Trust Ted? Cruz facing growing attacks on credibility

[webfact]

Trust Ted? Cruz facing growing attacks on credibility
By STEVE PEOPLES and SCOTT BAUER

MUSCATINE, Iowa (AP) — Ted Cruz needs you to trust him.

Trust is the cornerstone of this fiery conservative's campaign, which may live or die with his ability to convince voters in Iowa and across the nation that he's the most consistent and trustworthy among the pack of White House hopefuls.

Yet as he strives for victory in Iowa's Monday caucuses, a chorus of Republican critics led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is tearing at the fabric of Cruz's message.

His GOP opponents cite a history of political opportunism they say is more in line with a used car salesman than the "consistent conservative" he claims to be. In debates, TV ads and on the campaign trail, fellow Republicans are highlighting inconsistencies in Cruz's policies on immigration, foreign policy and even his dedication to Christian conservative values. They're also reminding voters that the self-described outsider is an Ivy League-educated lawyer who served in former President George W. Bush's administration.

"If you are going to campaign as the most principled, the most consistent conservative, then your record better support that," said Rubio's senior strategist Todd Harris. "As long as he holds himself out to be holier than thou on all things conservative, we're going to continue to point out that he's not."

Cruz is betting his 2016 campaign he can win the trust argument.

The slogan, "TRUSTED", is emblazoned on red, white and blue signs at every appearance and across the back of his campaign bus. And his closing message at debates, campaign rallies and speeches is almost always the same: "It is now up to the men and women of this great state to make the determination, who do they trust?" Cruz this week in Fenton, Iowa. "As voters, we've been lied to over and over and over again. The stakes are too high for us to be burned again."

He added, "The men and women of Iowa want a consistent conservative."

Trump, now locked in a close race for the lead in Iowa, has repeatedly called Cruz a liar in recent days. Chris Christie calls him a flip-flopper. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa's caucus in 2008, has seized on reports that Cruz told a group of New York donors last year that he wouldn't make fighting gay marriage a priority if elected. That's in sharp contrast with his public promises to fight the Supreme Court's decision.

"He's saying one thing to a group of folks in Marshalltown (Iowa), something totally different to a group of folks in Manhattan," said Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley. "Voters want someone they can trust. And it is painfully obvious at this point that Ted Cruz can't be trusted."

The criticism comes despite Cruz's overwhelmingly positive ratings from conservative groups, such as the American Conservative Union, which gives him a 100 percent rating over his first two years in the Senate. In Washington, the Texas senator is often accused of being an ideological purist to a fault.

He led his party's unsuccessful fight to strip funding from the federal health care overhaul in 2013, leading to a government shutdown. He favored a similar approach last fall in the fight to fund Planned Parenthood, but was rebuked by his party leaders still angry about his guidance two years earlier.

Now, Cruz's own conservative purity is under intense scrutiny in the final hours before Iowa voters decide the 2016 campaign's opening primary contest.

His competitors regularly attack Cruz's evolutions on foreign policy, ethanol subsidies and immigration in particular. He was targeted in last week's presidential debate by several opponents for previously supporting a pathway to legal status for immigrants in the country illegally. Cruz's campaign suggests he wasn't being sincere when he said in 2013 that he supported an amendment that would have granted legal status to such immigrants.

"Everybody's for amnesty except for Ted Cruz," said a sarcastic Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul during the debate. "But it's a falseness, and that's an authenticity problem."

No one has hit Cruz harder than Rubio. The two are fighting for a role as the leading alternative to Trump as the Republican nomination contest takes off.

"People are starting to learn the truth about Ted on immigration and a bunch of other issues, and it shows a history of calculation," Rubio said as he campaigned in Muscatine, Iowa this week. He added, "I know we're not going to beat Hillary Clinton with a candidate who will say or do anything to gain a vote."

Yet there is little doubt that Cruz's conservative bona fides run deep.

He has built his campaign around the argument that he's a "consistent conservative," arguing that his devotion to upholding the Constitution dates back to when he memorized and recited it across Texas with a group of high school students. He also points to his record as Texas's top lawyer, arguing nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chris Bolvenz, a farm co-op manager from Hubbard, said he became a Cruz supporter after his 2013 filibuster trying to block funding for President Obama's health care law — a move that led to a partial government shutdown.

"I think he's authentic," said the 54-year-old Bolvenz. "He's more conservative than the other candidates."

But it's not hard to find Iowa voters who question Cruz's claims.

"What frustrates me about him is that he says you're only a purist if you're Ted Cruz," said Rubio supporter Benjamin Danielson, a 31-year-old hospital chaplain from Cedar Rapids. "I trust him on the major issues, but I don't think he's more trustworthy than anybody else."

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-01

[webfact]

Donald Trump: 'Ted Cruz is a total liar'
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Sunday repeatedly slammed his chief presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz as a "total liar" as the Texas senator and his allies have claimed in the final stretch to the Iowa caucuses that Trump favors government-run, universal health care.

Cruz, meanwhile, pressed forward Sunday with the line of attack, proclaiming: "A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Obamacare."

"Look, Ted Cruz is a total liar. I am so against Obamacare. I've been saying it for two years in my speeches, I'm going to repeal and replace Obamacare," Trump said on ABC's "This Week." "I don't even know where he gets this."

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-health-care-obamacare/index.html


-- CNN 2016-02-01

[Usernames]

Finally! An AP article that gets it right.

[Pinot]

His conservative bona fides run deep alright. That's what a Republican candidate needs at this point. The wingnut base demands it and they're going to get it. The perfect conservative unelectable candidate.

They've learned nothing from 2012. They're toast.

How awful a candidate would Ted Cruz be? He's running right behind awful candidate #1. Awful candidate #3 is no better.

Ted Cruz is the worst Republican candidate in my lifetime. He'll be a candidate for President (like Santorum) for a generation to come.

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet.

[Hayduke]

"....The criticism comes despite Cruz's overwhelmingly positive ratings from conservative groups, such as the American Conservative Union, which gives him a 100 percent rating over his first two years in the Senate......"

Oh, it would appear he's consistent all right. He can no doubt claim a 100 percent record of eagerly pocketing whatever money (conservative, of course) is offered in return for signing whatever IOU/promissory note is put in front of him.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Hayduke

[expat_4_life]

Here is a short list of my reasons to NeverTrustTed

Must watch: Ted Cruz at 18 years old

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-vG_TdOT4

Ted Cruz lies about Trump and Eminent domain, the home was never demolished

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt4gXlEteTk

Read more about Ted Cruz from a supporter, who has seen the light. Scathing expose on Rafael Ted Cruz.

http://laurenstephens.com/

[Andaman Al]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

Edited February 1, 2016 by Andaman Al

[chuckd]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

This problem must be settled by the courts, Until a judge rules and the Supreme Court finally decides, the issue is very much up in the air.

It is simply too early to tell.

[elgordo38]

His conservative bona fides run deep alright. That's what a Republican candidate needs at this point. The wingnut base demands it and they're going to get it. The perfect conservative unelectable candidate.

They've learned nothing from 2012. They're toast.

How awful a candidate would Ted Cruz be? He's running right behind awful candidate #1. Awful candidate #3 is no better.

Ted Cruz is the worst Republican candidate in my lifetime. He'll be a candidate for President (like Santorum) for a generation to come.

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet.

Yes your right. Cruz wants to look like a political poster boy but he is bought and paid for by the establishment. The Koch Bros. are now out of the secretive donation closet that they inhabited for years. Their "buying a candidate" money went from 400 million last year to 889 million this year thanks to congress lifting the donation ceiling. Come on people its one big circle jerk, daisy chain. The establishment wants to help you about as much as they want to find a cure for cancer. Cancer rates are now down to 1 in 3 people catching it in their lifetime its a big pharma business just like politics. I hear that they now have a vaccine or magic bullet to defeat cancer but its kept under wraps. We all know what happened to the carburetor that was supposed to give cars a 100 miles to the gallon.

Edited February 1, 2016 by elgordo38

[Ulic]

Ted Cruz is as credible as Donald Trump, the only problem with Cruz is he is a

total Nut Job. All that said I am hoping the two of them can kiss and make up.

I am still pulling for a Trump-Cruz, GOP ticket. Yes truly frightening but comedy

gold for the late night boys and I do like my late night entertainment.

[Jingthing]

Cruz makes Trump look almost tolerable. Yes, he's that bad. His Senate colleagues hate his guts. Get a clue. He's a modern Joe McCarthy.

[Andaman Al]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

This problem must be settled by the courts, Until a judge rules and the Supreme Court finally decides, the issue is very much up in the air.

It is simply too early to tell.

Agreed, but isn't it something that needs deciding now? Imagine him getting the nomination winning the Presidency and then boom! Not Valid. I am not sure you need a Judge do you, it is clear. His Father was not a US Citizen, his mother was and he was born in Calgary in Canada, is he a 'Natural Born' US Citizen? Answer definitely not. I don't seem to remember Obama being given as much quarter when it was thought he was not born in the US.

The very conditions that actually exist for Cruz were thought to exist for Obama and the republicans were baying for blood and stating that Obama was not a US natural born citizen. US mother, non US Father born outside the USA so therefore not 'Natural Born', but the problem was that Obama WAS born in the USA so is 'natural born'. Cruz , US Mother, non US Father, born in Calgary Canada, outside the USA therefore according to Republican mob cries last time for Obama - NOT a natural born US citizen. No Judge required it's simple. How do republicans argue for the example in the case of Cruz and Obama being different, oh let me guess, one is white and the other one isn't.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[chuckd]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

This problem must be settled by the courts, Until a judge rules and the Supreme Court finally decides, the issue is very much up in the air.

It is simply too early to tell.

Agreed, but isn't it something that needs deciding now? Imagine him getting the nomination winning the Presidency and then boom! Not Valid. I am not sure you need a Judge do you, it is clear. His Father was not a US Citizen, his mother was and he was born in Calgary in Canada, is he a 'Natural Born' US Citizen? Answer definitely not. I don't seem to remember Obama being given as much quarter when it was thought he was not born in the US.

The very conditions that actually exist for Cruz were thought to exist for Obama and the republicans were baying for blood and stating that Obama was not a US natural born citizen. US mother, non US Father born outside the USA so therefore not 'Natural Born', but the problem was that Obama WAS born in the USA so is 'natural born'. Cruz , US Mother, non US Father, born in Calgary Canada, outside the USA therefore according to Republican mob cries last time for Obama - NOT a natural born US citizen. No Judge required it's simple. How do republicans argue for the example in the case of Cruz and Obama being different, oh let me guess, one is white and the other one isn't.

You were doing fine until your knee jerk reaction to throw race into the issue.

A Republican attorney in Houston has filed suit in federal court to try and clear up the matter. The courts must now decide if he has standing to file the suit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-15/cruz-s-natural-born-citizen-status-challenged-in-birther-suit

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Edited February 1, 2016 by chuckd

[Chicog]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

Professor McManamon contends that the traditional common law view, reflected, for instance, in Blackstone’s Commentaries, was that a “natural born” British subject was someone born within the realm, with only extremely narrow exceptions (like for the children of British ambassadors). Under this narrow definition, McCain, Romney, Goldwater, and Cruz are all out of luck.

Broadening the definition of “natural born citizen” to encompass the definitions of Parliamentary statutes in effect at the time our Constitution was drafted (and not just the judge-made common law) would permit McCain, Romney, and Goldwater back onto the ballot, but Cruz might still be banished. The acts of Parliament provided that a child born beyond British borders would be treated as “natural born” only if both his parents were citizens, or if at least his father was. Neither of these conditions was true of Cruz.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

[chuckd]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

Professor McManamon contends that the traditional common law view, reflected, for instance, in Blackstone’s Commentaries, was that a “natural born” British subject was someone born within the realm, with only extremely narrow exceptions (like for the children of British ambassadors). Under this narrow definition, McCain, Romney, Goldwater, and Cruz are all out of luck.

Broadening the definition of “natural born citizen” to encompass the definitions of Parliamentary statutes in effect at the time our Constitution was drafted (and not just the judge-made common law) would permit McCain, Romney, and Goldwater back onto the ballot, but Cruz might still be banished. The acts of Parliament provided that a child born beyond British borders would be treated as “natural born” only if both his parents were citizens, or if at least his father was. Neither of these conditions was true of Cruz.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

Thank you for the post, The next thread that comes along discussing who is or is not a UK natural born citizen will already be answred.

The previous on topic discussion had thrown out a theoretical situation of what IF Obama had actually not been found to have been born in Hawaii

Had it been proven Obama was born outside the US, his mothers birthright was questionable.

[Chicog]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

Professor McManamon contends that the traditional common law view, reflected, for instance, in Blackstone’s Commentaries, was that a “natural born” British subject was someone born within the realm, with only extremely narrow exceptions (like for the children of British ambassadors). Under this narrow definition, McCain, Romney, Goldwater, and Cruz are all out of luck.

Broadening the definition of “natural born citizen” to encompass the definitions of Parliamentary statutes in effect at the time our Constitution was drafted (and not just the judge-made common law) would permit McCain, Romney, and Goldwater back onto the ballot, but Cruz might still be banished. The acts of Parliament provided that a child born beyond British borders would be treated as “natural born” only if both his parents were citizens, or if at least his father was. Neither of these conditions was true of Cruz.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

Thank you for the post, The next thread that comes along discussing who is or is not a UK natural born citizen will already be answred.

The previous on topic discussion had thrown out a theoretical situation of what IF Obama had actually not been found to have been born in Hawaii

Had it been proven Obama was born outside the US, his mothers birthright was questionable.

Not sure why Obama was on topic in a Ted Cruz thread. I mean it's a bit late now, isn't it?

[Pinot]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

This problem must be settled by the courts, Until a judge rules and the Supreme Court finally decides, the issue is very much up in the air.

It is simply too early to tell.

Huh? Settled by the courts? He should be in jail! He's a damn Canadian! He lied! He's a damn alien!

Funny how you're the voice of reason with Cruz. Hillary should be drawn and quartered for this foolish email server thingy, eh? (like a Canadian eh)

[whybother]

"He's more conservative than the other candidates."

That's a good reason to hope that he doesn't get elected.

[whybother]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

<snip>

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

There is also an opinion that "natural born citizen" means obtaining citizenship at birth, which Cruz did.

[Andaman Al]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

<snip>

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

There is also an opinion that "natural born citizen" means obtaining citizenship at birth, which Cruz did.

Sigh!

Who's opinion is that?

Natural Born is born in country, that is EXACTLY how the founding fathers saw it when they wrote the constitution. Yes I know it was 250 years ago and nobody had air travel and international passports and times have changed blah blah. But the constitution is almost immovable. The right to bear arms was written a long time ago but when people say, nope it is in the constitution and you are not going to remove or change it, the founding Fathers wrote it and it's good enough for us - well same same, they wrote the bits about 'natural born'. If you hold one bit of the constitution sacred then it all has to be dealt with with the same standard of jurisprudence. Cruz is not an American 'Natural Born', don't beat a dead horse.

[chuckd]

I have read that Ted Cruz is not eligible to become POTUS as he was not born in the USA. The constitution calls for 'natural born' yet Cruz was born in Calgary Canada - Fact! He says his mother was a US citizen, but as lawyers are now pointing out he was not 'natural born'. Another one bites the dust!

This problem must be settled by the courts, Until a judge rules and the Supreme Court finally decides, the issue is very much up in the air.

It is simply too early to tell.

Huh? Settled by the courts? He should be in jail! He's a damn Canadian! He lied! He's a damn alien!

Funny how you're the voice of reason with Cruz. Hillary should be drawn and quartered for this foolish email server thingy, eh? (like a Canadian eh)

I see you are not gaining any wisdom with age.

Tell us precisely what law Cruz has broken.

I can do that with the pathologocial liar you are defending but can you tell us what laws Cruz has violated?

It's time to put up or shut up.

[whybother]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

<snip>

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

There is also an opinion that "natural born citizen" means obtaining citizenship at birth, which Cruz did.

Sigh!

Who's opinion is that?

Natural Born is born in country, that is EXACTLY how the founding fathers saw it when they wrote the constitution. Yes I know it was 250 years ago and nobody had air travel and international passports and times have changed blah blah. But the constitution is almost immovable. The right to bear arms was written a long time ago but when people say, nope it is in the constitution and you are not going to remove or change it, the founding Fathers wrote it and it's good enough for us - well same same, they wrote the bits about 'natural born'. If you hold one bit of the constitution sacred then it all has to be dealt with with the same standard of jurisprudence. Cruz is not an American 'Natural Born', don't beat a dead horse.

The Naturalization Act of 1790:

"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".

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

[chuckd]

Edit in: There actually is a difference between the two cases. It involves the mothers eligibility.

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

<snip>

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

There is also an opinion that "natural born citizen" means obtaining citizenship at birth, which Cruz did.

Sigh!

Who's opinion is that?

Natural Born is born in country, that is EXACTLY how the founding fathers saw it when they wrote the constitution. Yes I know it was 250 years ago and nobody had air travel and international passports and times have changed blah blah. But the constitution is almost immovable. The right to bear arms was written a long time ago but when people say, nope it is in the constitution and you are not going to remove or change it, the founding Fathers wrote it and it's good enough for us - well same same, they wrote the bits about 'natural born'. If you hold one bit of the constitution sacred then it all has to be dealt with with the same standard of jurisprudence. Cruz is not an American 'Natural Born', don't beat a dead horse.

There is quite a bit of discussion about the affect the 14th amendment has on the natural born citizen issue.

The matter of "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be properly settled once and for all by the Supreme Court or Congress.

Let's hope it gets settled sooner rather than later.

[Andaman Al]

Surely the difference is that one was born of a US parent on US soil, the other of a US parent on foreign soil.

Apparently the US took this "Natural Born" provision from the UK and have never properly qualified it.

<snip>

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

There is also an opinion that "natural born citizen" means obtaining citizenship at birth, which Cruz did.

Sigh!

Who's opinion is that?

Natural Born is born in country, that is EXACTLY how the founding fathers saw it when they wrote the constitution. Yes I know it was 250 years ago and nobody had air travel and international passports and times have changed blah blah. But the constitution is almost immovable. The right to bear arms was written a long time ago but when people say, nope it is in the constitution and you are not going to remove or change it, the founding Fathers wrote it and it's good enough for us - well same same, they wrote the bits about 'natural born'. If you hold one bit of the constitution sacred then it all has to be dealt with with the same standard of jurisprudence. Cruz is not an American 'Natural Born', don't beat a dead horse.

The Naturalization Act of 1790:

"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".

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

Now you know that if you are going to quote something then don't leave out the bits that might add less weight to your argument, it is disingenuous.

The line immediately following the one you have chosen to quote says "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose Fathers have never been resident in the United States." (There were of course conditions as to what a 'resident' meant).

All that said and done, it is academic as the act you quote was in 1790. This act was repealed by an act on the 29th January 1795. It helps when quoting such things to read the page before and the page after,or in this case even the sentence after.

[NeverSure]

Tomorrow's MSM headlines:

"Cruz wins Iowa Caucuses with 23%. Rubio comes in second with 13%. Trump is the loser with 28%. "Loser" because some pundits had predicted 29%."

"Al Jazeera is investigating claims that Cruz was born in NYC and Trump was born in Kenya."

"MSNBC is reporting that Trump, in his humiliation, will move to Mexico and start a chain of taco carts."

"Clinton wins Democrat caucuses with 100% of the votes. All of the votes were sent via email from a server in a basement in Chappaqua, New York. It would appear that perhaps Hillary's new campaign theme "I have not been indicted" is working."

"Fox News has offered Trump Megyn Kelly for a night if he'll just come back and do at least one more interview. Trump said "screw that""

"Russia, in appreciation for Sander's communist leanings has offered to buy him a new walker and a motorized wheel chair. Nothing has been mentioned about his rumored need for a brain transplant."

Edited February 1, 2016 by NeverSure

[bendejo]

Not long ago Cruz attacked another candidate, accusing them of making stuff up knowing that people weren't paying close attention and wouldn't put any effort into investigating it (like most Americans), and would just accept it at face value and not question it. I burst out laughing when I heard him say this, as that is EXACTLY what HE does. An ex-wife of mine used to do the same thing, behaving a certain way then accuse others of behaving as such.

[Jingthing]

This is just some fun.

Little kids reacting to various candidates, including Cruz:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/02/01/before-the-votes-are-cast-the-presidential-front-runners-as-seen-through-the-eyes-of-children/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Nancy Carlsson-Paige, an expert in childhood education and development (and, actor Matt Damon’s mom), said one thing she’s noticed this election cycle is how much the adult candidates and political pundits sound like young children.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[Andaman Al]

This seems to sum up many of the legal arguments concerning Cruze's 'natural born' status. Or to put in perspective, the author seems to know a lot more than us folks and certainly adds issues that promote debate.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution

[Jingthing]

The kids mentioned he looks fat. I really hadn't looked at his puffiness before. Has he put on a lot of weight lately? Perhaps stress because he knows in his heart he's not eligible to be president. It's very ironic considering he's so very dedicated to the constitution.