Why a Trump-Cruz ticket could be next after South Carolina debate

Fox News ^ | January 15, 2016 | Douglas E. Schoen

[2ndDivisionVet]

Thursday night's debate isn't going to change the polls. Donald Trump will remain on top nationally and slightly ahead in Iowa. And he will maintain his wide lead in New Hampshire.

Ted Cruz will remain in second place with a decent chance of taking Iowa.

And the rest of the pack will stay largely where they are with Rubio in third place, and representing the strongest option that the GOP establishment is offering this cycle.

But what is new from after Thursday night's debate is the possibility of a Trump/Cruz alliance as we move through the primaries. Indeed, for the first time Trump floated the idea of taking Cruz as his vice president. Cruz didn't say no. And when Cruz suggested that Trump could be his vice president, Trump said "I don't think so" which turned into a laugh and they moved on.

A Cruz/Trump ticket would combine a lot of what GOP voters are looking for - and they would condense much of the vote. To be sure, there would be many who would be disappointed and disillusioned by such a ticket: having South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and talk of a brokered convention indicates that there are those opposed to a firebrand anti-establishment ticket....

[exnavy]

Donald Trump voted for Barack Obama, self admitedly. Support the man of your own choosing. I will never, NEVER vote for or support trump. And by the way, Cruz would never accept a vice presidential spot behind trump. He, Cruz, would have to refute all he stands for to be on that tocket. Never, in a New York minute.

[1Old Pro]

Trump/Cruz 2016, Let’s ROll.

[Kit cat]

I think Trump REALLY likes Cruz, Trump surrounds himself with VERY bright young people I think his energy comes from this!!! I think he likes and respects Cruz, he has a knack for seeing and finding the best and the brightest among us!!! I wouldn’t rule out a Trump Cruz ticket !!!!

[GeaugaRepublican]

He Would not join THAT case. Guy sounds like a nut. Dems would wait to file if and only if, Cruz becomes the nominee. Grayson is filing.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG, LIBERAL !
The FOUNDING FATHERS DEFINED the term "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" IN THAT LAW !
Read and verify it for yourself.
Don't take my word for it.
I have provided ALL the links SO YOU CAN VERIFY IT !

As the article U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History states:

The men who drafted the U.S. Constitution in the summer of 1788 realized that citizenship was bound to become an issue.
...Consequently, Article I, Section 8 of the new Constitution listed the powers given to the new Congress.
The third item on the list was the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
A year after the Constitution was adopted, Congress passed the first law that established a "uniform rule of naturalization": The Act of March 26, 1790.
The act was just the first in a series of laws addressing the issue of naturalization, ...

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law. ...
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again. ...
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65) that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries, especially Asian countries,
but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY It FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[RummyChick]

No matter how many times you most that mess it doesn’t change the fact that Obama’s father was a bigmist, he was born out of wedlock, and a different part of the statute applies to residency requirement for Ann.

You are going to have to come up with another legal mess of a post to justify why you should ignore the relevant part of the statute.

[Yosemitest]

"No matter how many times you most that mess it doesn't change the fact that
Obama's father was a bigmist, he was born out of wedlock"

WRONG, LIBERAL !

It was PROVEN they were married BEFORE the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF was born in Kenya, through the Obama-Dunham Divorce Documents.

Second witnesses, his mother and father, indirectly through their divorce papers.
Ed Hale, aprivate investigator in Hawaii, has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.”
But a later Update 1/1/2009,...
"In his 7:45pm Plains Radio broadcast, this last night, Ed Hale backed down from his prior assertion of having gained even uncertain information about the Barack Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce decree containing language referring to Barack Jr. as being born in Kenya. Instead, Hale referred to an apparently tricky recollection... of an ... referring to such a document's generally referring to the place of birth of the children of the divorced parents."
I believe that "indeterminate person" probably SAW the Obama Dunham Divorce Documents BEFORE Page 11 disappeared and viewed the Kenyan Birth Cerfiticate,
thereby telling Ed Hale
"the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, indicates they had 'one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.' ".

The Obama Dunham Divorce Documents are viewable at this location.
There's a great assumption of the time lime at at link.

See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):







I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.

I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.

I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he’d run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.

This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.

The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable “8″ on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.

Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:

Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama

Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers

(note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)

Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)

Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day “knock and nail” notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3

Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR’s trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial

Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney
(note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, “at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date” that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”

Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default
(note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)

Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King


In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.

Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.

No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.

[Yosemitest]

"You are going to have to come up with another legal mess of a post to justify why you should ignore the relevant part of the statute."

There's nothing 'relevant' about your 'straw man' argument.

[RummyChick]

You are being ridiculous. Are you saying that US law at the time Ann married OBama’s father allowed for BIGAMY in Hawaii?

It did not.

[RummyChick]

A divorce decree does not make a VOID marriage a valid one.

Give me the exact law on that point that was relevant at the time.

[RummyChick]

Let me clarify that statement, a VOID marriage can be validated under statutory requirements of a particular state.

Anyone that claims Ann’s marriage was Void but validated has to provide that exact statute that spells it out.

I have not found one for Hawaii pertinent to that time frame.

And you will need a statute if that is what you are going to claim.

[Yosemitest]

You can’t have a DIVORCE without a MARRIAGE !

[RummyChick]

I doubt they required a check of her marriage license. Was it in the court documents or did she just attest that she was married at a certain day and time. In any case, you can have a marriage license and STILL COMMIT BIGAMY.

If I remember correctly, Obama Sr did not sign off on the divorce but I may remember this wrong.

Go look at how many cases there are revolve around Bigamists.

It is important because it also can effect inheritance law.

The FACT is that Sr was already married. You don’t know that? It was a tribal ceremony.

Her marriage was a VOID marriage.

Please provide that statute that allowed Sr to have two wives in Hawaii. Also the statute that lists requirements for a Void Marriage to be considered validated.

Until then, you are blowing smoke and don’t have a clue.

[RummyChick]

Btw, don’t I remember that someone was able to find the license but no one has seen the actual Marriage certificate? Two different things.

And since I am one of the few that believe that it is possible the one or more people involved in that family were working in intelligence - this could all been a smokescreen to build a profile.

[Yosemitest]

Go away, DUMMY !

[RummyChick]

I guess that means you think that US law at the time allowed for you to enter into bigamists marriage in Hawaii.

Cite the law.

[Yosemitest]

IRRELEVANT!

[RummyChick]

Since you,again, show you no nothing about the law - the out of wedlock VOID marriage is relevant to the section of statute that applies in the immigration law.

Btw, it is also the reason why Obama could not be a British Citizen. The law didn’t allow it. Read the applicable Act.

[Yosemitest]

Ah, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, he he he he he he he