Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

John Young

Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, John Young said:

Truth be told it has mostly been people like Trump who have been the "power behind the curtain". The only reason he and people like him do anything is to bluster their business. In the past he has supported whomever was good for him. Presently that is himself as the contestant of the ultimate reality show and Trump advertising/propaganda campaign. If people were voting their Christian principles they would not be voting for Trump in the primaries. Don't vote for Trump as if he was already the nominee but vote for a righteous principled constitutionalist like Cruz instead. Afterwards, when the true nominee of the people is selected, (be it Cruz or Trump) then we can worry about "beating Hilary".

Trump has been a money connection but not a power behind the curtain. Those in real power keep to the shadows and have the Party elites doing their bidding. We see them attacking Trump because they fear he can't be bought and both sides fear he won't walk as president in a predetermined manner. To them, this threatens their overall agenda whether minimally or majorly.

After digging deeper into Cruz I don't find him to be righteous, principled or a constitutionalist. On the surface he looked very good, it wasn't until looking beyond the gloss I found things too disturbing to ignore or support.

Whoever is elected the country will continue to head in the wrong direction. Christ is the only answer and His own people won't even do what His Word commands in order to see America bettered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John81 said:

Trump has been a money connection but not a power behind the curtain. Those in real power keep to the shadows and have the Party elites doing their bidding. We see them attacking Trump because they fear he can't be bought and both sides fear he won't walk as president in a predetermined manner. To them, this threatens their overall agenda whether minimally or majorly.

After digging deeper into Cruz I don't find him to be righteous, principled or a constitutionalist. On the surface he looked very good, it wasn't until looking beyond the gloss I found things too disturbing to ignore or support.

Whoever is elected the country will continue to head in the wrong direction. Christ is the only answer and His own people won't even do what His Word commands in order to see America bettered.

John,

I would like to know what those disturbing things are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People realize that the establishment politicians are corrupt, bought and paid for. Our country has been taken over by elitist, using "terrorism" as a means to take away our freedoms. Their goal is a New World Order. I believe most don't particular like Trump that much, but it's a better option than the New World Order. Cruz at least speaks of liberty and the constitution, but most conclude he is one of them. We don't want to fight meaningless wars in places where the USA was the root cause of what caused the chaos in the first place. Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex. We have been at war since the 40's...yet we haven't constitutionally declared it since WW2. We are no longer a constitutional republic. The people of America no longer stand with the government. "When people fear government there is tyranny"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go by a man's track record. That's all we can do, and leave the rest up to God. If Cruz is "one of them", and that includes the baby-murdering, gay-marriage promoting, gun grabbing, environmentalist, freedom-destroying, God-hating, totalitarian Liberals, he has a strange way of showing it.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/135705/ted-cruz#.Vt8KSWbSl9C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I go by a man's track record. That's all we can do, and leave the rest up to God. If Cruz is "one of them", and that includes the baby-murdering, gay-marriage promoting, gun grabbing, environmentalist, freedom-destroying, God-hating, totalitarian Liberals, he has a strange way of showing it.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/135705/ted-cruz#.Vt8KSWbSl9C

I think it was Pastor Jeffress which pointed out a video of Cruz in a closed door meeting with supporters telling them he considered the homosexual marriage matter settled by the Supreme Court and though he said he didn't agree with it he wouldn't pursue trying to change it. This is very similar to what John Kasich has said on the matter.

It was also pointed out on a program that Cruz's wife has belonged and still belongs to groups which have promoted the virtual elimination of borders between Canada, US, Mexico and others. She's also been involved in globalization efforts which many believe is part of the work to build a one world government.

Cruz's dad is a Dominionist preacher which Cruz said he agrees with. On that topic it was also noted Cruz gave virtually nothing to charity, including not giving to his home church. Cruz gave the excuse he needed all his money for other things.

If a person searches for information on Cruz it's available online. Myself, when I first started looking it took a bit more effort but I began by looking at the pro-Cruz sites (taking notes, copying links, etc.) then did the same with anti-Cruz sites, then followed up on the notes and links from both and followed whatever leads may have been in those as well. Then after separating the wheat from the chaff I looked at the key pros and cons which emerged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John81 said:

I think it was Pastor Jeffress which pointed out a video of Cruz in a closed door meeting I'd like to see that video.with supporters telling them he considered the homosexual marriage matter settled by the Supreme Court and though he said he didn't agree with it he wouldn't pursue trying to change it. This is very similar to what John Kasich has said on the matter.

It was also pointed out on a program that Cruz's wife has belonged and still belongs to groups which have promoted the virtual elimination of borders between Canada, US, Mexico  Yeah, sometimes I myself wonder if annexing Mexico might be a good idea....just a thought, mind you.....next and others. She's also been involved in globalization efforts which many believe is part of the work to build a one world government.

Cruz's dad is a Dominionist preacher which Cruz said he agrees with. would your rather have a Mormon, or a casino owning "Presbyterian" who has never done anything to need forgiveness instead ? On that topic it was also noted Cruz gave virtually nothing to charity, including not giving to his home church. Cruz gave the excuse he needed all his money for other things.  Do you have a source where I can look at this?

If a person searches for information on Cruz it's available online. Myself, when I first started looking it took a bit more effort but I began by looking at the pro-Cruz sites (taking notes, copying links, etc.) then did the same with anti-Cruz sites, What other agendas are these 'anti-Cruz" sites promoting? Do you trust them? then followed up on the notes and links from both and followed whatever leads may have been in those as well. Then after separating the wheat from the chaff I looked at the key pros and cons which emerged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I look at both pro and anti-sites for candidates is they both contain some truth (no, I don't believe everything any of them say, hence the following up on what they put forth to see if true or not). Some is easy to tell, other points take following links or doing searches to either confirm or refute what they are saying. It's time consuming, but searching it all out, separating the wheat from the chaff and seeing what we have is worthwhile.

Thomas Jefferson is viewed as one of our best presidents yet he was a Christ denier.

Is there a Mormon running this year too?

Some Dominionist views are very dangerous. At the same time, so are some views of others.

On a side note: I had to drive to another State this morning and while there I didn't notice any political signs but did see several bumper stickers. The first I noticed was for Carson (they must be very wise, non-racist people), one for Cruz, a couple for Sanders and a goodly number of Rand Paul bumper stickers.

In another four years we'll be going through this drama again if the Lord hasn't intervened one way or another before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John81 said:

While I agree with some of this, and perhaps the overall bigger premise, some of this sounds like the same hyperbole which has come from both sides for decades now. Liberals have claimed Reagan or Bush in the White House would be the end of Roe v Wade, bring about national Jim Crow laws, turn women barefoot and pregnant, cause all the arctic ice to melt, kill all the polar bears, flood the coasts, pollution would fill the skies and we'd be like 1970.

On the other side much of what you said above was said of Clinton and Obama, along with claims each would declare martial law, stay in office, confiscate all the guns, open the borders and turn America into a global nation (never mind Republicans have been behind efforts at globalization).

At some point some of these things will probably transpire. More likely, they will continue for some time as they have with the more gradual degradation of constitutional rights and freedoms.

I do agree, better Trump than Hillary. If Trump wins he best be very careful and recall what has happened to previous presidents who dared try and thwart the powers behind the curtain.

In the final analysis, regardless of who sits in the White House, God will still be in control and His will and plan shall be done.

That would become a part of national history perhaps worth the risk!

Historically I would agree with some of what you say John. However in the past you cited, there has been balance between the left and the right. Before and after Clinton, were the Bushs and their SCOTUS nominees.

This time is very different, the left has made sweeping changes over the last 8 years. Changes we couldn't imagine previously and sadly these changes we are somehow getting used to already. The flood of immigrants, the love affair and downplaying of muslims, the taxing, more anti gun laws passed than the previous 100 years, obamacare, the homo marriage and punishment to anyone who opposes it, including forced acceptance of the perverts in the girls rooms.

We must get back some balance this time more so than any other time in the last 100 years.

If the dems win it this time, their SCOTUS nod gets in and everything that Obama started WILL be completed during the next 3-4 years.

Obama did more damage in 8 years than Clinton could have dreamed of. Another 4 of it will put us under.

I recommend everyone stop what you are doing and back the one guy that can win or see all I am talking about happen permanently and nationwide.

BTW; I think you are seriously wrong thinking God cares about this or even cares to have a plan about it. America is nowhere in prophecy and of little consequence so just like throwing yourself in front of a speeding bus, thinking "let God's Will be done", we are going to do it again nationally.

BTW2: Individually walking with God in the Spirit is one thing but God's only Will for us is that we believe on His Son. Apart from that we are at the mercy of the draw down here in this sin cursed world.

think about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wretched said:

This time is very different, the left has made sweeping changes over the last 8 years. Changes we couldn't imagine previously and sadly these changes we are somehow getting used to already. The flood of immigrants, the love affair and downplaying of muslims, the taxing, more anti gun laws passed than the previous 100 years, obamacare, the homo marriage and punishment to anyone who opposes it, including forced acceptance of the perverts in the girls rooms.

So what's your favorite MRE?  Mine is Ham Slice followed by Escalloped Potatoes and Ham!  Still have some from the '80s and early '90s plus our regular "hurricane" stock that I keep on hand that are more recent.  The kids get a real kick out of them.  Six years ago we ate a 23 year old "Five Fingers of Death".  Remember that one?  Still tasted just as nasty as when I last had them in the '80s.  Those dark brown menus are still my favorites!

This nation was finally pushed over the cliff with the election of President Obama in 2008.  No President is going to put her back on solid ground, only slow or speed up her descent into the dustbin of history and moral depravity.  It would take a shootin' war to restart this nation based upon her original founding principals with statesman who fear the God of the Bible; again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John81 said:

I think it was Pastor Jeffress which pointed out a video of Cruz in a closed door meeting with supporters telling them he considered the homosexual marriage matter settled by the Supreme Court and though he said he didn't agree with it he wouldn't pursue trying to change it. This is very similar to what John Kasich has said on the matter.

http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-responds-to-politicos-secret-gay-marriage-audio-video/

It was also pointed out on a program that Cruz's wife has belonged and still belongs to groups which have promoted the virtual elimination of borders between Canada, US, Mexico and others. She's also been involved in globalization efforts which many believe is part of the work to build a one world government.

Cruz's dad is a Dominionist preacher which Cruz said he agrees with. On that topic it was also noted Cruz gave virtually nothing to charity, including not giving to his home church. Cruz gave the excuse he needed all his money for other things.

If a person searches for information on Cruz it's available online. Myself, when I first started looking it took a bit more effort but I began by looking at the pro-Cruz sites (taking notes, copying links, etc.) then did the same with anti-Cruz sites, then followed up on the notes and links from both and followed whatever leads may have been in those as well. Then after separating the wheat from the chaff I looked at the key pros and cons which emerged.

Here, John (and heart) is an article in which the video is embedded. I can't get it to play (although I have heard it before), but the transcript follows. There is another video at the bottom of the article in which Cruz answers what Politico claimed. When SCOTUS came out with their decision, he excoriated it. He is the only one who did, and he is nowhere near Kasich on the matter.

As to the program Heidi "belonged to"...She was a temporary member of a CFR group looking at forming the North American Union. Her membership was as a dissenter of the idea, and her writing that she submitted to the group proves that. She is strongly sovereign nation, as is Cruz. The falsehood that she plotted to bring about a North American Union was disseminated by Dewhurst, the progressive republican against which Cruz ran for Senate, as a means to try and undermine Cruz. It was proven false. And even Dewhurst has admitted that Cruz is all about the Constitution...which someone who promotes the NAU would not be.

As to the dominionist charge, do you know where it originated? With Salon, one of the most uber liberal, lying sites around. Do you know WHY they charged the people they did with dominionism? Because they are Christians. Under their definition, anyone who names the name of Christ is a dominionist. Under another liberal's definition, a dominionist is a Christian who believes that the Constitution should be followed. Guess what that means for most if not all of us oh OB?  Yep - we are dominionists.

When researching, one needs to ask oneself what is the motivation of the originator of information. In all of the instances I mentioned originated with people who do not want Ted Cruz to succeed. The sad thing is that too many people are falling for the lies.

Cruz is not interested in stoning gays (a dominionist would be). Nor is he interested in putting American under OT law (a dominionist would be). He is and always has been a strong advocate and believer in states' rights and the Constitution. I don't agree with everything he says and does (I'm not a Southern Baptist, like he is), but he is the best one running. And he would do what he says he will do - his record proves that.

 

Well, I added the link but it doesn't show.  Here it is - hope it shows this time.

http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-responds-to-politicos-secret-gay-marriage-audio-video/

 

(and, BTW - it is a lie that Cruz said he needed all his money for other things.)

Read the book A Time for Truth. You'll learn some truths about Cruz that are all provable by public record. And, in the case of the "secret" video, even those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

So what's your favorite MRE?  Mine is Ham Slice followed by Escalloped Potatoes and Ham!  Still have some from the '80s and early '90s plus our regular "hurricane" stock that I keep on hand that are more recent.  The kids get a real kick out of them.  Six years ago we ate a 23 year old "Five Fingers of Death".  Remember that one?  Still tasted just as nasty as when I last had them in the '80s.  Those dark brown menus are still my favorites!

This nation was finally pushed over the cliff with the election of President Obama in 2008.  No President is going to put her back on solid ground, only slow or speed up her descent into the dustbin of history and moral depravity.  It would take a shootin' war to restart this nation based upon her original founding principals with statesman who fear the God of the Bible; again.

You are probably right. It very well may be a lost cause.

BTW, I liked the hotdogs and chicken a la king. The rest of them I just forced down, HA

I also keep two cases on hand for emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wretched said:

Historically I would agree with some of what you say John. However in the past you cited, there has been balance between the left and the right. Before and after Clinton, were the Bushs and their SCOTUS nominees.

This time is very different, the left has made sweeping changes over the last 8 years. Changes we couldn't imagine previously and sadly these changes we are somehow getting used to already. The flood of immigrants, the love affair and downplaying of muslims, the taxing, more anti gun laws passed than the previous 100 years, obamacare, the homo marriage and punishment to anyone who opposes it, including forced acceptance of the perverts in the girls rooms.

We must get back some balance this time more so than any other time in the last 100 years.

If the dems win it this time, their SCOTUS nod gets in and everything that Obama started WILL be completed during the next 3-4 years.

Obama did more damage in 8 years than Clinton could have dreamed of. Another 4 of it will put us under.

I recommend everyone stop what you are doing and back the one guy that can win or see all I am talking about happen permanently and nationwide.

BTW; I think you are seriously wrong thinking God cares about this or even cares to have a plan about it. America is nowhere in prophecy and of little consequence so just like throwing yourself in front of a speeding bus, thinking "let God's Will be done", we are going to do it again nationally.

BTW2: Individually walking with God in the Spirit is one thing but God's only Will for us is that we believe on His Son. Apart from that we are at the mercy of the draw down here in this sin cursed world.

think about it.

 

I believe God is actively involved in all nations now just as He was in the past.

Short of national revival and/or another great awakening, who sits in the oval office matters little now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see they have called Mississippi and Michigan for Trump.

It's not over yet. I also see Kenneth Copeland and Charisma magazine are going all out for Cruz.

Fox News is trying to spin the night a win for Kasich! It seems they are giving up on Rubio, who they jumped to after their choice, Bush, dropped from the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It's a sad day when Kenneth Copeland has more discernment than Jerry Falwell.  

The thing about the primary season is that state wins are great. But it's the delegate numbers that count. As for kasich having a winning night - he is currently second in Michigan, and so has been given the second most delegates. That is a win for him. I do think maybe they are gonna start pushing him. They appear not to be pushing Trump, but with all the free media time they (not just Fox) give him, appearances seem to indicate they actually are promoting him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have many problems with those who voted for Cruz. For me, there are too many coincidences and relationships that cause me to question his intent. Yes, his stance on issues is great. But I feel he could be a "Trojan Horse". He worked under Bush, his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and i don't feel he's genuine. Trump isn't even close to perfect. I hate that he believes in torture, but he has shown that he can be informed about something and change. He's calling 9/11 an inside job, and calling to audit the Federal Reserve. The only 2 to talk about doing that, Lincoln and JFK. Huckabee said this is a revolution, we should be happy that it isn't violent. Newt Gingrich said the establishment doesn't like Trump because he isn't part of the secret society. I am not naive enough to believe Trump is really the answer, but I believe he is a chance. 

Here is the analogy. We've been hiring these plumbers from 2 different companies for a long time. Neither one of them is fixing our leak, yet we keep hiring them. Not only do they not fix the leak, but it gets worse. We don't care what the plumber looks like, but we aren't hiring from those 2 companies. We don't care if he has an animal on his head, or he likes women, or he has a foul mouth, we just want something different. This is why so many people are going for Sanders. Right or wrong, he's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Matthew24 said:

I don't have many problems with those who voted for Cruz. For me, there are too many coincidences and relationships that cause me to question his intent. Yes, his stance on issues is great. But I feel he could be a "Trojan Horse". He worked under Bush, his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and i don't feel he's genuine. Trump isn't even close to perfect. I hate that he believes in torture, but he has shown that he can be informed about something and change. He's calling 9/11 an inside job, and calling to audit the Federal Reserve. The only 2 to talk about doing that, Lincoln and JFK. Huckabee said this is a revolution, we should be happy that it isn't violent. Newt Gingrich said the establishment doesn't like Trump because he isn't part of the secret society. I am not naive enough to believe Trump is really the answer, but I believe he is a chance. 

Here is the analogy. We've been hiring these plumbers from 2 different companies for a long time. Neither one of them is fixing our leak, yet we keep hiring them. Not only do they not fix the leak, but it gets worse. We don't care what the plumber looks like, but we aren't hiring from those 2 companies. We don't care if he has an animal on his head, or he likes women, or he has a foul mouth, we just want something different. This is why so many people are going for Sanders. Right or wrong, he's different.

  I know he wasn't perfect, and I certainly didn't agree with some things he did, but I would take "GW" right now over the one we have now, and the majority of the ones who are running for office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES! I'd take George Washington over any of them. lol. idk about Bush...he's still a traitor. The Reagan's hated them. Obama is the worst, and possibly the AC in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an election. Civil emergency to keep him in power. If you don't think Bush knew about 9/11 you are willingly ignorant. Dumb on purpose. Jeb escorted the Bin Laden's out of Florida. There is really so much evidence if you don't know by now....you don't want to know, because it's easier to go through life waiving your American flag and calling us conspiracy theorists....while the real patriots want to know the truth. Read your bible. The antichrist can't run the New World Order with the 1 world super power against him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Matthew24 said:

YES! I'd take George Washington over any of them. lol. idk about Bush...he's still a traitor. The Reagan's hated them. Obama is the worst, and possibly the AC in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an election. Civil emergency to keep him in power. If you don't think Bush knew about 9/11 you are willingly ignorant. Dumb on purpose. Jeb escorted the Bin Laden's out of Florida. There is really so much evidence if you don't know by now....you don't want to know, because it's easier to go through life waiving your American flag and calling us conspiracy theorists....while the real patriots want to know the truth. Read your bible. The antichrist can't run the New World Order with the 1 world super power against him. 

Well, yeah I would too. But, how was Bush #2 a traitor? And no, I don't believe George Bush knew Al Quaeda was planning to destroy the World Trade Center. Sorry bro, I believe there are many conspiracies going on but I don't believe George did that one. I believe he did do the right thing invading Iraq, and I believe Sadaam Hussein had those WMD's too. The Muslim/Islamofacist/Ismaelites hate Israel and they hate us, for the most part, for supporting her, and they fully believe they are serving God by detonating suicide vests, setting off pressure cooker bombs, shooting up military bases, recruiting centers, workplaces, shopping centers, schools, cutting off heads and slashing people's throats. It doesn't take a "conspiracy" of American traitors for America-hating religious nut jobs to fly planes into buildings to serve "allah".

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are Islamic nut jobs, we have one as president. That doesn't mean the New World Order, who daddy bush pushed so hard on us and openly talked about, can't use and fund these Islamic extremist to take away freedoms. Then call us racist because we don't want them living next door to us. Wake up. Iraq isn't better now?/? We destroyed families and childrens lives. They weren't all extremist....and I would be extremist vs someone else if they were driving down my street killing people i know. Saddam wasn't a threat....nor Gaddahfi...there is real reasons  we went over there. It wasn't to stabalize it.....just like we shouldn't be destabalizing syria. look up syrian girl on youtube if you want an intelligent syrians perscpective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security Bush the Second did more to prepare America to become a police state than any of his Democrat predecessors.

Even the Bush people now admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to America. In fact, Iraq under Saddam served as a check to both Iran and Syria. He was a strongman dictator but no worse than the many others America has worked with, even sided with. Under Saddam, unless a person posed a threat to his power, there was more freedom and commerce than other Arab nations, including our phony "ally" Saudi Arabia. The income of the average Iraqi was far greater than for those of other Arab nations. Christians were safe in Iraq. Look at the mess the place is in now.

I don't recall who it was, it's been posted here in the past, but a man who worked in the Bush White House when Bush the Second first took office pointed out that at the top of Bush's list was to figure out a way to attack Saddam...this was months before 9-11.

Also, some conservative group put out a list of Cruz's close advisers and most are from the Bush camp. Why would any true conservative or constitutionalist want warmed over liberal neo-cons as his advisers?

We are lied to constantly but most people don't care. As I've said before, there were very good reasons the Founders created a Republic with limits upon who could vote and an electoral college. Too bad we gave that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John81 said:

With the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security Bush the Second did more to prepare America to become a police state than any of his Democrat predecessors.

Even the Bush people now admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to America. In fact, Iraq under Saddam served as a check to both Iran and Syria. He was a strongman dictator but no worse than the many others America has worked with, even sided with. Under Saddam, unless a person posed a threat to his power, there was more freedom and commerce than other Arab nations, including our phony "ally" Saudi Arabia. The income of the average Iraqi was far greater than for those of other Arab nations. Christians were safe in Iraq. Look at the mess the place is in now.

I don't recall who it was, it's been posted here in the past, but a man who worked in the Bush White House when Bush the Second first took office pointed out that at the top of Bush's list was to figure out a way to attack Saddam...this was months before 9-11.

Also, some conservative group put out a list of Cruz's close advisers and most are from the Bush camp. Why would any true conservative or constitutionalist want warmed over liberal neo-cons as his advisers?

We are lied to constantly but most people don't care. As I've said before, there were very good reasons the Founders created a Republic with limits upon who could vote and an electoral college. Too bad we gave that up.

AMEN!  

It really isn't that hard to find out information on this topic. The hardest part is that we've been conditioned our entire lives to always believe that USA is fighting for freedom world wide. If you study these wars in depth and can put together coincedences/facts...you may find out that we were lied to. But most people will continue to waive the red, white, and blue, yell "Merica", say that people like me hate the troops, when the real Patriots are those who seek truth. Our founding fathers would have most of these politicians swinging from trees for treason. I love the troops, i hate the people that control the troops. I believe it was Feinstein that was asked "is 1 million dead Iraqi children worth it?" She replied, "yes". 

 

Youtube: incubator baby conspiracy               It is the truth about media propaganda convincing the American people we needed to go to Iraq in Desert Storm.

Edited by Matthew24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it is wise to allow false accusations to go unchallenged. If you're going to make posts about Cruz then don't ignore providing your source. He is by far the best choice at present for POTUS. As much as you prefer Jesus Christ as POTUS, it ain't happening. Cruz's record for Christian preferred legislation should be a rallying point. If you can't back it up don't be a false accuser. 

P.S. I prefer Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, and ruler over the new heaven and new earth. Reference: My KJB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TED CRUZ IS NOT A LEGAL U.S. CITIZEN AT ALL

 

By J.B. Williams
February 8, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

1. “citizen at birth” is a 14th Amendment naturalization term based upon “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.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

2. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)

From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.

3. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…

 
a) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)

B) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - 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. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)

c) NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department

4. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.

As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for the Oval Office.

Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Canadian citizen?

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.

 

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

© 2016 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Williams is wrong.  Canadian laws on immigration do not affect our immigration laws with regards to citizenship.  We were taught in grade school that if you are born to American parents in a foreign country you are considered a natural born citizen.  See 3a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By mattbennett
      Hello all, I've been working to expand my client base as a freelance web developer and just wanted your help to spread the word! I freelance for both backend and frontend projects focusing my efforts on the WordPress CMS. Working in this fashion gives me the freedom to serve the Lord in my family's music ministry and in our local Church. If you or someone that you know is in need of support and service on the web, please have them contact me.  Visit BennettWebsites.com (for Church related projects) and EasyWebsite.Support (for business related projects). Thanks!  - Matt
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...