Posted on 01/06/2016 1:55:22 PM PST by Isara
Now that he’s backtracked on ethanol, he is SET.
You would do away altogether with the renewable fuel standard and wind production tax credit, correct?
A. "That is accurate. And I filed legislation to phase out the RFS over five years.
I support ethanol and biofuels and I support wind. Texas is the largest wind producer in the country. But both ethanol and wind can compete on their own merits. ... I would note couple weeks ago when I was in Iowa at the Agriculture Summit every other candidate there supported the RFS including some who previously had different positions. ... What you can count on from me is I'm going to tell you the truth and I'm going to do what I said I'm going to do.
And what was astonishing is that that received hearty applause from the crowd, and that was not the response I necessarily expected and I was certainly gratified by the reaction."
TED CRUZ... being consistant once again.... Nothing changed here
The article on the other thread had a misleading (on purpose) title
Senator Ted Cruz listens to Iowa farmers, supports phasing out the Renewable Fuel Standard (Ethanol) by 2022 - There fixed it.
Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.
 |
 |
 |
| Budget, Spending & Debt |  |
 |
| Civil Liberties | |
 |
| Education | |
|
| Energy & Environment | |
|
| Foreign Policy & Defense | |
|
| Free Market | |
|
| Health Care & Entitlements | |
|
| Immigration | |
|
| Moral Issues | |
|
| Second Amendment | |
|
| Taxes, Economy & Trade | |
|
More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"
And, of course, he is for Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate), so governement can pick winners and losers.
Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)
Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)
Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)
Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN)
Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)
Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)
Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)
In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)
Marc Wallace, a pastor from Denison who is not yet sold on Cruz, shrugged a bit when asked to assess the effectiveness of the barbs thrown so far at the senator in Iowa.
“Most of the things that I have heard — they’re easily seen as false or misleading or slanderous,” Wallace said after Cruz spoke Monday afternoon in Carroll.
CRUZ is eligible to be president. To bring up otherwise is a weak attack. It has been brought up time and time again. It will continue to be brought up when an opponent (Republican or Democrat) feels threatened by CRUZ and has little to attack him on.
It was posted by Jim Robinson back in 2013
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts
" Cruz proposed a five-year phase out of the RFS mandate months ago. As president, starting in 2017, he would begin the phase out and it would end in 2022. That has always been the plan.
https://www.jobsgrowth.org/icymi-usa-today-agrees-with-sen-cruz-ending-ethanol-mandate-is-good-for-consumers/
you bucking for idget of the day?
What about his mother? Her American citizenship is not relevant? You really stepped into a steaming pile with that.
Hop hop hoppin and flip flip floppin along. :-)
Hop hop hoppin and flip flip floppin along. :-)
Well you should know about hop, hop, hoppin. :-)
How this one? Floppin Down The Bunny Trail? :-)
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Cruz has advocated a five year phase out since at least last winter. The evidence is posted above.
Sometimes I wonder about Trump supporters.
Are you a lawyer?
One: the place of birth, the Senate voted overwhelmingly that John McCain met the definition even though his place of birth was not in the United Sates. It is highly unlikely that any court would challenge that opinion.
Two: The current sitting president was the child of one us citizen and one foreign national. IF the court were to rule that both parents must be citizens they would essentially be forced to admit they screwed up and might even have to erase all Obama's orders, vetoes and bills that he signed. It is not going to happen!
The best case against Obama was his adoption by Lolo Sotero and his citizenship in Jakarta. The court ruled that no one had standing and the press led with the weakest accusation of being born outside the country. A simple forged birth certificate was all that was required for documentation.
There is no way on earth that the court would rule against a duly elected president. It is almost certain that the court would rule that place of birth is not determinate and that having one birth parent that confers citizenship at birth is sufficient to qualify as a natural born citizen.
It’s the other 49 states that are a problem. Huckabee and Santonrum also enjoyed the Iowa Frontrunners Life. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.