Being Independent Has Its Drawbacks; Someone Will Assign You a Designated Party or Candidate to Support

When writing in the political arena, it never fails that somewhere someone will attempt to align you as supportive of one candidate or against another.  It never will matter whether you “spread the love” around in criticism of all or not.  One article can garner the ever eager individual that applies a label.

Writing for three sites in the political opinion/editorial arena, potential presidential candidates and current office holders are frequently criticized by those watching the political fish maneuver around the fishbowl paraphernalia.  Clearly, in each bio, the political stance is mentioned as Independent.  It doesn’t mean the Independent Party since political parties will be the downfall of the united States.  A truly Independent status means the vote will be cast for the candidate that deserves it the most — not the lesser of two evils, not along strict party lines, or how popular and liked a candidate may be.

Imagine the surprise when on one site some actually made the accusation that the author, me, was a Cruz supporter.  Now, where could that have come from?  Entire articles have been devoted to explaining that Sen. Ted Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president since he does not meet the natural born citizen requirement despite meeting the other two criteria.  The requirements are not a “best of __ of 3.”  All three have to be satisfied.  One article took Cruz to task for traipsing down to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out teddy bears and soccer balls to the tens of thousands of children who crossed illegally unaccompanied into the united States.  Turns out, there were more adults than children proven by Beck’s own photography staff and other alternative media sources.

Cruz has been chastised in past articles for blind ambition in seeking the office of president knowing he does not meet all three criteria.  In fact, Cruz’s case is the same as Obama’s, which article after article vehemently declares that man a usurper and not a natural born citizen.  At this point, even Obama’s citizenship is in question after DNA testing was performed on a procured water glass that concluded his mother was not Stanley Anne Dunham.  Cruz reinterpreted an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, along with some portion of immigration law, in a lame attempt to prove he could run.  Ted knows better but stood on being a constitutional attorney arguing cases before the Supreme Court to indicate he need not take legal advice from Trump or Trump’s people.

The article on Freedom Outpost entitled,”Cruz: Trump is Becoming Popular with GOP,” had a comment that suggested the article was written by Rafael — referring to Ted.  And, yet another comes along and states the united States is a corporation since 1781.  For the life of Riley, no one ever points to a reference in the Constitution of the united States of America, signed in 1788, to where this statement occurs.  It is not in the Constitution the united States is a corporation.  Since the federal government is a creature of the people and the States, Congress, nor any other branch, can change the designation to a corporation legally.  Changing the government to operate similar to a corporation requires an amendment to the Constitution — no law can be passed by the creature to change the nature of the creature intended by its creator.  But, I digress.

The point being is the article was written from the point of view Cruz brought up about Trump.  Cruz referred to the bandits conducting business inside the Beltway as the “Washington Cartel.”  It’s a spot on analysis.  With Donald Trump being a “wheeler and dealer,” Cruz pointed out that the Washington Cartel and establishment Republicans would warm toward Trump more so than him due to Trump’s “fitting better” in that environment and willing to “make a deal.”  It’s a valid analysis.  However, Cruz is ineligible meaning he cannot be considered seriously.  Likewise with Marco Rubio.  And, please, for the love of Pete, Trump will not hold to the limitations contained in the Constitution.  The only candidate who has come close to actually saying he would follow the Constitution was Sen. Rand Paul.  And, he is falling rapidly to the wayside.

There is not one GOP or Democrat candidate who has declared that God’s law comes first, then upholding individual God-given rights, and then upholding the Constitution.  A candidate that can do that plus meet the three requirements listed in the Constitution for holding the office of president is the candidate of choice — the one who should be president.  No one in either the Republican or Democrat Parties who are vying for president can declare these three statements and be telling the truth.  Basically, this election cycle provides no real voting choice for the citizens;  it is intentional by both parties to select candidates who follow party line and agenda over upholding the Constitution.

Cruz is ineligible to hold the office of the president;  however, Cruz is accurate in some of his statements and analyses.  Trump is accurate in some of his statements and analogies.  Does that mean when giving someone credit where credit is due that you are supporting that person?  Not in the least.  It means that you are looking objectively at what candidates are saying, weighing it and formulating it with facts and truth.  While Cruz is ineligible, Trump is eligible but, Trump is all about the deal.  He is not about upholding the Constitution.

Being an Independent means giving someone credit where credit is due and calling them out on the carpet when violating what they claim to support — even when a “golden boy” or the most favorite/adored by many politician.

Still, it remains a fact the GOP will want to nominate someone who will “fit in” and present some form of conservatism as a front to appease the voter base.  If they have to violate a few Constitutional tenets to do it, they will.  It’s the same with the Democrat Party — they will nominate someone who fits and presents a less prominent Communist front.  Democrats are notorious for violating the Constitution, inventing new ways of interpretation that others have adopted.

Standing by the article and refusing to capitulate, again, the GOP is in terrible trouble with its voting base.  On the larger scale, the united States as a Constitutional republic is in grave danger of being lost.  The Constitution is on life support and individual God-given rights hangs on to a thread.  This election cycle, presidential and Congressional, will determine what kind of nation the united States will be in 2017.

Still, the point is missed by a few.  The few interpret it one way to shoot the messenger since they interpreted the message incorrectly.  Well, as stated in another article, sometimes the author is not getting the point across for the reader to receive it.  But, how many article have to be written declaring Cruz to be ineligible and Trump a wheeler/dealer that shouldn’t be in Washington for some readers to know where you stand?


About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.