snowbear37 Loc: MA.

Senator Ted Cruz joined Glenn’s radio program this morning to discuss some of the news surrounding the latest Islamic terrorist attack in Paris. “This is coming over to our shores,” Glenn said, referring to the recent video released by ISIS threatening a suicide attack on Times Square. When Glenn asked Cruz how he would respond to the radical Islamic menace if he were president, Cruz didn’t hesitate to say, “We will destroy ISIS.” He added, “Not degrade them, not weaken them, we will utterly destroy them,” Cruz said. Below is a rough transcript of this segment, it might contain errors. GLENN: This is coming over to our shores. ISIS put out a video today that shows somebody taking plastic and making a suicide vest and then going into Times Square and blowing themselves up. What is it going to take for this president and this country to wake up? TED: Well, for this president to wake up, I tell you, I pray for the president daily. And indeed, in the wake of France, my prayers have been — and I think the prayers of millions — that he have a clarity and a willingness to defend this country. But sadly, Glenn, I’ve seen no indications of a willingness to do so. He refuses even to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” And even worse than that, both the president and his administration regularly act as apologists for radical Islamic terrorism. You know, I was at the National Prayer Breakfast. It was the day after ISIS had lit a Jordanian pilot on fire. And President Obama gave a speech that, in my view was nothing short of shameful, in which he said, “Well, yes, ISIS is committing bad acts.” But he said, “Christians and Jews have committed bad acts as well.” And he brought up the Crusades and the Inquisition and said, “It’s all really the same.” Now, look, the last I checked, those ended hundreds of years ago. And I don’t think it’s asking too much of the president for him to stay in the current millennium. And the word apologist — you know, some folks have reacted, “Well, gosh, that’s strong.” Well, actually, apologist has a very specific meaning. It’s someone who stands up and provides realizations and justifications for a course of conduct. And the argument about the Crusades and the Inquisition is exactly what ISIS says. It’s exactly what the terrorists say. And that’s what the president is saying. And we saw it just this week. John Kerry saying, “The attacks on Charlie Hebdo were justifiable, were understandable.” What nonsense. This is the face of evil. And, Glenn, we need a commander-in-chief who stands up and says, “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism. We will destroy ISIS. If you are a militant anywhere on the face of the globe and you go join ISIS and you take up arms against America, you are signing your death warrant.”

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/11/19/we-will-utterly-destroy-them-ted-cruz-on-defeating-radical-islam?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

It's about time someone spoke like this!

JMHO Loc: Utah

I am a big Cruz supporter! He is the only true conservative in the race.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

I guess the fact that he is not eligible to be President never enters your mind??????

JMHO Loc: Utah

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: He's eligible...get over it.

JimMe

"Natural Born Citizen" HAS entered my mind...

I have researched it Online (and written My Congress Representatives and Our Supreme Court Justices regarding it but NONE OF THEM HAVE RESPONDED TO MY REQUEST FOR THEIR DEFINITION)...

The best I can find is that in Today's USA, there is a Consensus that (and I'm paraphrasing here from a few different Online Sources such as "The Harvard Law Review" and the like) a "Natural Born Citizen" is ANYONE BORN A USA CITIZEN and DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THRU THE "NATURALIZATION PROCESS"...

And seeing as Mr Cruz's Mother was a USA Citizen at His Birth, He Was A USA at Birth and thus MR CRUZ IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" and as such IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA...

JMHO Loc: Utah

There you go. It has always been a vague term.

JimMe

It was NOT Vague to the Colonists in 1787 while Developing Our Constitution... They were Almost Assuredly Following English Law's Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" regarding British Citizenship... And English Law - in the Late 1780's - said ANYONE born within the United Kingdom (of which the Colonies were a part) or born Outside of the UK but who had at least one parent a UK Citizen at the Child's Birth was a "Natural Born Citizen" of the UK...