Megyn Kelly is talking over Rand--she is NOT listening to Rands remarks. In my opinion, her demeanor is telling in that facial expressions discard Rand as candidate. She is contentious and trying hard to play the gotcha game then in the end she claims that females should be able to handle push back from would be contenders---go figure. I will still vote for Rand Paul and hope to Christ he places Cruz, Walker, and other conservatives in prominent positions--no more Graham, McCain, or the "other" neocons that Megyn seems not to know.

Yep she's a real skunk
I feel sorry for her husband....he's probably whipped

If her husband doesn't like it, she can "whip" me anytime.

It`s all coming from her employers at Bush/RINO headquarters....down the hall from Rachel Maddow at Clinton/DINO headquarters.

You missed the point of what she was doing - she was getting him to clarify what others had said about him - it is her show, so when he starts off into his message and talking points, she stops him and tried to get him to address the questions more fully. They both did a good job, IMHO.

She received attack orders direct from stupert....

You are absolutely right on target. She has gotten a taste of power and she loves it.
It showed the minute she started talking. It's all power and control. New show had gone to her head.

He is just a typical politician. Talk and more talk with no substance! In my opinion, he is a young RINO!

No, Mr. Paul is not a RINO, he is a modified 'Ron Paul', a conservative version of Libertarian. I would much rather have him than Jeb Bush for example.

You might call Cruz many things but RINO just does not fit his actions.

I was talking about Cruz. I was talking about Rand Paul!

I guess you have a point....but that's because the establishment republicans have made that party UNACCEPTIBLE. It's up to Rand to change the party back to the constitution.

GO CRUZ!

If you were a "birther" before why not NOW. Cruz just simply isn't qualified, unless you want to BEND the Constitution...seems like no one was willing to even give on the point of possibly Obama not being "Native born" WE KNOW that Cruz was not. He was born in Canada. Either admit you are willing to BEND the Constitution or not, you can't have it both ways. If Cruz is willing to bend the Constitution for his own benefit...what else would he bend the Constitution. We have never seen him it the HOT SEAT of the Buck Stops here. He is a "good talker" actually so is Obama. Support someone that actually is qualified for the job. Try Perry/Walker...dream ticket. Think 16 potential years of two GOVERNORS that have proven track records and Perry has actually been a Commander in Chief with a military background (USAF)

I would not object to your dream ticket. Perry has this fake indictment that will probably cause him trouble.

As far as Ted Cruz, I think he makes an excellent Senator and I hope he does not give that up - he provides leadership and a voice of conservatism similar to Ronald Reagan.

Re: his birth qualifications, the Constitutional mandate for being 'natural born' has been rendered moot as a result of two terms for President Obama. Obama does not meet the requirements for being natural born, but Cruz does. Cruz's father was not a citizen at his birth, but his mother was and she had met the requirement for years as a citizen before his birth.

Among all of the chatter about Obama, some true, some untrue and most of it inconsequential - the fact remains that he has been President for two terms and his mother was a citizen, his father was not AND his mother did not meet the years as a citizen requirement.

The requirement is for 'natural born', which most people understand as meaning the child of two citizen parents, not 'native born' - presumably someone born on US territory. It does not matter where you were born or whether you have dual citizenship. The only important thing is the parents' citizenship status and neither of them lose citizenship as a result of location (outside the US territorial jurisdiction). The requirement for 'natural born' was changed years ago to allow that a single parent of a child needed to be a 'citizen', not necessarily 'natural born' in order for that child to be considered 'natural born'.

As I said, the entire statement in the Constitution regarding the President's qualification as 'natural born' has now been effectively rendered moot by the acceptance of President Obama twice as a qualified candidate; duly elected and sworn in even though he is clearly violating that requirement of the Constitution for that office. And it was done by both parties - that is, by the elites who run our country outside the Constitution in almost everything they do.

Cruz is not 'bending' the Constitution - the Constitution has been broken by the elites. Learn what the Constitution says and the meanings of the requirements before you needlessly besmirch one of our best candidates.

Ted Cruz has proven himself to be extremely thourough, you better believe that as far as "Birther" goes he has had every angle checked so that he knows he is leagal to run...cause when push comes to shove, he knows tthe media will try to fry him for Hillary's sake....he is not going to let that happen to all those that are investing millions in his campaign.

Not just one of them? He is the best, period. Cruz is the only one who can turn our country around a complete 180 degrees. When was the last time we had a Real 100% Constitutional Conservative nominated by the GOP? It's been since 1984 & Ronald Wilson Reagan won by a landslide!

I think you are right about Cruz, but he will never get the chance.

If Ronald Reagan were running today, I doubt that he could win the nomination. But then, I was a County Republican Chairman in those days and thought that Reagan was a flash in the pan - he proved me 100% wrong.

I think Cruz or perhaps Palin is the best for the job. Perry is a worker, I mean, he is not a showboat. The media really eats up someone like him.

I think he has taken four years to learn to debate better...he is not an orator nor a LAWYER on a debate team.

If the GOP wanted constitutional they couldn't have done better than Ron Paul....they don't want it.....that's why I left that party

The republican party doesn't want Paul because he'll call the corrupt politicians to task, plain and simple. They are up to their proverbial neck in the one world government/Police state and I honestly believe they would rather have Hitlary than Paul or Cruz! They like most liberals see the Constitution as a hinderance not a Blessing.

He gets along fine with the Republicans in the Senate...he isn't combative...like some people seem to be.

That is a good thing because he wan's to get things done. But if you watch the video of him discussing the letter to Iran? Obama you will see he has a fiery side which is also a good thing.

The only way that conservatives can win is to force the Republican Party into doing the right things. One way would be to get a candidate who can articulate the conservative principles without failing to recognize the Pharisaical traps that the media will lay for him. Cruz can do that.

But leaving the Republican Party is like giving a vote to the Democrats - think about it. Be FOR something, not against everything.

again I couldn't have said it better.

I would love to see a Cruz/Rand ticket....

Either That or a Walker/ Cruz Ticket Ride to Victory, since Walker has been just beating the Hell out of the Liberals in Progressive Utopian Wisconsin for years now. It's not nice & it's not fair to beat them in their very own precious "Rules For Radicals" Games!

I concur. Two real conservatives just might be able to do it.

JDubya: "The requirement for 'natural born' was changed years ago to allow that a single parent of a child needed to be a 'citizen', not necessarily 'natural born' in order for that child to be considered 'natural born'." I don't know what planet you or whoever has played around with the definition of a "natural born" citizen are from, but the constitutional definition, from its original intent, which has never been changed by constitutional amendment, is a person born on the soil (or its equivalent) of two (U.S.) citizen parents. That's PLURAL. As in BOTH. And thus Obama is an illegal president, aka a Usurper; and needs - STILL - to be dealt with as such. And Cruz is NOT eligible to run for the office of the POTUS, because TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

And the sooner we get that truism through our thick heads, the better, for the final outcome to this mess.

I am afraid that you are the one who is 'off' the planet because the US Constitution does not define 'natural born', but subsequent court rulings and laws made by Congress effectively changed it. There are many sources that describe the effects of at least two laws, and several court cases also affected its meaning. One Act had to do with allowing a child with an unknown father to be a citizen and also 'natural born' automatically if the mother was more than 5 years a citizen (or something like that - I forget the exact details). That Act was where Obama's mother failed to proffer 'natural born' status to her son, Barry. However, Cruz was in the same situation except his mother meets the time limit and, as a result by current law and rulings, he is a 'natural born' citizen.

Besides, oh, most holy one, my point was that the precedent has now been set - it has nothing to do with wrongs and rights, it has to do with realistic expectation. If anyone went to court over Ted Cruz's 'natural born' status, they would immediately be facing the insurmountable task of overcoming the situation where a clearly not 'natural born' man has been President for two terms and was never questioned by any of those in power and with the right to do so. And they would lose. I don't like it either, but that is the real situation.

And if you had read what I said, you would know that the definition I gave is exactly what you said, but it does not say that in the Constitution, although that was the meaning at the time. Subsequent rulings and acts of Congress have effectively changed that meaning, right or wrong, and the net effect is that 'natural born' is a moot point for all practical purposes from now on. It is you who has to get these facts through a thick head - the change has already been made.

The Constitution was effectively changed without an amendment. The method used was very similar to that used for Habeus Corpus, abortion rights and countless other unconstitutional things that the Congress has allowed the judiciary and the President to usurp from them. It is not as it should be, but it is.

So get off your high horse and think - we are in basic agreement. You just appear to be unable to read.

"(A) moot point"?

I think not.

And therein lies our difference.

You have succumbed to relativism, and falsity.

I have not.

To do so would be to go into chaos - the rule of men - and tyranny.

I choose Truth.

Oh, how big of you! I think that you need to dust off your dictionary and find out what relativism means.

We are not on opposite sides of this discussion - you chose to put us there. I merely pointed out that the Constitution has been usurped from us by these relativists and falsifiers - the facts are as I stated them.

Yes, we are headed for chaos and tyranny - right now in a head-first dive!

I choose truth too, but our situation is dire.

We know that the Constitution is a great document and should be followed, but right now it is not being followed, mostly by the Liar in Chief. We have to stop that - the way to do so is by joining together with people looking for the truth and fight these retards who want us infighting rather than fighting them. Part of fighting them is to realize what they have done and what we have failed to do. The other part is to get control of a viable party. The only one available to us is the Republican Party and that is what the Tea Party folks are doing - I support their efforts wholeheartedly.

Why do you think the liberal press is maligning them and the IRS is singling them out for persecution? The secular humanists are full steam ahead to take over the entire world in one-world government and we are increasingly unable to counteract them.

The people we have sent to Congress have been under constant attack (Cruz, Lee, Paul, Rubio, etc. - some have fallen or severely damaged themselves by buying into the RINO line. But we have to stick together and stop them. But it might be too late already - the bureaucracy is full of communists and secular humanists. They have the power of the government already as you can see with the IRS, EPA and HLS and others. They don't even try to meet the demands of their Congressional overseers! They laugh at them - at us! They hold orgies and do unspeakable things because they can - all the while spending thousands upon thousands of dollars - our dollars. That is chaos. We are already there.

Fair enough response. My main point was that we should NOT accept the status quo. I 'get' that you did not mean that. You just seemed too fatalistic for me. And: I think we should not work through the Republican Party. An expedient person might think so. But it is almost as guilty in Obama's usurpation of the office of POTUS as the Dem Party is, for acquiescing in the maneuver (for its own purposes). And in a just world, it should go down right along with the Dem Party, under RICO-Statute proceedings. And I believe in a just world. We 'just' need to make it happen. :-)

Why would you feel it necessary to insult me? I can assure you, I am QUITE knowledgable. But then I didn't insult you.

No, he has a Canadian birth certificate and he wasn't born on NATIVE SOIL. If that is the logic, then Obama was also born of a Citizen of the United States NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN...hence he also definitely was a Native Born Citizen...even if he was born in Kenya. I was born of American Parents in Missouri...I am an American Citizen. Bill Richardson was born of MEXICAN PARENTS...home in Mexico City...he was born in Los Angeles when he mother (so he would be an AMERICAN CITIZEN) came to have him staying with HER SISTER. Neither of his parents were Native born Americans...Bill Richardson IS A CITIZEN of the United States. Birth Certificate LOS ANGELES, CA.

Native Born means BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. The only exception that I know of is if one is born on a UNITED STATES MILITARY BASE. I think McCain was.

Had teds father been a citizen he would have been eligible. Perry? No I don't think so. I saw enough of him in the last election. During the debates he was one of them that made fun of Ron Paul until he saw that the people liked what Paul was saying. Then by the next debate he was parroting Paul as were others. Perry is an establishment hack. I will support Rand for now. In the unlikely event Cruz gets the nomination I will vote for him over Hillary ANY day. I don't like the bending of the Constitution but I can not abide Hillary serving Obamas 3rd term.

Rules don`t count anymore. If they did, Hillary, Holder, Lerner, and that Manchurian dude would be locked up. Along with others. And If Perry had listened to his fellow citizens of Texas, that state would have seceded a few years ago. ...But I can accept Walker.

Like I said dream ticket...Perry/Walker.

Sorry, I think somewhere I wrote the POTUS had to be 45...correction...you are correct...35...typo. He makes a wonderful Senator...but sadly like Arnold and OTHERS who would have aspired to the office...he isn't NATIVE (SOIL) born. Someone wrote about English common law...well, we fought a Revolution to change A LOT about English Common LAW or LAW period. THere is a lot of things that in this country are CONTRARY to International Law...and just because my hair on the back of my neck stood up when I heard Sandra Day O'Connor say...."Well, we have to view in the FACE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..." We do not "bow" to International Law as much as the United Nations would like us to, but as long as we still have OUR CONSTITUTION...that is the LAW OF THIS LAND. Lawyers love to twist the Constitution and one of the worst is to try and MAKE the Second Amendment say what they WISH it said...that a MILITIA is allowed to bear arms...THAT ISN'T WHAT IT SAYS.

What is says is that CITIZENS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS (to protect themselves from a well regulated MILITIA) shall not be INFRINGED. Citizens have always been able to join the ARMY (MILITIA) and bear arms. The Minute Men were fortunate that they (and the colonists) were ALL ARMED when they decided to have the REVOLUTION. The didn't have ROCKS...they had their own guns. ALL OF THEM. NO ONE HAD TO GIVE THEM WEAPONS. Thank God.

Bend the Constitution??? Where have you been? It has been deemed irrelevant and an outdated document in which has really no relevance in our society these days. If its ok for one party to "bend" the Constitution them its fair game for any and all other parties to do the same. Furthermore, Cruz citizenship qualifiers are by far closer to the Constitutional eligibilities than Obama's are and yet the Dems and Republicans both allowed that twit to not only run but win two terms without so much as a peep out of them or a investigation and I mean a unbiased investigation about Obama history and where he has come from. We know where Cruz has come from and where he has been, He doesn't seal his past like Obama did because he doesn't have to hide the fact that he was born outside the US and Cruz didn't attend any schools under foreign student nor did he renounce his citizenship to be a citizen of another Country like Obama had done in order to get Citizenship in Indonesia, just to name a few points in which no true, honest to goodness uncorrupted investigation has taken place to bring these points of fact up in Congress.

Herein lies the problem.

You said, "Bend the Constitution??? Where have you been? It has been deemed irrelevant and an outdated document in which has really no relevance in our society these days."

Please take the 'you' below as being rhetorical - put on the shoe that fits.

You very apparently have no idea what the document says. It was done correctly and still lays out the most perfect Union that has ever existed to this day in the entire world. It is people like you without knowledge of the wonders of this masterpiece and its co-work, the 'Declaration of Independence' that define the United States of America, who have messed it up.

- You have no understanding of the purpose and necessity for the electoral college - it is not what was taught in schools.
- You have no idea why the Constitution is ignored by activist judges and the elites in our society - it is because it prevents them from exercising the power that they want to grab.
- You do not realize that previous Congresses have given away huge amounts of authority to the point where they are now run by the bureaucracy and not the other way around as the Constitution dictates. To wit, the IRS debacle and Clinton's thumbing her nose at the Congress.
- You do not realize the difference between a 'right' and a 'desire'. To kill babies before they are born is not a right. To join in union with a person of the same sex is not a right. There is no 'right' to marry, marriage is an institution that helps to ensure the continuation of the species and is honored by veritably every civilized society.
- You do not realize that the Constitution does not forbid the states from mimicking the federal structure for its government, but the judiciary found that in the Constitution somehow, along with those other fictitious things, that have allowed them to take over and control the entire country with huge bureaucracy that we call our government, to the point where we now have more people on the dole than are paying for the government.

The ones who have allowed this to happen are the ones who are waking up now and realizing that they have given away almost all of their liberty in their quest for more government services. Well, we are getting what they asked for, whether we want it or not.

The only thing that I can think of that should have been in the Constitution are term limits on all offices - we have given lifetime 'good-old-boy' lives to career politicians who collectively suck us dry. They run things as best suited to their re-election, not for the good of the people.

Another thing should have been a means to collect funds for the operation of the government. The states should have been made responsible for a proportionate amount of funding for the federal government. And the local governments made responsible for a proportionate share of the state funding. This would make taxation without representation considerably more difficult because the purse would be controlled by the people.

I couldn't have said it better. Excellent. It is TIME if we don't keep the Republic we indeed are going to lose it. What loses it...people that don't believe and understand. Two things in this world please do not misinterpret or misrepresent. MY BIBLE AND MY CONSTITUTION. When one is gone, the other can't last. Communism says it wants a secular society. Well we are way too close to that...and look at what is going on in our Atheist Secular Society. Atheists say they can be just as moral as Believers. So all the Atheists I know came from our JUDEO/CHRISTIAN society...so that is where they LEARNED THOSE MORALS...which are waning FAST. This country is so filled with everything that is shocking to someone my age (73) it is hate filled, language is crude, vulgar and there is no respect. The country is allowing marriage to be made a mockery and children hardly know who their parents and so many don't know their grandparents at all. We are not expected to PARENT...we are not PC and our children are told we are not here to TEACH THEM...we are their buddies and I am shocked at the way children are allowed to talk to their parents...but a good secular/atheist society is just as moral as.... Every generation gets worse.

I would commend to your reading Lord of the Flies. They start out as fine christian upstanding ENGLISHMEN young Gentlemen. The same was true of the beginning of the Mutiny on the Bounty...Fletcher Christian starts out as a righteous officer in the British navy...he remains so until civilization leaves and little by little becomes native. His descendents live still on island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"Alcoholism, murder, disease and other ills took the lives of most mutineers and Tahitian men. John Adams and Ned Young turned to the scriptures, using the ship's Bibleas their guide for a new and peaceful society. Young eventually died of anasthmatic infection. The Polynesians also converted to Christianity."

Now I am aware of many countries that have gone into decline, but I have never known of a country that had NO RELIGION and had great morals. This goes back to Genesis and Greece. Other countries, the Asian countries had Emperors and War Lords and other rulers...but nearly all that I know of...they considered themselves as the GODS and the morals were their idea of "morals". Even Egypt lost it's true greatness when they went from a belief in God given morals to a Pharaoh GOD. Just one of the problems with our new PC Secular Society that the Democrats actually advocate. But you are one of the few people that actually GRASPS why we have to have the Electoral College. I don't even bother to mention it most of the time because it takes too long to explain it.

Fight for the Fair Tax and to abolish the 16th and the 17th Amendments so we can get back the 4th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. Power to the People and the States.

THe only problem is when will EVERYONE stop trying to AMEND THE MOST NEARLY PERFECT DOCUMENT IN THE HISTORY of man. NO, there is no such thing as a good Amendment other than the first ten and then the 22nd which we had to have FDR as a dictator to discover a flaw. But that is one man....to DENY THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ANYONE THEY WANT AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS WRONG. States/peoples RIGHTS. However the 17th Amendment should be abolished and have the Senators appointed by the States NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. Then all they have is glorified Representatives and they all have stars in their eyes for the Executive Office. THE CONSTITUTION WAS TOTALLY THOUGHT OUT BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. LEAVE IT ALONE...all the Amendments from 16 on are 20th Century SOCIALIST COMMUNIST and the DEMOCRACY when we AREN'T...I wish people would STOP CALLING IT THAT. We are a Republic!!!!! We are not a Democracy when is a mob rule (the greatest fear of the founding fathers) and it is not a good form of government for anything bigger that a town. Even then, democracy is a terrible form of government...." Churchill could have stopped there. The best form of government is a Republic and all our states are also based on a Republic form of government. You should never want to take from the people their right to vote for whoever they WANT to Represent them That isn't your right and it isn't the RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and it is just another NAIL in the Constitution...HAVE FAITH in the Constitution and the people. They eventually will see the light.

WTG JDubya... Well done!!!!

There was an investigation led by Sheriff Joe Apioe (Maricopa County AZ) of course the media chose not to cover it. Seems that document experts tore apart the Hawaii birth certificate ... wrong form .... water marks didn't match .... printed wih fonts .... which didn't exist in 1961 ...

The courts refused to hear the cases that were filed .... largely because being a citizen doesn't grant you standing to bring a case ... I was watching the one filed in Philadelphia closely. It was filed by a democrat bundler and Hillary supporter. I figured it had the best shot.

The courts don't believe in the Constitution..... that's why illegal has become undocumented..... and consequences are called discrimination. Ginsberg has openly stated our Constitution is inferior to the one for South Africa. Look at the warped logic Roberts used when he inflicted Obamacare on us.

Face it folks ... we live in a fuedalistic society where the "noble" public sector employee is the ruling class. They get paid more than their private sector counterpart even though they work less. There is no accountability when they screw up ..... because their intentions were good that excuses abject failure. The system is driven by process not outcomes.

LGBT = Pervert .... it's a universally reviled lifestyle ... even in the aboriginal culture of Paupau New Guinea.

There is no right to sex ... if there were rape would not be a crime. In the eyes of the law there are only two kinds of sex .... consentual ... and rape. Consentual sex is by choice and government has no right to an opinion. Rape is by force and it is a crime.

You choose to be sexually active. The choice of partner is secondary ... and that makes it conscious behavior. Rape is sex without choice ... that's why it is a crime.

You can also look at sex as a biological function. There are two purposes Pleasure and Procreation. Since X X can't reproduce and Y Y can't reproduce LGBT removes Procreation from the table. Pleasure = Behavior. The practitioners of LGBT are biogenetically engineered for procreation... meaning the sex organs are the same. They are capable of engaging in reproductive sex ... it's not like they posess a mystery oriface. LGBT choose a same sex partner because they find it more pleasurable ... and I'm okay with that. But coices have consequences and people have a right to not want to associate with that behavior ... with or without religious convictions.

What LGBT has been successful in obtaining is preference. That's not surprising since the demographics of that segmentt of society is largely upper and upper middle class white .... it's also more prevalent in the public sector .... why the NAACP can't see that is beyond me. I refuse to believe that LGBT have no ability to control their sex drive ... that the act they participate in is uncontrollable. If that were true one of the principals involved is a rape victim. There is no LGBT gene ... it is not a condition like eye color or skin pigment. It is a behavior genetically programmed for extinction because it is an action that can not propogate the species.

But with affluence comes standing in our judicial system. It is not about love ... it is about lust ... and in the eyes of most religions it is a sin .... because it is premarital sex ... it has nothing to do with LGBT.

As near as I can tell there are two copies of the Constitution. Mine comes with 10 amendments ... the first one being freedom of speach, freedom of association and freedom of religion. These are identified as individual rights. As near as I can tell there's has an extra part .... the Santa Clause ... that's where freedom from religion lives ... right next to the right to sex. Unfortunately the courts seem to have their copy of the constitution.

It's about principles ... you have them or you don't. These are moral absolutes ... like right and wrong. You can't bend a principle,you cn only break it. Once compromised it ceases to be a principle.

That's how Barry won the whitehouse ... people looked the other way. We don't live in the world I grew up in. That was a place governed by right and wrong ... we didn't need micromanaging legislation, because there was societal disaproval. We have allowed right and wrong to be compromised. When that happened we got legal and illegal. Similar concepts but hardly interchangeable. That happened in the 1970's hen they began to beat the Rule of Law drum. Since y hat time government has been actively promoting their religion .... secularism. Government has violated the first amendment . It seeks to force that belief system on us. Througv legislation

Look at what just happened i bhai Indiana. The freedom to believe has been strpped.away. No longer are you free to have a personal moral code ... the right to believe ... or not to believe. You must accept the value structure imposed by 9 dark robes ... exactly ehat the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

I blame Nixon ... sure Wilson got the ball rolling ... and Roosevelt gave it steroivds ... and LBJ funded it .... but they weren't adding new powers to governmend. Even the war on povertywas a government with a focus on service delivery.

Ot was Tricky Dick that gave us new departments, agency's, and bureau's. He also gave the beaurocasy the authority to impose law .... up until the early 70's the aithority to yt? he authority o promulgate tules and regulations applied to the internal operation of an Agenxy ... it did not extend to laws that applied to the public ... those were the exclussive domain of Congress. Today almost 90% of the new laws passed every year came through he "Posted in the Federal Registry" process Nixon fundementally changed government into a management organizatii. The EPA was established to clean up contaminated sites .and protect the H uman environment. Today the EPA wrtes regulstii,ns, because the beaurocracy needs to legislate the exception, and thereby penalizes the hundreds of millions of law abiding cjtizens csnnot be trusted.

I'm hoping for a candidate that will break the culture of superiority. Governments job is to serve, not dictate. I don't know if we have a candidate like that.I do, however, have hope

I was right with you till you talked about Nixon - a little too much to blame it all on him, but otherwise - right on!

Your right Sara if Cruz truly loved this country and believed in the constitution he wouldn't even be running for the highest office if he is willing to bend this one rule what else is he going to bend.
I dint trust him. besides that why aren't these people not trying to stop this lawless president.
They are all traitors.

Look at Barako Insane Obammy, he ran twice after sealing up all of his records. Cruz didn't do any of this including all of the crooked unconstitutional crap Jug Ears has been getting away with for over 6 years now. Another thing, Obama went to Pakistan, a no fly zone for any U.S. Citizen back in 1981. What Country's Passport did he use to get there? Here's a clue, it wasn't an American one, period! The only way we can get the answers to all of these questions is if Obammy unseals all of his records. It'll never happen, & if it does we will all be dead by then!

True but we keep electing RINOS that won't call Obama on it....why?
How many times do you want to be kicked in the teeth?