Did Ted Cruz Really Win Every County in Maine?

The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?

By Cruz Camp's Own Admission, Heidi Should Be Thoroughly Vetted

The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.

How Ted Cruz Can Stop Immigration Abuse NOW!

As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...

The Complete Concordance of Cruz Corruption, Deceptions and Lies

Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.

Why Isn't Anyone Discussing the SCOTUS Ruling on Natural Born Citizen?

There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)

Why I'm Happy To (Now) Be A Texan

In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.

Ted Cruz Takes More Wall Street Money than Hillary Clinton

When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.

The PolitiJim Twitter FF List

The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

FACT CHECK: Cruz's Cred on Constitutional Conservatism


I have had many interactions with Cruz supporters continuing to herald his qualifications as a "Constitutional Conservative."  I debate that on the merits of his record.  I am not suggesting that Ted Cruz is Harry Reid.  But he is not Antonin Scalia either.  It is important to put outisde the talking points, the PR and campaign ads and look at the facts:

Article One
  • Cruz was very good bringing attention to the problems of ObamaCare.  But since he has been silent on it's unconstitutional passing.  At one tim ehe was willing to shut down government.  But after giving the Republican Establishment a donatoin of $240,000 from his PAC and taking a position as joint Chairman of the NRSC, he complains about the law, but brings no attention to the subversion of the process. Few recall how Harry Reid changed Senate rules to bypass the Scott Brown election that kept the Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to pass ObamaCare outright.  They changed the rules to only require a simple majority, and we've never heard a filibuster or lawsuit from Cruz since. Pelosi's unconstitutional adoption of a Senate military housing bill to make a 'revenue'  ObamaCare bill is in violation of the Constitution which clearly defines that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid and company used political procedures to override both the law and intent of the Constitution.  Cruz has used similar tactics including in the passing of ObamaTrade.
  • Ted Cruz authored the Senate bill for ObamaTrade (or TPP/TPA).  He took to the airwaves with Rand Paul to speak vigorously for it.  What does the Trans-Pacific Trade treaty do? It subverts the US Constitution by placing the authority of US interests and companies under the power of the World Bank and foreign countries that represent over 40% of the world GDP.  Jeff Sessions said at the time:
....companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations... critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.12 
 And it's far worse.  Foreign investors could sue the Federal, State, County and City entities for any US investment they made that went bad - even if it had nothing to do with those government entities involved.
One foreign government could bankrupt a state under the jurisdiction of foreign powers. The Huffington Post restated one provision this way:
"(International companies and investors) can collect not just for lost property or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies' ability to collect what they claim are "expected future profits."16
Again, Ted Cruz AUTHORED this bill.  Many Cruz followers repeat his assertion that he had second thoughts and voted against it.  Many recall the MSM soundbite from Cruz that "Mitch McConnell lied."  This had nothing to do with the TPP bill itself, but with an amendment that funded the Import/Export Bank.  Ted continued to support ObamaTrade, and even engineered the Senate confirmation in a way that his individual vote would not be recorded. Furthermore Cruz affirmed this this past November by voting AGAINST a provision (Senate Amendment 1251) that stated:
"To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…
Look up the vote yourself.
In other words,  Senator Cruz did not want congress to be consulted before other countries, including China, could join TPP and put us directly under international law and foreign powers.
If that isn't bad enough, it also would flood the United States with foreign workers, and remove MANY protections already in law.  Via Breitbart:
Even if the migrant foreign workers (coming from foreign companies and governments as part of the TPP allowance) are paid American wage-levels, the huge influx of foreign workers will flood the U.S. market and drive down wages paid to American technicians and professionals. “It is pure supply-and-demand,” she said. For example, “if you increase the supply of legal services, you increase the number of law firms, you reduce the wages of [American] lawyers...”
On this measure, the TPP is written so foreign powers could literally force us to rewrite our immigration laws.  Forget Gang of Eight.  Any Constitutional - well, almost any Constitutional scholar, can see that this subverts the entire intent of Article I powers.
  • Ted Cruz claimed he would "talk until he couldn't stand" at the ObamaCare filibuster although according to Harry Reid's Communication Director, not only would Cruz have to abandon the floor for a per-scheduled vote, Cruz had negotiated the PR ploy with Reid in the first place.  Most conservatives like myself are happy for the attention it brought, but it shows that Cruz is not the "purist" he sells himself to be. In fact the very filibuster itself is believed to be unconstitutional.  It most certainly is abused and Cruz was part of that. But on aspects of Iran, the ObamaCare funding budget and other GOP establishment rubber stamps for Obama, Cruz no longer attempts the use of this tool he said was so critical to our Constitution.

Article Two and Three

Ted Cruz's website boldly lies "NO CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR BELIEVES CRUZ TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT."



However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A few include:

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question but a Constitutional one.

The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:
"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180 by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
 Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.
 

Despite this Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz told CNN that the entire issue over whether he is eligible or not is "not important.  He went on to claim that "The very first Congress defined citizens born abroad as natural born citizens."  As shown at the list link above, historian and Founding Father Dave Ramsey, who literally wrote the book "Citizenship" in 1789 SPECIFICALLY outlines that it is to be defined as a child born on US soil to TWO parents who are United States citizens.  The Founders spent quite a bit of effort on this provision wanting protections that a President would have loyalty to our country from the aspects of birth and the upbringing. A "native Texan" is one who was born in Texas.  If you came when you were 5, you are not a native.  Throughout the Founder's writings they use "native" to be equal to born on US soil.  In the 1875 Supreme Court decision Minor vs Happersett the court specifically mentions that the definition of "natural born citizen" is not in the Constitution but
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"
However, Cruz and his apologists often cite the Immigration Act of 1790 labeling foreign born children of US parents "as" natural born citizens. Not only doesn't it say "are natural born citizens," but the Act was completely repealed in 1795 and the language replacing it removed the "natural born" association altogether.  We have the House Committee notes (link above) that explains one reason the Act was repealed and replaced, rather than amended it, was in part due to the potential confusion of future generations to unconstitutionally apply the poorly worded language.  As a "Constitutional scholar" shouldn't Cruz know this?

Another Senator does. 

Current Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a foreign father in a foreign land just like Rafael Ted Cruz.  Her mother brought her to the US when she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen"  according to her biography

When running for Senate, Ted Cruz ADMITTED to a GOP Assemblywoman and Latino paper that he was not eligible to be President.  His story changed when he saw the opportunity to run for President.

Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen and Eligible to be a US Senator?

What makes the Constitutional questions far worse is the lack of evidence that Ted Cruz or his parents filed the necessary paperwork to confirm his citizenship - much less his NATIVE or Natural Born Citizenship.  As Governor LePage of Maine has stated, his girls were born in Canada, and the US still required documentation for them to retain their American citizenship and legally enter the United States as such when LePage and his wife returned to the United States.  To this day, Cruz has only released his Canadian birth certificate.  By his own admission he was a Canadian citizen until approximately 18 months ago, and yet his immigration records from 1974, his passport application from 1986 and his passport records have been sealed together with his college records.   On what basis could he Constitutionally run for United States Senate without having been a US citizen for 9 years?

This lack of documentation then leads to speculation on what basis did his family come to the United States.  Although unverified, most accept that Cruz's mother was likely a US citizen.  However Rafael Cruz Sr, took Canadian citizenship in 1973 before Ted was born.  He did not become a US citizen until 2005.  On what legal basis did he stay in the United States?  Was he on a renewable visa during that time?  We don't know.  Similarly, without a Consular Report of Birth Abroad filed on Ted's behalf by his mother at a US embassy, there is a strong case that Ted Cruz is possibly not even a US citizen.  Others who have been in the same situation as Ted Cruz, have disclosed their immigration documents and process.  At least one legal group believes the documentation suggests he is an "undocumented alien."

So how can a "Constitutional scholar" determine the laws of citizenship of other legal and illegal immigrants when he has not fully disclosed the proper documentation for his own immigration?

The other Article II issue where Ted Cruz has a clear track record, is that of the appointment by the President for nominees to the Supreme Court.  It was Ted Cruz who recruited, vetted and championed the appointment of John Roberts under George Bush 43.  Roberts, was the deciding vote in a 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, practically ending the debate about the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Again, Ted Cruz lied in the debates as evidenced by the emails he wrote in 2005 that he had nothing to do with Robert's nomination.  Even without the first hand testimony of Jeb Bush's discussion with his brother, it's clear Cruz worked diligently on making sure Roberts was nominated.  Among Ted's many emails in support of Roberts appointment he wrote:
“one of the very best advocates ever,” who exemplified “how to try to carry out our craft with the highest level of skill and integrity.”
In an op-ed for the National Review he wrote:
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,”
It would be unfair to blame Cruz for the judicial decisions of Roberts when the exalted Ronald Reagan had less than conservative results with Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Conner.  But Cruz must also accept responsibility when he claims he would be better than other candidates in selecting Supreme Court nominees when we see the results of specific efforts he made in a real life situation.

Article Four

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

James Madison:
“When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…”

When Scott Walker announced his campaign for President, he quickly stunned his conservative followers by saying he was open to amnesty for illegal aliens.  The Cruz campaign quickly floated the notion that Ted Cruz was open to some legal status for illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigration like Numbers USA and the National Immigration Council have pointed out how evasive Cruz has been on immigration.  His vigorous arguments against Obama's Executive Amnesty were quickly diluted by his five amendments to the Gang of Eight bill which he testified (below) was trying to improve it to get it passed.  Then, as his campaign began, he tried to spin the notion that these efforts were a "poisoned pill" to get it defeated.  Watch below at how sincere he is attempting to convince his audiences of both sides at different times. 


Few realize the insidious Muslim invasion underway and has been expanded by the Obama administration.  Hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees have been surreptitiously planted in small towns overrunning social services and destroying the culture and the economic well being of US communities that have existed over a hundred years.  It seems their placement is calculated to be in areas so remote from large media venues to go unnoticed.  One woman in Maine who saw this attempt by the Federal Government has become the intellectual leader of the American movement to stop this.
Through her years of research, Corcoran found that Muslim immigration is a form of jihad through colonization called hijra, which she reports dates back to the time of Mohammad. According to Corcoran, the Muslim Brotherhood pursues the hijra strategy.

Corcoran’s sources detail that the migration is actually a religious obligation, in which Muslims are required to spread Islam.

“If you don’t help counter the hijra, we are in my opinion, doomed,” warned Corcoran.
She notes Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, who said Europe wouldn’t be conquered by guns and swords, but instead by Muslim immigration.
Given the words of James Madison describing the intent of our Constitution toward illegals, Ted Cruz's positions on refugees are worth noting in the video below:


Breitbart, Heritage and other conservative publications have spelled out the Constitutional violation to which Senator Cruz seems oblivious.  One instance from Breitbart:
The constitutional argument is that the federal government, without the permission of these 12 Wilson-Fish states, has “commandeered” state funds by placing refugees in their states, thereby obligating states to pay Medicaid expenses for the refugees, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In effect, the federal government is imposing an unfunded federal mandate by regulatory fiat, rather than statutory authority, on these 12 “Wilson-Fish alternative program” states.

Obama has issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim countries.  Ted Cruz authored a bill to DOUBLE THAT NUMBER.  In addition to destroying even more US jobs, it seems that Cruz is facilitating the destruction of America through hijad of humanitarian and legal means.  It seems hard to believe that it is intentional.  But he can only either be a dupe of the invasion, a politician who will change his views to whatever his political purposes need (as Carly Fiorina has said), or complicit.  Listen to Jeff Session' Senior Policy Adviser talk about his experiences with Ted Cruz in 2013 during the Immigration battle.  Personal knowledge of what Cruz did to subvert conservative values.




Article Six
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 Contrary to the Cruz campaign's assertion, the Founders did not institute a litmus test for how "religious" someone is or what precise religion that might be.



Amendment I


Cruz has not rebuked supporters who have tried to silence opponents through a "blacklist" that would go so far as to stop journalists critical of Ted Cruz from gaining employment.  This is Soviet-style tactics, and although not a government activity, against the spirit of our country and the First Amendment.  Cruz isn't proposing a law, but considering the coercion by Cruz supporters from StandByMichelle to Amanda Carpenter without any disavowing from him, one can not assume our liberties will be any safer under his administration should he be elected.  He certainly has not jumped to defend the Constitutional rights of Trump to assemble in private venues without obstruction.


Amendment IV

It has been widely reported that Ted Cruz has the second worst attendance in the Senate (excluding Harry Reid who had health issues.)  His absences exceed the combined total of Feinstein, Boxer and comedian Al Franken.  What is not reported is that he has the worst attendance record of any Senator of the Armed Services Committee, which is well below 50%.  He also has voted "no" against the Defense bill appropriations for three years in a row, which includes pay raises for the military and veteran housing needs.  His objection is that a provision against US citizens from being detained abroad is missing.  He has not been able to lead his fellow Senators to include this in any of the three years bills.  His justification against REAL needs of the military is to vote "no" three times in a row against what IS in the bill and instead votes "no" for what isn't in it.  He had no problem however voting "Yes" to giving Iran - who has declared war against the United States - real nuclear and economic power despite the fact Obama won't call them a terrorist supporting country.  This seems to be an inconsistent application of his principles and hurts the very military he claims he supports.

Amendment VIII

David Brooks, reported on a case of Michael Wayne Haley who was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart.  The maximum sentence allowable was two years but a court error had sentenced him to 16 years.  Ted Cruz had the ability and authority to let Haley go for "time served" but instead, Cruz used the case to build his career by arguing an obscure point of law before the Supreme Court.  Ted Cruz made Haley stay in jail the full 16 years for stealing a $1 calculator.  Brooks writes:

The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.
It is true that the Supreme Court found in favor of Ted Cruz's argument on behalf of the State of Texas.  The Supreme Court ruling by itself does not justify it as it also found for the right to kill unborn children and call a coercive government mandate to buy health insurance a "tax.".  For a country founded in the footsteps of John Adams, who helped a British soldier be acquitted during the revolution, it certainly is not the spirit - if not the letter of the law.

Amendment X

From Natural News:
Ted Cruz believes that Americans have the right to buy a gun, but not to read a food label informing them of toxic dangers. Apparently GMOs are far more dangerous than guns in the mind of Ted Cruz, because GMOs must be hidden from the public even as guns are readily accessible.
The FDA finally agreed to start testing food for GMO's long after 38 other countries have banned them.  MIT, Purdue and hundreds of other universities have conclusive studies showing correlative, if not causal implications of over 22 diseases from GMO's and Monsanto's Round Up modifications. Ted Cruz calls these scientists and advocates "anti-science zealots."  Ted's vote for Monsanto (who spent enormous amounts of lobbying dollars and efforts)  was actually a issue of state's rights. As Natural News stated:
The only way to get GMOs labeled is to get it done state by state, and these 71 U.S. Senators have now thrown down the gauntlet, stating they believe states have no right to mandate GMO labeling at the local level!

Keep that in mind the next time Rand Paul or Ted Cruz talks about "liberty and justice" Where was their justice on the issue of GMO labeling? How does keeping people in the dark on what they're eating create a more free society?

For God's sake, what does it take to get somebody in Washington D.C. to consistently and unswervingly vote on the side of liberty and freedom every single time?

Amendment VIV

One of the other adjectives Cruz and his supporters attempt to use to define him is "consistent." Below you can see that Ted Cruz went from saying "there is no need to fight" birthright citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment, and then he follows a few years later saying it should end.


Forget for a moment the conflict of interest which Ted Cruz has as an undocumented (see above) immigrant himself.  It was only after Trump began to get backing from the conservative press to end "anchor babies"(including the National Review which has devoted two entire issues to stopping Trump) that Cruz changed his tune.  This is hardly the sign of a "consistent" Constitutional view.

Ann Coulter explains the crazy argument Cruz is making in his first position statement:
"...how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

Damn straight they should!

We’ve got to codify that.
YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!
It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War — and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh.

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.


So Ted Cruz says that he has looked at "all the arguments" and missed the Supreme Court ruling in 1884?

Amendment XVI

In typical Ted Cruz fashion, he has proposed a VAT tax which is branded as a "Fair Tax."  Forbes was one of the first to call this out.  The difference is that a "fair tax" is transparent to the end buyer collecting the tax from the final seller of the transaction.  The VAT tax buries taxes at every level of the wholesale transaction so the end consumer truly isn't aware of the "pre-tax" value of the purchase.  Why is that important?  As explained by Dan Mitchell of CATO, the VAT tax has accomplished two insidious things everywhere it's been introduced.  It dramatically expands government spending because of the new taxing authority across 'wholesale' businesses that currently do not collect tax.  And it dramatically increases the power, size and authority of the revenue departmentIt also appears to ultimately RAISE income taxes in the countries where it is adopted as well.  The trade-off pushed by most economists in favor of it, is to replace the 16th Amendment with a VAT tax.  And it would terrible.

A VAT tax seems to be prohibited and unconstitutional by Article 1.  Therefore Cruz is either proposing an unconstitutional tax as the basis of his economic policy, or just as dangerous, a Constitutional convention or Amendment process.  The convention is dangerous because it can become a behind-closed-doors bartering system for the politicians to fill an Amendment with "pork" in exchange for their support.  The ratification by the individual states narrows the issue to the proposed language in an up or down vote - but can take years to enact.  And the benefits of initially reducing taxes in the economy are pushed out until it is passed, ratified and put into effect.  Our economy can't wait that long.  And our country would never be able to repeal it once it is in place.



Summary

This recount does not take into account the many conservative actions and stances to which Cruz should be duly credited.  He did defend the Second Amendment for the State of Texas.  He did defend religious liberty with the Ten Commandment battle (again in Texas).  He proposed voter registration requirements in the Senate and brought great awareness to the ObamaCare battle.

But there are many mixed successes as well.  He protected US sovereignty as Solicitor General of Texas in one case where Mexico wanted jurisdiction over two killers caught in the United States.  However, his willingness to strip US authority in every foreign transaction through his ObamaTrade bill, he nullifies his right to claim "defense of US sovereignty" to qualify his constitutional credibility.  The same is true with other accomplishments such as introducing the State Marriage Defense Act bill in an attempt to uphold the Constitutional authority of each state to define marriage.  When given the chance to defend it as Solicitor General he refused to fight against gay marriage when requested to do so by the Mayor of Houston. That is not consistent.

Cruz is not a liberal.  But on the merits, There is no objective measure that he wins a title of a consistent Constitutional conservative.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Ex-Cruz Staffer: @AmandaCarpenter hatched Carson theft and Heidi OK with Ted Affairs



Ex-Cruz campaign staffer: Heidi knows about Ted affairs, is "ok with it." Amanda Carpenter hatched Ben Carson vote theft.
  • Cruz hatched Ben Carson vote theft from internal phone poll showing Trump in 1st, Cruz second and Carson a very close third place.
  • Amanda Carpenter initiated the idea of converting Carson caucus goers to Cruz
  • Cruz extramarital affairs well known
  • Heidi Cruz sent memo to staff declaring that "she knew about it." "it was ok" and staff should not worry about it.

Bill Still reports that he and his wife spoke with an ex-Cruz campaign staffer with 24 years of political experience. This person claims they had never quit a campaign until becoming too uncomfortable with the deceptive tactics and operations of the campaign. They asked for anonymity since they had taken a position with another campaign, but provided Still his written offer from the Cruz campaign as proof of his employment.

The staffer was part of a internal poll that showed Trump ahead in Iowa, with Cruz second and Carson a very substantial third place. This person claims to have made their displeasure known to the staff at the scheme to take Carson's votes and eventually quit days before the Iowa Caucus.

The staffer says Amanda Carpenter was directly involved in the scheme going as far as to say it was her idea.  Conservative media has thoroughly documented how Carpenter was the first to tweet the news from the first tweet from CNN reporters, and how the Cruz campaign chose to ignore immediate and continuous opportunities to correct the record.  Instead they blasted the information to every Cruz campaign operative to take advantage of the misleading first tweet from the CNN reporter.


THE IOWA CARSON DECEPTION AND LIES CHRONOLOGY
(Breitbart timeline - TalkingPointsMemo timeline)
  1. 6:41 pm CNN tweets Carson going to FL after IA but NOT dropping race.
  2. 6:44 pm CNN’s Dana Bash says it is "unusual" but DOES NOT SAY CARSON dropping out.
  3. 6:48 pm Amanda Carpenter FIRST to claim Carson is "releasing his voters."
  4. 6:53 pm Cruz campaign does NOT verify report with Carson, but sends email/text/post to that "Carson taking time off with big announcement next week."
  5. 6:53 pm Carson campaign clarifies report that he is "only going home to get clean clothes" NOT dropping out of race. Carson campaign tweets "We're here!"
  6. 7:00 pm Iowa Caucus Begins
  7. 7:01 pm Cruz campaign sends text/email blast to 1500 precinct chairpeople implying Carson getting out of race, and to TELL CARSON supporters to vote for Cruz. Cruz Tweet here.
  8. 7:05 pm Carson campaign spokesperson clarifies Carson is in race.
  9. 7:07 pm Cruz sends audio message to campaign that Carson is getting out of campaign, "tell Carson supporters, and tell them to vote for Cruz."
  10. 7:12 pm National Cruz Co-Chair, US Representative Steve King equates "leaving early is same as suspending campaign."
  11. 7:20 pm Even AFTER others protest to Rep. King, King tweets, "guess he's out. hope people vote for Cruz." 
  12. 7:29 pm Second audio goes to all Cruz supporters saying same as 7:07 pm message.
  13. 7:30 pm Major news broadcasters continue denials of false report, and Cruz continuing to send out false messages - CNN AGAIN sends clarifying tweet Carson is in.
  14. 10:52 pm Cruz Public Relations chief (Professional CIA disinformation operative with ties to George Soros) sends multiple tweets trying to blame Trump campaign, then deletes it.
  15. Cruz FLAT LIED that CNN had inaccurately reported that Carson was suspending his campaign "from 6:30 p.m. to 9:15," and "didn't correct that story until 9:15 that night."
  16.  Cruz finally admits wrongdoing, apologizes to Ben Carson - WHILE blaming CNN.
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who opposed Cruz openly during the race, said Thursday that Cruz’s tactics had been “unethical and unfair.”
Also on Thursday, Carson said that the Cruz campaign never tried to verify the truth before sending false information to supporters.
“As a Christian man, I accept the apology he has since offered and I take him at his word that he didn’t know,” Carson said. “But no actions have been taken to correct the problem. That I cannot accept.
“One thing is now clear — while Senator Cruz may preach against the ‘Washington Cartel,’ he will still adopt, or at least not condemn, Cartel tactics for his own political gain,” Carson wrote.
Further in the video Still report, the ex-staffer discusses the issue of Ted Cruz's alleged extramarital affairs.
And finally, we asked John Doe if there was anything to the allegations in the National Enquirer about Cruz having mistresses.
“It’s 100% true that he has affairs. All top-level staffers got an email directly from Heidi Cruz saying that she knew about it and it was ok, and for us to not concern ourselves with it.”
Amanda Carpenter commented at length on the National Enquirer chargers against John Edwards in 2008 including:
Media refused to report on Edwards affair in 08.  Now, staffers are saying they knew all along! Maybe someone should have called them then?  (tweet picture at top)
Social media matched an obscured photo in the National Enquirer article alleging Ted Cruz at least five mistresses while married to Heidi Cruz.  Carpenter went dark on social media for about 18 hours as the story broke not denying the affair, but gave a lengthy interview to CNN claiming she has always remained faithful to her husband.  She also claimed her relationship with Cruz was "entirely professional" despite numerous tweets publicized in the past days gushing over Senator Cruz and even wearing matching tattoos.  Some reporters still believe here denials were carefully crafted to give the appearance of fidelity, but with loopholes that would give her room to retract in the future.

 
The Still Report Part 2 below..  (Part 1 available here.)

More on the Concordance of Cruz Lies and Deceptions here.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Cruz Campaign Tells Us Heidi is Ted's Closest Adviser


There is a Facebook page called "As a Mom... A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots" that can "no longer stand by" while Heidi Cruz's reputation is called into question.  Anyone who looks at my Twitter timeline can see that I defend her against the disgusting attacks on her looks or even the unfortunate incident in Austin uncovered by Buzzfeed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/ted-cruzs-wife-heidi-cruz-ted-partnership-36631430
It is important to look at Heidi through a political filter ONLY because we are told by Ted that she "helps him make every important decision together," and because former Goldman Sachs, current Chertoff Group Partner and Campaign Chairman Chad Sweet says that Heidi is Ted's #1 adviser.  She also is his leading fund raiser and we are told it is now her full time job.  Since the Cruz campaign has just refused to cooperate with the FEC on the $1 Million loan they received from Goldman Sachs - Heidi's employer who she refused to leave but take a leave of absence from, taking an honest, objective look at Heidi Cruz is very fair game.

Many have NOT taken the time to understand that not only did the Cruz's force the radical UN Agenda 21 plan via Heidi's participation on the North American Union and Ted's AUTHORSHIP of ObamaTrade, but they habitually lied about it.

My response to them below:

I spent 80 hour weeks helping to elect Ted Cruz to Senate. I spent countless hours researching the attacks on Ted (by Jeff Roe - who Cruz has now hired to run his campaign). I accepted a lot of Ted's word in the previous campaign. But - as this Cruz fan writes at http://bit.ly/CruzFan, I too looked again at a lot of my research. A lot affirmed what I knew. Even more completely blew me away and caused me to not only change my support, but to actively campaign against him.

Two major areas I looked at were Heidi's participation on the North American Union (creating an EU for Canada/US/New Mexico) and the fact Ted Cruz never told us he was still held Canadian citizenship when he ran for Senate. I discuss these in detail at http://bit.ly/PJ4Trump. But a quick overview. Regarding Heidi I did not know that the two did not share a home for many years. I did not know that she STILL is employed by Goldman Sachs, nor did I know that she directly received her job from the former President of Goldman who was also the former President of the World Bank. I was not aware that she was the Undersecretary to Condi Rice at the National Security Council. Ted called the Council for Foreign Relations a pit of snakes and claimed in 2011/12 that Heidi's participation was one of thousands of appointees and that she joined to try and change it. (That video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiFKtC6a9do) IT TURNS OUT HE WAS LYING. She was not one of THOUSANDS but 1 of 31 who spent over 5 years crafting the document. She worked directly under the chief architect of NAFTA. Ted later said that Heidi wrote an objection to the plan. Tell me if there is ANYTHING in her written statement that was published as part of the plan that sounds like an objection. Here is what she wrote (pp. 33-34):
“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”:

The plan was SO radical that Canada refused to accept or modify it AND REWROTE IT ALL TOGETHER. You can read how insidious of a plan it is to remove the major protections to US Sovereignty here: http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/04/04/can-you-handle-the-truth-ted-heidi-cruz-and-the-north-american-union/

The fact that Ted Cruz AUTHORED the sovereignty killing ObamaTrade law, lied about his apparent change of heart, and then voted to ban Congress from having veto power over nations like China joining without Senate confirmation, is all the more reason to carefully look at why these two seem adamant to weaken American's Constitutional protections.  It is not a little thing that Cruz sided with Obama to give Iran nuclear and economic power against everything conservatives have been fighting the administration on since 2009.

I absolutely believed Ted when he said that "didn't know" he was Canadian 2 years ago when the Dallas Morning News researched and discovered it. However, it took him nearly 6 months to actually file the papers with Canada to revoke his citizenship and CNN interviewed Princeton classmates who said not only did Cruz KNOW HE WAS CANADIAN, he bragged about it. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/ted-cruz-citizenship-childhood/index.html) In fact, now that it is just beginning to be researched, we find out that Ted Cruz has SEALED his immigration, passport and school records just like Obama. His mother says she obtained a passport for him when Ted was a senior in High School, but we don't actually have ANY IMMIGRATION documents that he would have filed at 4 years old when his mother moved back to America, or the Consular Record of Birth Abroad that has been required since 1919 to registered children of US citizens abroad. We also don't know on what legal basis his father - who elected Canadian citizenship before Ted was born - and who didn't apply for American citizenship for over 35 years - was allowed into the country. Whether you believe he is a native American as the 1875 MINOR vs HAPPERSETT Supreme Court decision defined it or a natural born citizen as Founder Dave Ramsey wrote in the definition of US citizenship in 1789 - we do know that NO ONE has been allowed US entry or citizenship merely by showing up with a parent's birth certificate. WHY ARE THEY SEALED? There is much, much more intrigue on the matter at http://bit.ly/CruzCRBA and http://bit.ly/CruzNBC .

Regardless - the Cruz's are NOT who they said they were when they ran for Senate. This is a major reason why Sarah Paln, Katrina Pierson and many of us who worked on the campaign can no longer support him.


In ABC interview, Heidi Cruz says that her profession is fundraising.
It is also her hobby.  The only one she mentions.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Yes It's True. And Ted Cruz Doesn't Need to Apologize


The National Enquirer published an article today, saying that Ted Cruz has had extramarital affairs with at least 5 women.  Even those who were convinced of the Texas Senator's well documented lying and deception were taken surprise at the charge against the man who was exalted as the "godly" candidate for President.  With operatives and supporters deeply embedded in the Evangelical circles, he embraced the call to "bring the country back to righteousness."  Many of us warned that this was a huge problem not only because he was human, but also because it distorted the gospel message.  That being that "righteousness" does not come from being good, but from the trust and faith that Jesus is 100% good in your place if you will trust and believe Him to be your Lord.

The evidence will continue to build, but the Washington Times has confirmed that 2 of the 5 women named in the National Enquirer article are indeed mistresses or former mistresses of Ted Cruz from their reporter Drew Johnson.
The Enquirer's lawyers adamantly stand by the story. For a complete run down on the story and evidence please visit Danger & Play and The Conservative Treehouse.

Even without the knowledge that the National Enquirer endorsed Mr. Trump recently and is owned by a close friend of his, many immediately wanted to pass the charges off as cheap, tabloid tricks to help Trump, to sell papers or both.   Many likely aren't aware that the National Enquirer has been at the forefront of many scandals, initially vehemently denied, but later found to be 100% accurate.  Tiger Woods mistresses, Jesse Jackson's love child, Steve Job's cancer, and Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin addiction to name a few.

In fact the Enquirer won a Pulitzer Prize for the investigative journalism uncovering the mistress and child of Presidential candidate Jonathan Edwards in 2008.  The Enquirer's work eventually not only ended Edwards political career, but it also was used in the filing of criminal charges in the coverup.  The effort that the publication put forth to get the story right is a drama in itself.  However upon winning the coveted award, the paper made it clear it would become specialists in this kind of thing even in politics.

Anecdotally, defenders came from all sides - liberal and conservative - to affirm the integrity of the paper.  This from the comments section on the story at the liberal leaning site Gawker:
The Cruz campaign marketing was pervasive.  Even the day before the news broke, Glenn Beck was declaring that anyone who voted for Donald Trump wasn't a Christian.  Evangelical pastors took to social media, airwaves and pulpits to "take a stand for decency," implying that Donald Trump was somehow not decent, and Ted Cruz was.

They explicitly played to religious and honorable tones as highlighted below in this sample email from early February:
Dear Friend,

This won't be my typical email to you. I hope you will take a moment to read it.

If you are like me, you are probably getting a little tired of all the noise and media frenzy around this campaign. The personal attacks and outright false claims are staggering.

There is so much misleading information flying around on cable TV, the internet and the so-called "mainstream" media -- it's enough to make good people abandon this process and just turn it off altogether.

But, Friend, despite how frustrating this process is -- it is of critical importance. I will never give up fighting for Americans and working to win this campaign because so much is on the line.

I hope and pray you won't give up either.

In fact, I'm so committed to winning this campaign I want to make you a personal commitment today (and in a second I'm going to ask you to make a commitment in return).

First, my commitment to you
  1. I will always be a consistent conservative -- both in word and deed. You will never have to worry about me caving to the Washington establishment.
  2. I will always shoot straight with you. I will tell the truth. I will apologize when I make a mistake.
  3. I will run an honorable campaign. I will discuss the difference between candidates, but I will not engage in personal negative attacks. And when I'm personally attacked, I will not respond in kind with vicious below-the-belt revenge attacks.
  4. I will be a good steward of your support and financial investment in me. I want you to know your support is faithfully used.
  5. I will work as hard as I can, make personal and professional sacrifices to win this campaign, and reignite liberty in our nation.
  6. I don't make these commitments lightly. They are my heartfelt vows to you.
If you accept these commitments as my open pledge to you, then I'm hoping you will make a commitment to me as well.

Your commitment would mean a great deal to me, as I am just days away from the votes being cast in South Carolina, and the stakes are incredibly high.

YES, I COMMIT

Honestly Friend, to win this campaign, I'm going to need your commitment because I cannot do it alone.

That's why I hope you will make the following commitment to me:
  1. Commit to pray. In the words of our savior Jesus Christ, where two or more gather, He is there. And while I am blessed with an incredible prayer team, I hope I can count on your prayers as well.
  2. Commit to vote. No matter which state you live in, your vote will have the power to help shape this country, and I hope you will commit to vote for me.
  3. Commit to support to this campaign and make an important donation when I need it most.
Our campaign is coming up against the most brutal opposition only days before the next primary votes are to be cast, and to overcome it, I need the renewed commitment of each and every supporter of my campaign -- no matter the size.

YES, I COMMIT

Friend, thank you for taking the time to read my rather lengthy email. And thank you for considering making a commitment to my campaign.

This is our time, and together we can reignite liberty across America.

Heidi and I are forever grateful for you support.

For liberty,

Ted Cruz
In hindsight, it isn't hard to generate a bit of anger especially because he played on the Christian values of commitment and virtue.   He took money under these pretenses as well.

Few may remember how adamantly the liberals disparaged the Enquirer at stories concerning their Presidential candidate (Edwards) or those against Bill Clinton who claimed he "did not having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" from a silly little website called the Drudge Report.  But yes, this report is true.  There are other non-sexual problems with the Cruz campaign developing that may or may not continue to shock those who believed Ted to be the perfect Christian man.

The odd thing about all of this is that Americans, even most Christians, are quite forgiving.  Largely because those of us who have walked a bit of life ourselves have fallen very short of our best aspirations and ideals.  It also explains why Donald Trump so easily won the Evangelical vote in most of the primary states despite his past infidelity, multiple marriages and vulgarity.  It was because Donald Trump never ran from his past mistakes that he was so popular.  He didn't attempt to hide or blame anyone and many could discern his sincerity.   At least those of us who were honest with our own personal evaluations of our shortcomings.

 What these people do not understand, is that it is not the sin that is the issue.  It is the hypocrisy, denial or irresponsibility of facing the truth.   And for that Ted DOES need to come clean, an even ask our forgiveness for insulting our intelligence and using us.

But, the miraculous thing about the Jesus and the Christian faith, is that to be right with Him - you do not have to be perfectYOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO GOD

I know that it is a radical concept to most Christians, but even your BEST days, doing the best things you know to do - are like "dirty rags" to the purity of God.  It is why God the Father risked seeing his only son tortured and killed.  Because He loved us enough to find a way for us to be at peace with Him.

Jesus ALREADY died for your sins.  He doesn't need to die all over again for the new sins you committed today.  Most of us, experiencing that kind of love DO want to apologize because we realize that we've harmed someone.  It isn't for our benefit it is for theirs.  God, however, doesn't require it.

You only have to accept that all the penalty and judgement you deserve was poured out upon Him on a cross in Jerusalem over 2,000 years ago.  For those who have never accepted Christ as Lord, the book of Romans gives very simple direction.

"...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

That word "saved" is much deeper than just getting eternal life.  It means to be healed, restored, and complete.  Not just spiritually, but physically, emotionally, financially, and in every other way.  And that IS hard to believe with all the world has taught us from our youth.  But that is the amazing and astonishing gift from Jesus.

The process of trusting on an unseen God in Jesus, is no different for all of us - including Ted Cruz - to be forgiven for the sins AFTER we are saved.  In fact, the radical idea for which Jesus was killed - is that you literally do not have to do anything....but believe that He paid for all of your sin, for you to be forgiven.

The same may not be true for those whom you have hurt.  To them you owe it to them to ask forgiveness and possibly even make restitution.  But God is not mad or upset.  He not only already loves you, but He has also already forgiven you.  The story of the adulteress who was being stoned is an example of that unmerited favor - or grace.  She did nothing for Jesus to stop her accusers.  And after they left, Jesus did not require groveling, or even sorrow for Him to declare that He did not condemn her either.  She only believed, and acknowledged Him as Lord, for her to be declared free from her sin.

God’s Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.   Romans 3 - NKJV

The scripture above talks of that grace that is available to Ted Cruz.  And he can demonstrate the real essence of God that he freely borrowed upon during his campaign, by showing how freely God can forgive, just by believing that God already forgives Him.  It will be maddening to those who want him to be cast naked into a desert of snakes to "prove" he has accounted for his sins, but God has already paid that price between he and God.

And once he knows that, the Holy Spirit who dwells in Ted, can direct him on how to regain a life and trust of those who will continue to walk with him.  Some may never forgive him.  But just as Cain continue a life after murdering Abel, a different life can continue.  There are stories across America of lives that held great promise, which are fulfilled in a different way.  God can make that happen.


Many will require that Ted make this up to them in some way.  Some requests he may not be able to fulfill.  Almost all however, will require some level of acknowledgement of his guilt and the pain he has caused donors, volunteers and especially pastors who thought this was a way to help bring our country to a better understanding of God.  To those people, Ted Cruz can finally fulfill the promise he made on the trail.

To be honest and come clean.  ON EVERYTHING.

To be accountable.

To apologize for his mistakes.

And miraculously, the very sin that will have cost him his dream to be President, will serve as a real life example to millions to show how to comeback in God's grace from any devastating loss or self-inflicted fault of our own.

He doesn't need to apologize to anyone.  Unless he wants to fulfill the calling God has for him now.


Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More