February 4, 2016, - 2:20 am

HAMAS Pal Jimmy Carter Prefers Trump to Cruz

By Debbie Schlussel

jimmycarter.jpgdonaldtrump.jpg.

It should give anyone and everyone pause that HAMAS/Hezbollah pal and worst Prez of the last 100 years (tied with Obama), Jimmy Carter, says he prefers Donald Trump to Ted Cruz.

Jimmuh, the peanut farmer–a cancer on America that keeps on infesting. Jimmy Carter is an open Jew-hater who called for a “final solution” regarding Israel, knowing full well what those words mean. Even far-left liberal Jews on the board of his Carter Center resigned. Then, he met with and praised HAMAS and its officials and Hezbollah and its officials, despite the fact that Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group other than Al-Qaeda. Yup, more than ISIS. And Jimmuh met with and praised Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, despite the fact that his group murdered more than 300 U.S. Marines and Embassy officials with bombings. That’s aside from the litany of other outrageous things Carter has done in his years during and since his miserable, failed Presidency–many of which I’ve outlined here. At 91, he’s a stark exhibit of the Billy Joel Theorem: Only The Good Die Young.

Jimmy Carter says he prefers the Donald to Cruz because he believes Trump is more malleable. This is the same thinking as that echoed by Bob Dole, Scott Brown, and other liberal establishment Republicans. Yup, the establishment GOP–or as I call ’em, the “Congenital GOP”–share the same views as Jimmy Carter in their new-found support for the former “Apprentice” host. That’s troubling.

Here’s what Carter said while in the UK, speaking to the House of Lords:

“Bernie Sanders has had a remarkable showing, particularly among young people. In Iowa, he had 85 percent of young people’s (support),” Carter said. “I don’t know what the final result will be. My own personal opinion is that it’s very likely Hillary Clinton will still prevail in the Democratic party. Of course, I’m a Democrat and I will support the (Democratic party’s) nominee.”

But wait, the former president was just getting warmed up! Turning to the “almost completely unpredictable” race for the Republican nomination, Carter said he had a “feeling” that Trump’s chances ultimately would “fade away. When people actually get ready to put on a ballot, ‘This is the person I want to lead me for the next four or eight years, I think they’ll have a little different opinion,’” Carter said.

Still, better him than Ted Cruz. If he had to choose between Cruz and Trump for the Republican nomination, Carter chuckled, “I think I would choose Trump, which may surprise some of you.” (It did, judging by the loud laughter from the audience.)

“The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completly malleable,” Carter explained. “I don’t think he has any fixed (positions) he’d go the White House and fight for. On the other hand, Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right wing policies he’d pursue if he became president.”

The Presidency isn’t Playdough. We don’t need or want yet another GOP Prez who molds to whatever liberals want. We want someone with solid, identifiable principles and a steel backbone to stick by them.

(BTW, in a sane world, Jimmy Carter would be behind bars for treason, or at least he’d be a national joke like Kato Kaelin, and nobody would care what he thinks about anything.)

While I was pro-Cruz but could’ve seen myself voting for and supporting Trump, at this point I don’t have a preference between the two because I think both of them have their problems and both have flip-flopped on issues important to me (immigration, Islam, etc.–though Cruz has flip-flopped significantly less). I like both of them a lot more than any of the other Republican choices, and a zillion times more than the impending prospect of a President Hillary or President Bernie.

I do think that Cruz is less electable and less likely to beat Hillary Clinton, but I don’t believe for a nanosecond that Donald Trump will be a conservative in the White House, or that he believes in anything he’s saying. And it’s extremely offensive to me that he willingly appeared on openly anti-Semitic, 9/11 Truther whackjob Alex Jones’ show (as did Trump’s biggest radio ass-kisser, Michael Savage–he went on Jones’ show to pimp one of his books). I’ve been frequently attacked by some of Alex Jones’ rabid followers, who call me a “Zionist” and accuse me of being part of the Bilderberger crowd that “controls the world.” If only I had even a fraction of such control. But this is the kind of show on which a possible future President of this country is appearing–a modern-day Father Coughlin show. Anyone who’s a patriot should also be bothered by Trump’s statements and behavior with regard to how he got away with avoiding the draft during Vietnam. Both of these guys–Trump and Cruz–have done some things that creep me out or really annoy me, but there isn’t anything close to the perfect guy running, so we gotta pick the best of the choices. That said, I will throw my vote away and vote Libertarian if any of these establishment liberal Repubs are the GOP nominee: JEB!, HAMAS Chris ChrispieCreme, John Kasich, Marco Rubio Boobio of Senate Gangbangers of Eight fame, and Jess Jackson’s cracka friend Carly Fiorina.

I believe Trump will be the GOP nominee as I’ve been saying to friends and writing on this site since at least August and maybe July. Yes, Iowa was a loss, but Trump will crush it in New Hampshire. And he’s leading in most–if not all–of the Super Tuesday states.

And I like the way he’s shaken things up and challenged not only the GOP elite and establishment but also the so-called “conservative” elite and establishment, including FOX News (which is NOT conservative and the bims at National Review). I like a street fighter. I think that’s what America needs. The world is not Martha Stewart’s salon. And while it’s one thing to be Presidential, it’s entirely another to deal with the threats we face within and without. I hardly think the guy who’s occupying the Oval Office now and inviting sleazy rappers into the White House . . . or his Ms. Thang wife–who makes rap videos and exercise tapes–are Presidential. Trump (or Cruz) would be an improvement on that no matter what. I think . . . and I hope.

Still, it’s something to consider: that Jimmy Carter prefers Trump. That’s not good. And you have to be a complete ignoramus not to know that Carter’s crowd (the Clintons, etc.) were Trump’s buddies until only recently. That can’t be ignored.

And as I noted last week, Trump is still bragging about his friendships with Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelostic Surgery. Not a good thing.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags: , ,


28 Responses

The real reason Carter likes Trump is because in the last five years Trump has given 100 million dollars to charities.

Schleppy on February 4, 2016 at 7:34 am

Spot on, Debbie. I know what you mean about Trump and Cruz each having his issues. I also know none of us is perfect, but can it really be that difficult to find someone who has conservative, common-sense views across the board? If I could combine Trump and Cruz into one person, that might not be bad. Cruz intimately understands the underhanded tricks used in crafting and passing bills, and would bring it to the public’s attention and keep congressional members’ feet to the fire. And Trump is a savvy businessman who understands what businesses go through and understands economics.

Dinak on February 4, 2016 at 8:59 am

    “…but can it really be that difficult to find someone who has conservative, common-sense views across the board?”

    There’s been too much talk by the GOP in the last couple of election cycles about the need to water down the party platform for me to believe they’re even looking in that direction. Their apparent disdain for the TEA Party is further proof. I see the TEA Party and Trump’s popularity as manifestations of the GOP’s corruption of it’s one-time core values. It’s merely an election between Libs and Not-Quite-So-Libs.

    YCHtT on February 4, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    Cruz’s citizenship issue could sink him, procedurally if not substantively.

    PROCEDURAL PROBLEM: The day after Cruz becomes the Republican candidate, multiple Dem operatives posing as concerned independents will launch a blizzard of lawsuits throughout the country “just to be sure” about Cruz’s “natural born” status, purely as a public service, you understand. Supporting lawsuits will be launched by Secretaries of State in marginal states, including bribed or extorted Republican SoS (aka POS). Briefs ready for filing in all these “independent” lawsuits are sitting in safes ready for filing.

    The Dem media (PBS, NPR, CNN, the alphabet networks) will start an ongoing drumbeat of “dispassionate” reporting about the “independent” lawsuits. Telegenic “experts” have already been shortlisted.

    SUBSTANTIVE “NATURAL BORN” PROBLEM: Factually, it is possible that Cruz’s mother was naturalized in Canada before his birth. If so, she would have lost her U.S. citizenship automatically that instant. Without his mother, Canadian-born Cruz had no claim to U.S. citizenship at all. In that case, even under the loosest interpretation of the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would be no more eligible to be U.S. president than is fellow Cuban Fidel Castro.

    Under the “Canadian naturalization” scenario, Cruz could still argue in *a court of law* that that his mother’s rash act should not be held against him, that U.S. authorities always regarded him as a citizen, he paid taxes, etc. However, simply having to EXPLAIN these points in a campaign against vicious Democrats would lead to certain defeat.

    *ONLY* an immediate, full and direct investigation of primary Canadian government records can show whether or not Mrs. Cruz was in fact naturalized in Canada. The dates and other details given by Cruz himself about his parents are somewhat vague and need real substantiation. Unlike Barry Davis/Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/X, Cruz will *NOT* get a pass in the media or in public opinion.

    LEGAL BACKGROUND: A U.S. citizen was actually held to have lost citizenship simply by swearing the Canadian oath of allegiance (which renounces allegiance to foreign powers, i.e. the U.S.) within the same timeframe:

    Richards v. Secretary of State, Dept. of State, 752 F. 2d 1413 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1985

    KEY HOLDING: Nevertheless, the district court’s application of the presumption in this case was not erroneous. Here, the act that the Secretary alleges demonstrates a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship — i.e., the explicit renunciation of United States citizenship under oath — was an integral part of both of the alleged expatriating acts — i.e., becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath of allegiance to Canada. Because the presumption of voluntariness extended to both of those acts, it also of necessity applied to the act demonstrating specific intent.

    Guardian Angel on February 7, 2016 at 11:13 am

I’d support Trump if he were the eventual nominee, although I’m bothered by his refusal to give Israel unqualified support. I was equally split b/w Trump & Cruz, but Trump’s antics this year have swung me towards Cruz.

I don’t get your criticism of Cruz. On immigration, what he put in was a clear poison pill. The original bill wanted to give citizenship to illegals, and in return, the illegals would give the backers of that bill their vote: it was a clear quid pro quo. Cruz’s amendments would have gotten rid of the reward that the gang of 8 wanted – their votes – by denying them citizenship. Regardless of anything Cruz told the media later, the effect of his move would have been to permanently deny illegals the right to vote EVER!!!

On Islam, I do have one quibble w/ Cruz – his insistence on his use of the term ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’. Well, ISLAM is ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’. In one of the debates, Cruz mentioned Indian (dot, not feather) Muslims as ones who are not Jihadis. Well, try again. Not too long ago, a Muslim politician in India called celibate Hindu activists (who are required to be unmarried, like priests) gays, and in return, one of them called Mohammed a gay, citing a verse from some Islamic text. A whole bunch of Muslims gathered to riot. So Cruz is somewhat wrong here – Muslims of ANY country are suspect, and shouldn’t be allowed in. Trump’s original proposal – assuming it’s not diluted – of not allowing ANY Muslims to emigrate to the US – was the right one here.

On flip flops, I have one standard. If someone flip flops TO a position I currently have, I’m more generous towards him/her than if someone flip flops AWAY from my position. Like John McCain was conservative once upon a time, but in 1996, after Phil Gramm’s defeat, he became very Liberal once he switched to Bon Dole, and he’s been lost for ever. Similarly, assuming that Trump is for real about his conversion from Liberalism, I welcome it. I would have my suspicions, and he doesn’t automatically have my vote, but there is one thing for him. Unlike Arnold, who was drawn left by his wife, Trump doesn’t have a family member who’s as prominent as Shriver who’d pull him Leftwards, even if all of them are Liberal like he was.

The thing about Trump that makes me easy about him is that Liberal groups have burned their bridges w/ him – like NBC cancelling Miss Universe, Nascar canning him, et al. That makes it LESS likely that he’ll revert to Liberalism, since he IS one who carries a grudge. Whenever anybody breaks a deal w/ him, that person is persona non grata. If the Muslims do it to him, they’re toast. If Putin screws him, Trump would reactivate the Cold War and know everything about the Triad.

And you are right – he does have a better chance than Cruz. Cruz talks about getting blue collar and Reagan Dems, but those 2 groups are not w/ him AT ALL – they are either w/ Trump, or w/ Santorum (whose endorsement of Boobio won’t make a difference). For now, I’m rooting for Cruz, but I do want to see Trump and Cruz remain the top 2 candidates throughout the primary, and not destroy each other and give an opening to Rubio.

I: What I mean is that Cruz has criticized Donald Trump for 1) saying he would deport illegal aliens in our midst – Cruz recently said he disagreed and added, “We are not going to round up and deport the illegal aliens in America,” which is horrible (and essentially means amnesty); and 2) Cruz attacked Donald Trump for saying he wanted to stop Muslims from coming into America “until we figure out what the hell is going on” and said Trump’s police is “un-American.” Both of these statements trouble me a lot. And as reader Little Al pointed out, Cruz voted to make it harder for Congress to stop the Iran deal and easier for Obama to go forward with it. All of these things have shown me he’s not who I thought he was. DS

Infidel on February 4, 2016 at 11:29 am

One thing I forgot to mention – the NRO issue. They would have done fine had they endorsed Cruz, like Bozell and Beck did. But by lashing out against Trump, they did their credibility no favors.

Michael Medved was one of the contributors to that issue, who in 2008 aggressively campaigned for McCain in the PRIMARIES. Trump, whatever his faults, is more to the right of where McCain was – both then and now. So NRO is hardly one to talk

Infidel on February 4, 2016 at 11:34 am

My thoughts at this point in time:

1. Trump exercises “NEUTRALITY” when he acts as a businessman, e.g. Casablanca, Rick’s Cafe’ Americain policy of allowing French Freedom Fighters / De Gaulle supporters versus Vichy supporters / Nazis into the Cafe to dine, drink, etc. He was interested in money. Trump, as a businessman, is interested in money as well. However, I believe he can change his focus on a dime and be pro-America…he has money.

2. Cruz has a singular problem. He is not a NATURAL-BORNE AMERICAN. He is “NATURALIZED”. SAME PROBLEM AS OBAMA.

3. I will not vote for Hillary or Sanders or Biden or Warren or any Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc. Statist.

We are on the knife’s edge this election. Please do the research and choose wisely.

Dennis on February 4, 2016 at 11:54 am

    CRUZ’S *REAL* “NATURAL BORN” PROBLEM: It is possible that Cruz’s mother was naturalized in Canada before his birth. If so, she would legally have lost her U.S. citizenship automatically that instant. This is true even if U.S. authorities still gave her a passport. Without a U.S. citizen mother, Canadian-born Cruz had no claim to U.S. citizenship at all. In that case, even under the loosest interpretation of the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would be no more eligible to be U.S. president than is fellow Cuban Fidel Castro.

    Under the “Canadian naturalization” scenario, Cruz could still argue in *a court of law* that that his mother’s rash act should not be held against him, that U.S. authorities always regarded him as a citizen, he paid taxes, etc. However, simply having to EXPLAIN these points in a campaign against vicious Democrats would lead to certain defeat.

    *ONLY* an immediate, full and direct investigation of primary Canadian government records can show whether or not Mrs. Cruz was in fact naturalized in Canada. The dates and other details given by Cruz himself about his parents are somewhat vague and need real substantiation. Unlike Barry Davis/Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/X, Cruz will *NOT* get a pass in the media or in public opinion.

    LEGAL BACKGROUND: A U.S. citizen was actually held to have lost citizenship simply by swearing the Canadian oath of allegiance (which renounces allegiance to foreign powers, i.e. the U.S.) within the same timeframe:

    Richards v. Secretary of State, Dept. of State, 752 F. 2d 1413 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1985

    Guardian Angel on February 7, 2016 at 11:20 am

Donald Trump definitely has his problems, as Debbie has amply noted. He was a property developer who looked to his business interests first, which entailed developing relationships with rather unsavory individuals. It is problematic that some of Donald Trump’s relationships with such toxic human sludge went beyond the merely utilitarian.

Also, it should not discounted that Jimmy Carter does like to be an irritant and perverse. That is how he gets attention these days. A backhanded endorsement of Donald Trump would fit in nicely with his previous conduct.

Worry on February 4, 2016 at 2:48 pm

As for Ted Cruz, it is really hard to nail him down. I rather doubt that he is as religious or conservative has he makes himself out to be. However, he is preferable to virtually all of the other Republicans who are running right now.

Worry on February 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm

What does conservatism/smaller government mean?

1. Drastic reductions of the waste, fraud and abuse contained in the Highway Fund. It is a boondoggle for every special interest.

2. Same for the Farm Bill.

3. Elimination or reduction of the overlap/duplication of Government Agencies. The General Accountability Office regularly identifies $100 billion p/y of duplicative Government functions etc. that can be eliminated. Even if someone disagrees with much of it, the savings are still substantial.

4. Reduction of tax rates for those who pay income tax. The flat tax advocated by Cruz is demagoguery; it will never happen and is disingenuous. But a reduction of a couple of percentage points for middle & higher-income taxpapers could be done. Along with this, increase in flat taxes such as the sales tax. Liberals have artfully affixed the false term ‘regressive’ onto such taxes.

5. Along with these things, curtailment of affirmative action and pandering to ‘victimized’ minorities.

None of the Republicans really advocate these things. The hostility towards Trump, no matter what ingenious and clever arguments his detractors come up with is due to his position on immigration, nothing else.

I don’t know whether Trump will really curtail immigration or do the other things he talks about, e.g. barring Muslims temporarily. But I do know that none of his opponents are serious about the things they say — or else, like Cruz, they say they are against abortion, when such mouthings do not require any action — after all, they sneakily say, abortion is the law.

So I’m still supporting Trump. No one else has attacked the phonies like Fox, NR, and the rest of them the way he has, and to me that means a great deal.

Little Al on February 4, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Agreed. At least Trump had the guts to touch the “third rail” by TALKING about banning Muslims, etc.

    Trump has lots of VISIBLE rough edges and real blemishes as a person and as a politician. With Cruz, one must assume that there are HIDDEN issues that we cannot begin to fathom.

    With Cruz, one must assume that he is beholden to a whole gaggle of powerful and quiet special interests who keep putting in the ante in round after round of “pay to play.”

    Cruz’s sudden reinvention of himself as a small-town Southern preacher is particularly grating coming from a Harvard-educated Canadian. (BTW Cruz’s claim that he was unaware of his Canadian citizenship until 2014 is risible coming from a Harvard Law grad.)

    Guardian Angel on February 6, 2016 at 3:54 am

Then there are the sneaky campaign tactics used by Cruz, which to me reveal much about his character. It is offensive to excuse them by saying that liberals do the same thing.

Of course they do, but Cruz’s tactics are aimed at other Republicans, and I like to support politicians who point the way to higher standards and higher morality.

Cruz’ attacks on Trump are sophomoric, often false, and usually misleading. This is not to justify everything Trump says — he does similar things, but no one holds him up as a paragon of sedate morality the way Cruz is.

Little Al on February 4, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Finally, my own theory why Carter said Trump was less objectionable. He is certainly aware that Trump has higher negatives than any other Republican.

He likely hopes that a Republican candidate with the highest negatives will have a higher probability of losing.

Granted a few establishment Republicans have expressed lukewarm acceptance of Trump, but the establishment hostility to him outweighs this by far.

I commented before re the ambiguity of his ‘making deals with Dems’. Are there any of them that wouldn’t collaborate to some extent with the Dems, even Cruz who supports the Pacific Trade boondoggle & Arms to Iran?

And Cruz of all people should be loudly condemning our pandering to Cuba.

Little Al on February 4, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Also, Cruz has just made a campaign ad criticizing Trump for Carter’s ‘endorsement’. Perhaps that was the whole point of what Carter was doing.

Carter is not stupid by any means. Quite likely he foresaw that if he said something positive about Trump’s ‘ability to deal’, Cruz would take advantage of it and ultimately benefit.

Little Al on February 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Debbie, on #1, I agree that Cruz flip flopped, until he discovered that both Clinton and Bush deported 10M+ illegals. I don’t agree w/ him there, except that his current position is the same as Trump’s.

On #2, I thought that he specifically AVOIDED attacking Trump, and instead advocated banning people from 5 countries that would achieve a similar effect – banning people from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Since his attacks on Trump started, he’s attacked Trump on a lot of things – Eminent Domain, being willing to negotiate w/ Iran, Single Payer healthcare, but I’ve not seen him attack Trump on the Muslim ban, aside from stating that he disagreed w/ it (which I disagree w/)

I know that he was trying to sell something more palatable to the establishment, as opposed to something they would reject outright. On this one, Rand Paul actually sponsored a more sensible bill, which Boobio voted down – one that had many more countries in it. For the record, I disagree w/ the geography based ban on refugees: I think that Assyrian or Yazidis can be allowed in, once they are vetted, while at the same time, Muslims from Israel or India or Ethiopia are as unacceptable as those from Somalia, Syria or Yemen.

I do think we’re more likely to see better policies from him than from Trump. That said, I’d very enthusiastically support Trump were he to get the nomination. Bush, Christie, Fiorina & Kasich, I absolutely wouldn’t support, while Boobio – I’d be on the fence on that one if the choice was b/w him vs Hilary/Bernie.

I: No, Cruz specifically and strongly disagreed with Trump’s policy to ban Muslims from entering and also specifically and strongly disagreed with Trump’s very recent statement about deporting all illegals inside the U.S. Of course, I don’t believe for a second that Trump will do either of these things. I think both of them are not to be trusted. That’s the problem. DS

Infidel on February 4, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Above statement – in case it wasn’t clear – I AGREE w/ a ban on Muslims, and disagree w/ Cruz’s opposition to it.

Infidel on February 4, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Little Al, as the IA vote showed, a higher turnout wouldn’t necessarily mean a higher vote for Trump or Bernie. It could also mean a higher NEGATIVE turnout against them, and for their main opponents.

I do think Cruz’s handling of the Carson issue was ham handed, and that his attacks on fellow Republicans have been grating.

Infidel on February 4, 2016 at 4:22 pm

I wouldn’t make too much about Carter’s purported preference for Trump over, say Cruz or Rubio as an indicator that Trump is no good. Trump may still be no good, but Carter “preference” for Trump doesn’t confirm that. Even David Duke’s preference for Trump over the other candidates doesn’t confirm that either. Rather, one should look for the underlying reasons WHY they claim to prefer Trump.

The answer is a simple one, and it all comes down to Israel. Carter really prefers Trump over Cruz and Rubio because he doesn’t like their pro-Israel talk. (Note: I’m not refering to their real policies and agendas on Israel: just their talk about Israel.) By “malleable,” Carter means that Trump’s talk about Israel is comparatively weaker in support for Israel than either Cruz or Rubio, and if the talk is weaker, then he believes the actions for some future support too will likely to be weaker. I believe that Duke’s preference for Trump also is based on the very same thing, regardless of how each one tries to frame their rationale.

Always remember that people like Carter and Duke are one-note- sambas, and I mean that in a bad way. They hate Jews, they hate Israel, and they hate freedom and civilization. That’s what they are all about, and so you have to apply that particular filter to their choices. Plus, they’re basing their preference on talk, not actions.

As for a one-note-samba in a good way, here’s a clip of the great Astrud Gilberto doing the vocal and the legendary sax player Stan Getz on sax playing Bossa Nova great Antonio Carlos Jobim’s classic One Note Samba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzWWmscbt8

Ralph Adamo on February 4, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Infidel, remember the context of these primary votes. Trump has been subjected to political attack of a scope perhaps not seen in the history of this country. It has an effect if people are beaten down with it enough.

Just like the popular opposition to gay marriage was overwhelming a decade or so ago, but the elite ground down the opposition, just beating it down & beating it down.

The barrage of hostility against Trump is unprecedented; it drawfs the hostility against Goldwater, Reagan, even Palin.

It is hard, given the dumbing down of America, not to think that this hostility, using argument after argument, wont’ have an effect after a while.

Especially the latest trope; the drumbeat that Trump is not conservative (supposedly his opponents are).

As if National Review or Fox News are arbiters of conservatism.

And I did acknowledge Trump’s negatives in a prior comment today. But there is a context for these negative comments, i.e. the incredible media and pundit hostility.

Also the conservative menagerie of excuses for Cruz’ underhanded tactics disgraces (to use Trump’s favorite word) these people.

Little Al on February 4, 2016 at 5:35 pm

I wouldn’t make too much of what Carter had to say about Trump. David Duke has also come out as being more inclined to favor Trump over the other candidates. I will translate what all this means in plain English. The bottom line is that both Carter and Duke are anti-Semites, anti-Israel, anti-freedom, and anti-civilization. That’s the sum and “substance” of them. With regard to Trump, there purported preferences only have to do with the talk not the actions of the candidates. If you accept the talk as true, which is of course a very dangerous and wrong thing to do, then candidates like Cruz, Rubio, and Clinton are strongly pro Israel. Trump’s pro Israel talk is clearly the weakest of all these candidates. Thus, by default, Carter and Duke favor Trump on the Republican side, as the candidate most likely to be least pro Israel of this group.

Ralph Adamo on February 4, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Clinton??????????

    Little Al on February 5, 2016 at 12:24 am

      Al, Hillary Clinton does make a pretense of being pro-Israel as William did (or does). However, as Carter is no dummy, he knows where she really stands. Plus, as you may know, the Hillary Clinton email scandal has disclosed actual emails that amply demonstrate her true, anti-Israel stance. That’s the only reason I mentioned her.

      Ralph Adamo on February 5, 2016 at 7:01 pm

The fact that a man like Trump is even being considered to be the next “leader of the free world”, shows a direct correlation to the average American’s intelligence. Please vote him in! It would be the proverbial “cherry on top” to a stereotype nation.
“GOOD JOB…. Y’all”

God Save The Queen on February 5, 2016 at 1:03 am

    “… average American’s intelligence … a stereotype nation.”

    Thank you ever so much, GSTQ, for sharing these sublime insights from the land of the kidney pie eaters.

    BTW, shouldn’t your moniker be updated to New Britain’s official motto “Allahu Akbar”?

    Guardian Angel on February 6, 2016 at 4:11 am

Good day Dear Debbie and God Bless!it is intresting why Mr Carter prefers Mr Trump??? most probably because Mr Trump is a billionnaire!!Dear Debbie i do not understand how the American people could vote for Mr Carter!! Mr Carters foreign Policy was absolutelly a disaster!also when the American people cried out for economic help Mr Carter took refuge behind the dictionnary!The late Shah of iran Pahlavi Regime-(The King of Persia)whom i knew personally myself and had met him had excellent relations and was a very dear friend of America USA!The King was overthrown during Mr Carters Presidency in 1979! what a shame had the Late Shah of Persia stayed in power, the middlle east would have been much safer and greater than now!When our most wonderful President in US history President Ronald Reagan got elected and became President i was the happiest man in this world! that is how much I Loved and Love President Ronald Reagan who kept us safe!and was the greatest President of all time!Tirdad.

Tirdad Gharib on February 5, 2016 at 1:56 am

Cruz’s citizenship issue could sink him, procedurally if not substantively.

PROCEDURAL PROBLEM: The day after Cruz becomes the Republican candidate, multiple Dem operatives posing as concerned independents will launch a blizzard of lawsuits throughout the country “just to be sure” about Cruz’s “natural born” status, purely as a public service, you understand. Supporting lawsuits will be launched by Secretaries of State in marginal states, including bribed or extorted Republican SoS (aka POS). Briefs ready for filing in all these “independent” lawsuits are sitting in safes ready for filing.

The Dem media (PBS, NPR, CNN, the alphabet networks) will start an ongoing drumbeat of “dispassionate” reporting about the “independent” lawsuits. Telegenic “experts” have already been shortlisted.

SUBSTANTIVE “NATURAL BORN” PROBLEM: Factually, it is possible that Cruz’s mother was naturalized in Canada before his birth. If so, she would have lost her U.S. citizenship automatically that instant. Without his mother, Canadian-born Cruz had no claim to U.S. citizenship at all. In that case, even under the loosest interpretation of the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would be no more eligible to be U.S. president than is fellow Cuban Fidel Castro.

Under the “Canadian naturalization” scenario, Cruz could still argue in *a court of law* that that his mother’s rash act should not be held against him, that U.S. authorities always regarded him as a citizen, he paid taxes, etc. However, simply having to EXPLAIN these points in a campaign against vicious Democrats would lead to certain defeat.

*ONLY* an immediate, full and direct investigation of primary Canadian government records can show whether or not Mrs. Cruz was in fact naturalized in Canada. The dates and other details given by Cruz himself about his parents are somewhat vague and need real substantiation. Unlike Barry Davis/Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/X, Cruz will *NOT* get a pass in the media or in public opinion.

LEGAL BACKGROUND: A U.S. citizen was actually held to have lost citizenship simply by swearing the Canadian oath of allegiance (which renounces allegiance to foreign powers, i.e. the U.S.) within the same timeframe:

Richards v. Secretary of State, Dept. of State, 752 F. 2d 1413 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1985

KEY HOLDING: Nevertheless, the district court’s application of the presumption in this case was not erroneous. Here, the act that the Secretary alleges demonstrates a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship — i.e., the explicit renunciation of United States citizenship under oath — was an integral part of both of the alleged expatriating acts — i.e., becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath of allegiance to Canada. Because the presumption of voluntariness extended to both of those acts, it also of necessity applied to the act demonstrating specific intent.

Guardian Angel on February 6, 2016 at 3:31 am

Cruz’s citizenship issue could sink him, procedurally if not substantively.

PROCEDURAL PROBLEM: The day after Cruz becomes the Republican candidate, multiple Dem operatives posing as concerned independents will launch a blizzard of lawsuits throughout the country “just to be sure” about Cruz’s “natural born” status, purely as a public service, you understand. Supporting lawsuits will be launched by Secretaries of State in marginal states, including bribed or extorted Republican SoS (aka POS). Briefs ready for filing in all these “independent” lawsuits are sitting in safes ready for filing.

The Dem media (PBS, NPR, CNN, the alphabet networks) will start an ongoing drumbeat of “dispassionate” reporting about the “independent” lawsuits. Telegenic “experts” have already been shortlisted.

SUBSTANTIVE “NATURAL BORN” PROBLEM: Factually, it is possible that Cruz’s mother was naturalized in Canada before his birth. If so, she would have lost her U.S. citizenship automatically that instant. Without his mother, Canadian-born Cruz had no claim to U.S. citizenship at all. In that case, even under the loosest interpretation of the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would be no more eligible to be U.S. president than is fellow Cuban Fidel Castro.

Under this “Canadian naturalization” scenario, Cruz could still argue in *a court of law* that that his mother’s rash act should not be held against him, that U.S. authorities always regarded him as a citizen, that he paid taxes, etc. However, simply having to EXPLAIN these points in a campaign against vicious Democrats would guarantee defeat.

*ONLY* an immediate, full and direct investigation of primary Canadian government records can show whether or not Mrs. Cruz was in fact naturalized in Canada. The dates and other details given by Cruz himself about his parents are somewhat vague and need real substantiation. Unlike Barry Davis/Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/X, Cruz will *NOT* get a pass in the media or in public opinion.

LEGAL BACKGROUND: A U.S. citizen was actually held to have lost citizenship simply by swearing the Canadian oath of allegiance (which renounces allegiance to foreign powers, i.e. the U.S.) within the same timeframe:

Richards v. Secretary of State, Dept. of State, 752 F. 2d 1413 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1985

KEY HOLDING: Nevertheless, the district court’s application of the presumption in this case was not erroneous. Here, the act that the Secretary alleges demonstrates a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship — i.e., the explicit renunciation of United States citizenship under oath — was an integral part of both of the alleged expatriating acts — i.e., becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath of allegiance to Canada. Because the presumption of voluntariness extended to both of those acts, it also of necessity applied to the act demonstrating specific intent.

Guardian Angel on February 7, 2016 at 2:26 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field