I Want a Candidate

I want to believe Trump. I want to trust that he is truly, permanently transformed to a Constitutionalist. My gut says this.

I will never vote for Donald Trump because he’s a pro-gun control, pro-single-payer health care, pro-eminent domain, pro-abortion, and pro-statism liberal who will immediately revert to form when he’s finished selling his fauxservatism to people he patently views as rubes. I will never vote for Donald Trump, because absolutely nothing he can say or do will cover the fact he is obviously and blatantly lying every time his thin lips move and his freakishly tiny hands pound the podium. ("With God As My Witness, I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump", Rick Wilson, Feb 23, 2016)

"Donald Trump is not a Republican. He's a hypocrite and a con man" Jeb Golinkin

Trump is all about Trump. He is a Napoleon, stepping in when Jacobin radicalism fails. Many loved Bonaparte, even after he led France to ruin. Trump would be as much a dictator as Hillary, perhaps more so. The Constitution dies under either one of them. I did not donate to rhe Clintons, nor have them at my wedding. BTW, I happily voted for Mitt. I do not need a perfect candidate, just one who respects constitutional law. It is like voting for Senator Palatine or Count Dooku. Either Hillary or Donald is voting for the Dark Side. (FB Comment, Gerald Smith )

"Better socialism than nationalism with its brown shirts" (FB Comment, Mike Tannehill)

-

The fact that none of the three remaining candidates is really part of the GOP establishment is actually a sign of the total victory the Tea Party has won over the party regulars. This is a good thing. The Republican establishment was, depending on your view, either ossified or rotten to the core. 

But the question going forward is what will replace the old establishment. Will it be a revived, middle-class conservatism of the Mike Lee school? Or more libertarian-ish? Rubio and Cruz offer compelling, but distinct visions. 

What separates them from Trump is that they are looking to revolutionize the party from the inside. Trump is staging a hostile-takeover of the party from the outside. And what he wants to replace the old establishment with is neither Republican nor conservative. ("Is Marco Rubio Really an 'Establishment' Candidate?", Jonathon V. Last, Feb 24, 2016, The Weekly Standard)

Update 2016-04-14
A FB friend posted this article
http://citizenanalyst.net/meet-the-donald-trump-our-media-is-hiding/

I would love to believe that he has all the honorable things in that article. I am seeing a thin skinned, spiteful man that will be your worst enemy if you cross him. I do not see a man that has shown any scruples to our Constitution.

I see a man that wants trade barriers instead of more free trade.

I see a man that will likely get us in more and more serious war.

I do not see a man who wants to defend the liberty of the people.

I see a man who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. (see demagogue)

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

Separation of Powers

If we do not understand and defend the principle of the separation of powers, we may lose to a tyrant of the President, Judiciary or mob-rule.

Hating the Establishment Is Not the Same as Supporting Liberty

An autocrat is someone who believes that power should be consolidated into few people or even one person. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are examples of Presidential candidates that want increased power of the state.

A new autocrat from the left or right threatens everything. A political movement fueled by bloodlust — mobilized by raw resentment and crying out for vengeance — could empower a new form of oligarchic control, resulting in a calamity that no one intended but no one can control once it has power. ("Hating the Establishment Is Not the Same as Supporting Liberty:The case for antidisestablishmentarianism". Jeffrey Tucker, 20 Jan 2016)

-

[Trump] as said nothing about dismantling power. Indeed, he is on record with his desire to radically expand the power of the state. He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He’s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internment and killings of political enemies. His entire governing philosophy boils down to arbitrary, free-wheeling authoritarianism. ("Hating the Establishment Is Not the Same as Supporting Liberty:The case for antidisestablishmentarianism". Jeffrey Tucker, 20 Jan 2016)

-

A movement toward a lasting liberty has to think long term, and not find itself buffeted by the winds of politics that promise overnight results. The goal should be the tearing down of power itself and its replacement by simple human rights and a society that functions according to civilized standards. ("Hating the Establishment Is Not the Same as Supporting Liberty:The case for antidisestablishmentarianism". Jeffrey Tucker, 20 Jan 2016)

-

I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country. (Alma 60:36)

Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen

The particular case where a US citizen gives birth to their child in another country has not been ruled on by the courts. To my logic and that I discern from the founders, a US citizen giving birth to their child elsewhere is a naturalized US citizen.

The Illinois Board of Elections has ruled that he is a natural born citizen. This author thinks, "Congress and not the Supreme Court should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility."

"Yes, Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born citizen’"

The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. 

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.
... 

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” ('On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”'. Mar 11, 2015. Neal Katyal & Paul Clement. Harvard Law Review)

P.S.
"Re-examining the Constitution's Presidential Eligibility Clause"