than ever have developed strong opinions against both major parties in Washington, D.C. And one of the biggest reasons for this phenomenon is the Warfare State that both parties in D.C. have created. In reality, Rand Paul’s foreign policy is in sync with more Americans across the board than any other potential candidate from either the Republican or Democrat party. Again, pro-war Republicans might look askance at Rand Paul, but in a general election, his appeal would be massive. Look at how popular Dr. Paul is becoming on the college campuses of America. But if the national GOP follows suit, they would rather lose with a candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney--or any other pro-war candidate--than win with a constitutional foreign policy candidate such as Ron or Rand Paul...
    Last edited by francisco; 03-27-2015 at 01:26 PM.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  4. #3
    • His leadership against illegal immigration and executive amnesty

    Senator Cruz must be regarded as one of the senate’s most outspoken opponents of Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order in particular and illegal immigration in general.
    This seems to be the consensus opinion. He certainly has spoken out against Obama's unconstitutional executive actions on immigration, and that is a good thing. It should also be noted that Tom Cotton spoke out against amnesty before he was elected to Senate, and since election, has been relatively quite on the subject. Perhaps the neoconservatives know which issues get votes.

    What is Cruz's actual position on immigration? There was a thread about it that has a very recent interview from Cruz on the subject. My paraphrase is below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Short, paraphrased summary: Secure the border, improve and streamline legal immigration, welcome and celebrate legal immigration, we are a nation of immigrants, etc.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-immigration

    Is Cruz using the Cotton strategy here?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by francisco View Post
    How influential is Chuck Baldwin, in evangelical circles? (I ask for information, as someone from outside that faction)

    Because, plain as day, Baldwin alludes that Rand is the better candidate. (Bolding for emphasis in below quotation is mine)
    Baldwin is more influential in strict Christian Constitutionalist circles. I don't think he has much sway with "mainline" evangelicals. Chuck Baldwin is one of many who has voiced some disappointment in Rand for not being as outspoken on some things as his father. He seems to be warming up to him now. He is beloved by people who strongly supported Ron Paul. Hopefully he can get more of the old base fired up about President Paul 2016!
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    This seems to be the consensus opinion. He certainly has spoken out against Obama's unconstitutional executive actions on immigration, and that is a good thing. It should also be noted that Tom Cotton spoke out against amnesty before he was elected to Senate, and since election, has been relatively quite on the subject. Perhaps the neoconservatives know which issues get votes.
    Yeah, Cruz is seen as tougher on immigration because he doesn't get deep into the subject generally.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  7. #6
    My assessment of Cruz is similar. He's made for a top-quality Senator, admittedly against a very weak field, but war policies and the Goldman Sachs connection are two unmitigable deal-breakers.

  8. #7
    I agree with most of it except the pro-war and his wife. Cruz isn't as hawkish as people make him. Or rather, Rand isn't that much better. As for his wife, I don't care about where she has worked. I care about CRUZ, and HIS connections. What would he do. If I had a wife, I wouldn't care if she worked under Rice, Bush, the pope, Putin, or anyone.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    I agree with most of it except the pro-war and his wife. Cruz isn't as hawkish as people make him. Or rather, Rand isn't that much better. As for his wife, I don't care about where she has worked. I care about CRUZ, and HIS connections. What would he do. If I had a wife, I wouldn't care if she worked under Rice, Bush, the pope, Putin, or anyone.
    That is completely wrong. Cruz is significantly more hawkish than is conventional wisdom. The three people he said were his go to advisers on foreign policy are John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, and James Woolsey (all very extreme hawks.) He has Donald Rumseld's former right hand on his staff. He and his wife a socially very friendly with Condoleeza Rice. And you could just look at his rhetoric.

    I get that there is a desire to make sure Rand stays in line. But comparing him to Cruz on foreign policy is not based on any evidence. Rand is more hawkish than people like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin think he is. He is significantly more dovish than people than a lot of the people here who complain about him give him credit for. There are too many issues to list where he has been the sole Republican that has taken on the neocons in the Senate.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Yeah, Cruz is seen as tougher on immigration because he doesn't get deep into the subject generally.
    Why is "illegal immigration" a problem? This is one area where I don't get the conservative side of the libertarian movement. I get why they dissent from other libertarians on abortion and gay marriage (and I agree with said conservatives on those issues) but I don't see why immigration is even an issue. government doesn't have the rightful authority to prevent people from crossing borders as it is not evil to do so, period.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    That is completely wrong. Cruz is significantly more hawkish than is conventional wisdom. The three people he said were his go to advisers on foreign policy are John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, and James Woolsey (all very extreme hawks.) He has Donald Rumseld's former right hand on his staff. He and his wife a socially very friendly with Condoleeza Rice. And you could just look at his rhetoric.

    I get that there is a desire to make sure Rand stays in line. But comparing him to Cruz on foreign policy is not based on any evidence. Rand is more hawkish than people like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin think he is. He is significantly more dovish than people than a lot of the people here who complain about him give him credit for. There are too many issues to list where he has been the sole Republican that has taken on the neocons in the Senate.
    John Bolton just sent me an email asking me to beg for the immediate preemptive bombing of Iran.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    That is completely wrong. Cruz is significantly more hawkish than is conventional wisdom. The three people he said were his go to advisers on foreign policy are John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, and James Woolsey (all very extreme hawks.) He has Donald Rumseld's former right hand on his staff. He and his wife a socially very friendly with Condoleeza Rice. And you could just look at his rhetoric.
    Do you have links for the Abrahms and Woolsey adviser information?

    Abrahms also advises Rubio. Interesting that Ted decided to Stand With Marco on that budget vote.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    John Bolton just sent me an email asking me to beg for the immediate preemptive bombing of Iran.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-over-dinner
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Do you have links for the Abrahms and Woolsey adviser information?

    Abrahms also advises Rubio. Interesting that Ted decided to Stand With Marco on that budget vote.
    http://www.bloombergview.com/article...tea-party-hawk

    Second paragraph. He even says his stated goal is to be more hawkish than Rand Paul.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    http://www.bloombergview.com/article...tea-party-hawk

    Second paragraph. He even says his stated goal is to be more hawkish than Rand Paul.
    Thanks. Appropriate links added to the reference list:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

    When asked which foreign policy experts he trusts, he named three: John Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush; Elliott Abrams, who served in top foreign policy posts under Bush and President Ronald Reagan; and former CIA director James Woolsey, a hawkish Democrat.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  17. #15
    It will be interesting to see what ill happen to Cruz's "base" (however big or small that may be) if Huckabee decides to jump into the fray. I know many Christian Conservative types who still pine for Huck.
    “When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
    ― Andrew Jackson

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGalt1225 View Post
    It will be interesting to see what ill happen to Cruz's "base" (however big or small that may be) if Huckabee decides to jump into the fray. I know many Christian Conservative types who still pine for Huck.
    The whole fiscal conservatism/constitution thing goes down the drain and they vote for the one who loves Jesus the most?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul Pros and Cons by Chuck Baldwin 4/9/15
    By presence in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 06:18 PM
  2. Reading first Pros and Cons
    By Pants in forum Family, Parenting & Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 11:46 AM
  3. The Pros and Cons of a Kokesh Run
    By ronpaulhawaii in forum Adam Kokesh Forum 2010
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-16-2009, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 06:16 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •