In my email alert today from the Clarion Project I discovered a petition to support the Cruz/Cassidy Resolution. To be honest the Clarion Project might be making an effort to collect email subscribers; however imagine what the Clarion Project might do if the petition response is immense.
I signed it!
Below is the cross post of the Clarion Project asking you to support the petition. OR if you are pinched for time, you can go HEREto directly add your name.
Antifa members burn an American flag at a protest in Washington, D.C. in August 2019 (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump tweeted over the weekend that he is considering designating Antifa as a terror organization.
Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA, the gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats, a major Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others). Would make it easier for police to do their job!
Trump’s tweet comes on the heels of a resolution proposed on July 19, 2019 Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy to designate Antifa a terrorist group.
“Antifa is a terrorist organization composed of hateful, intolerant radicals who pursue their extreme agenda through aggressive violence,” Cruz said.
As noted by the president, Antifa is a radical Leftist group known for using violence to propel their agenda. Most recently, they targeted and attacked conservative journalist Any Ngo — among others — at a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, sending Ngo to the hospital with a brain bleed.
The violent group also bashed heads of other conservative demonstrators, including two elderly men who were severely hurt by Antifa members.
Antifa has a history of using violence against those who disagree with them. They previously commandeered streets in downtown Portland while the police were given orders to stand down, a decision supported by the mayor. At one point, activists chased down a 74-year old man after protesters pounded on his car and broke a window. A woman in a wheelchair was verbally harassed.
At another demonstration, Antifa was even more violent [Blog Editor: The below Clarion quote is from a Tweet removed by Twitter or its author]:
Portland Antifa beats an elderly man bloody with a crowbar. As another man attempts to help, he is hit in head with crowbar then sprayed in face with mace.
Antifa was also responsible for the 2017 violent demonstration and subsequent riots in Berkeley. Its members were reacting to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos being invited to speak on campus. During the riots, Antifa members smashed the windows of a Marine Corps recruiting office after sucker-punching someone who voiced opposition to them.
Sign Our Petition to Designate Antifa as a Terror Organization
TheClarion Project(formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.
Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.
Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 125-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad— to threaten the West.
The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.
Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.
Clarion Project is a registered 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is an Islamic terrorist organization. Anyone who tells you different is a gullible Leftist, a lying Leftist or deceiving Muslim Apologist – cough … can you say, “CAIR”?
Paul Sutliff has put together an informative video exposing the nefarious terrorist nature of the MB. You need to watch the Sutliff video (POSTED BELOW!) to understand the reason that the State Department must add the MB to its terrorist list.
To require the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress on the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 9, 2017
Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
A BILL
To require the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress on the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)); and
(2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON DESIGNATION OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.
(a) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(D) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;
(E) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(F) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate;
(G) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
(H) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives;
(I) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives;
(J) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;
(K) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; and
(L) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
(2) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.—The term “intelligence community” has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)).
(b) Report.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the intelligence community, shall submit a detailed report to the appropriate congressional committees that—
(1) indicates whether the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)); and
(2) if the Secretary of State determines that the Muslim Brotherhood does not meet the criteria referred to in paragraph (1), includes a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met.
(c) Form.—The report required under subsection (b) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if appropriate.
So, what do you know about the Muslim Brotherhood? This is the same organization based in Egypt and supported by former President Barack Hussein Obama to literally govern Egyptians.
Paul Sutliff would like his video exposing the MB nature to go viral in hopes that Americans will write/call their Senator, Congressman AND the U.S. State Department to get on the ball about Islamo-Reality and the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.
I am hoping to finance a professionally designed Website which will coordinate my work as a radio show host, my work as author, my work as a public speaker and, my work as a blogger. I have received 3 estimates each was for $5000.
BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, currently a post-graduate student at Henley-Putnam University.
If you want a copy of my book, contact me onLinkedInorhereand I will send you one for $15 plus shipping.
I have never claimed Donald Trump was a perfect candidate for President. Indeed, I was a Cruzer right up until he suspended his campaign after he did the math. From a Conservative perspective Ted Cruz was nearly the perfect candidate:
Unrepentant Conservative in principles: Less government, NO income tax, dissolve the IRS, Pro-Life, Devout Christian, Pro-Israel, Strong Military, Stop illegal immigration, Tough on Islamic terrorism and anti-establishment and more.
Trump is probably not a devout Christian BUT he is not a hater of those who are devout Christians as most Leftist Dems – including Obama and Hillary – in fact do everything to diminish America’s Christian ethos.
My son is a Never-Trump Christian Conservative who is very displeased with all Conservatives who have begun supporting Trump for POTUS. Needless to say he is very unhappy with me.
I do like some of the things Trump has said even if it sounds a bit incredulous. At least he has abandoned political correctness to stick with “Make America Great”: a strong military, build a southern border wall, stop Muslim immigration and Muslim refugees until they are thoroughly vetted as NOT being anti-American-culture and subversive Caliphate globalists. These Trump points alone are a slap in the face of Obama’s degenerative agenda to transform America. THE SAME POLICY Hillary would continue to the detriment of the USA!
My son pointed me to a Never-Trump article entitled, “Dear Christian Leaders, You’re Playing a Very Dangerous Game” by one of my son’s favorite Conservative pundits in Steve Deace. Essentially Deace is concerned that Christian leaders would even think of placing their support behind a man of poor character such Donald Trump.
After expressing his concerns Deace turns to Scripture in Exodus 18 and makes this quote as his premise for Never-Trump:
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
Steve fails to give Bible and verse in this quote but points to the NIV portion of the entire chapter 18 of Exodus in a link. The irony is there is a bit of difference from the version Deace quotes and that which he links to.
Now here is the full context of the quote from the NIV that Steve Deace linked to:
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law [i.e. Jethro the KeniteMidianitePriest] saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. (Bold Text Editor’s Emphasis – Exodus 18: 13-26 NIV)
I am guessing Deace’s biggest problem with Trump is the potentiality of not being God-fearing, not trustworthy and a recipient of dishonest gain. Deace cites these examples that demonstrate Trump as a man lacking the godly principles set out in Exodus 18:
Now that we’ve addressed the biblical case, what about the moral one?
Steve Deace provided a link for each judged accusation. Let’s look at those links and see if there is any silver lining that still makes Trump a “capable man” in the language of the NIV Bible:
Scam Artist: Deace goes to the National Review which is no Conservative friend of Trump (and neither was I a friend when the NR began attacking him) – “Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam”
First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) Cue lawsuits.
Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits — two class-action lawsuits filed in California, and one filed in New York …
…
How could that have happened? The New York suit offers a suggestion:
The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately one of respondents’ advanced seminars such as the “Gold Elite” program costing $35,000.
At the “free” 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.
…
To do that, instructors touted Trump’s own promises: that students would be “mentored” by “handpicked” real-estate experts, who would use Trump’s own real-estate strategies. …
[Blog Editor: after this point there are a series of Youtube videos used to drive home the point of Trump scam artist. Of the videos three are blocked from showing telling the reader they are now marked as “private”. Could it be there might be some legal problems against the videos?]
…
Meanwhile, Trump — who maintains that Trump University was “a terrific school that did a fantastic job” — has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested a protective order from the court “to protect her from further retaliation.” According to court documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He’s already brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general’s office.
Yup, there is really nothing to defend the Trump U scam. If Trump was promoting a school on Trump principles in business, he could argue that those who failed to make good business decisions with those principles have themselves to blame. But apparently the salesmen for recruiting students, used some kind of “playbook” with principles of hooking a buyer with illegitimate promises combining a business education. No one can make a promise insuring success, rather only a promise to provide the tools to make sound choices that may or may not lead to success. I have to give Deace a plus on this one. However, Americans have to decide if a man that has managed to become a billionaire then go bankrupt, then become a billionaire again is not capable of making different decisions to overcome previous bad decisions.
After nearly eight years of Leftist Dem hubris that a socialized America with humanistic ideology has made America great, I have to give Trump a shot at looking at a different path. Crooked Hillary will simply continue the downward spiral of cultural and economic collapse of America with a transformist concept differing from the Founding Fathers’ vision. Ergo the civil suit does not change my mind.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar. The ten northern Hebrew tribes under the King of Israel was given up to conquest by Assyria because of the Northern Kingdom’s spiral into immorality and rejection of the God who delivered them from bondage in Egypt. That left the two tribes that formed the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Roughly one hundred years later Judah’s leaders were leading that nation to the point of no return in the sight of God. When the leadership of Judah rejected the insights of God given by the Prophets of God, Judah also lost their right to have a governing nation. God sent an unbelieving polytheist conqueror named Nebuchadnezzar who emptied Judah of its leadership families, educated families and Priestly families and sent them to Babylon. Perhaps Trump is America’s Nebuchadnezzar giving Americans a wake-up call to abandon humanistic ungodly ideology and return to God’s morality of purpose:
4 And command them to say to their masters, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel—thus you shall say to your masters: 5 ‘I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are on the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it to whom it seemed proper to Me. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him. (Jeremiah 27: 4-6 NKJV)
Gossip: Deace here is referencing the Trump camp pushing Ted Cruz had some extramarital affairs: “5 Things You Need To Know About #CruzSexScandal” –
… They’re firmly convinced that the National Enquirer’s anonymously sourced story alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with at least five women must be true. …
…
Trump’s People Have Been Pushing The Story.Trump has a long, friendly history with the CEO of the National Enquirer, as Gabe Sherman of New York Magazine pointed out back in October:
…
Katrina Pierson, One Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.Pierson, … She would have every interest in confirming the story, given that it would put an end to Cruz’s presidential hopes and, indeed, his entire career. Yet here’s what she’s tweeted this morning about the Enquirerstory:
What’s worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it’s false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels
Amanda Carpenter, Another Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.…
The Cruz Super PAC That Donated Money To The Carly Fiorina Campaign Almost Certainly Didn’t Do It To Shut Up Sarah Isgur Flores. …
Cruz Has Denied The Story, And Blamed The Trump Campaign For The Smear. …
…
UPDATE: Trump has now responded in his own typically bombastic manner:
I believe Ted because well, he’s Ted. Ben Shapiro posts the Trump denial as if we shouldn’t believe him because well, he’s the Donald. Ben you have to prove Trump ordered the story just like Trump and the NationalEnquirer would have had to prove that Ted Cruz was an adulterer. There is and was no proof from anyone’s camp. It all falls on the National Enquirer.
But you have to ask yourself if Trump or someone in his campaign did push an untrue story, why would he do so? Because Trump believed the Cruz campaign posted some photos of Trump’s wife Melania with a nude model, shot in bad taste with the epithet that went something like, “This could be your First Lady.”
Trump typically lost his New York temper. Who do you think he was going to blame? Of course Ted denied he had anything to do with disparaging Melania Trump. So Trump posted an unflattering photo of Ted’s wife Heidi Cruz beside Melania. Then Ted went ballistic. Then somewhere in there, Trump says he’ll spill the beans on Heidi which never came to light as far as I know. The point is Trump isn’t the only gossip. Yet the Never-Trump people never talk about the other gossipers in politics. Let’s be consistent. Slanderer: This is more Trump vs. Cruz tit-for-tat. I assure you if Donald was attacked he would not attack back: “Trump accuses Cruz’s father of helping JFK’s assassin” –
Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.
Even if that was true and it is not, what does or did that have to do with today’s Ted Cruz? So why did Trump pop-off with another tabloid-sourced accusation that is easier to disprove than to prove? Here’s the New York reasoning of Donald Trump:
After Ted Cruz’s father Rafael pleaded with believing Christians to support his son, Trump slammed him, saying that it was a disgrace for Cruz to say that the election of Trump could contribute to the destruction of America. Rafael Cruz had stated from the pulpit:
I implore, I exhort every member of the body of Christ to vote according to the word of God and vote for the candidate that stands on the word of God and on the Constitution of the United States of America. And I am convinced that man is my son, Ted Cruz. The alternative could be the destruction of America.
Stung, Trump pouted:
I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it … You look at so many of the ministers that are backing me, and they’re backing me more so than they’re backing Cruz, and I’m winning the evangelical vote. It’s disgraceful that his father can go out and do that. And just — and so many people are angry about it. And the evangelicals are angry about it, the way he does that. But I think it’s horrible. I think it’s absolutely horrible that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there. (Trump Says Cruz’s Father Shouldn’t Be ‘Allowed’ To Say Mean Things About Him; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 5/3/16)
Trump took Pastor Rafael’s plea to vote for his son Ted amidst an Evangelical crowd as a slight interpreting “The alternative could be the destruction of America” as an unnamed slight to himself rather perhaps to Hillary. I wasn’t there so I don’t know the context of Pastor Rafael’s speech. If it was a Trump slight, I do understand the Trump response. The response goes, “You hit me I hit back harder.” The response valid or invalid is what has attracted voters to Trump. It’s kind of like the disagreements people have in a living discussion. It’s plain speaking. People like plain spoken.
Trump as a Misogynist: Here Deace uses People Magazine, alluding that Trump is a misogynist because defending his wife by attacking the wife of the candidate he believed slighted Melania, makes Trump a misogynist. Then the People post provides a lesson in a happy marriage message. Since People believes all the tit-for-tat is all Trump’s doing and nothing to do with Ted defending his wife Heidi, then Trump needs this good marriage advice. Apparently Deace feels since Trump must need marriage advice he must be a misogynist: “Doubling Down, Donald Trump Tweets a My-Wife’s-Prettier-Than Yours Meme Featuring Heidi Cruz – and Ted Fires Back”.
I think Steve Deace should have found a better to prove Trump misogynism. The only thing Deace could find was either Trump defending his wife or counter-attacking a lady (e.g. Fiorina or Hillary) for attacking him. Ergo misogynist disproved in this case.
Trump as an adulterer: Deace offers no proof or even an accusation from another woman or a cuckcolded husband, but turns to an innocuous quote from Trump’s book The Art of the Deal. Deace uses The rightscoop as his adulterer source: “Here’s when Trump BRAGGED in his book about his MULTIPLE AFFAIRS with wealthy married women!” –
I have a huge problem with adultery even those who may brag in jest to inflate their manhood. Nevertheless, it is apparent Trump parted ways with previous marriages on good terms and his marriage with Melania appears solid at the very least evidenced by Trump’s rash defenses of her honor. I find it unfortunate that Steve Deace is stooping to Dem Party standards to smear Donald Trump.
Is Trump a Deceiver: In high stakes business I have no doubts that Donald Trump used his share of smoke and mirrors in making deals. Again no one thinks Trump is a devout Christian. He is a secular minded fellow that DOES NOT discount Christianity as the American Left has gone to great measures to do to transform America into a Socialist-Humanistic culture. If you actually listen carefully to the CNN video at the top of this post, the newscasters are doing the misdirection and smoke and mirror deception. They correctly state that Trump opted out of the last GOP debate in favor of a Veterans fundraiser. The CNN deception is on how they reported on the disbursement of Six Million Dollars Trump claims he raised. When listening carefully, only ONE charity claims they did not receive any money. ALL the rest claimed they received money and ONLY one of those charities disclosed the amount. And makes Trump a deceiver, how? “Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans” –
Donald Trump says he raised six million dollars for veterans including a million dollars of his own money. CNN’s Drew Griffin has been tracking down the donations.
…
The list showed that the majority of the money that had been donated at that time came from Trump’s foundation or the foundations of two of his friends, businessman Carl Icahn and pharmaceutical billionaire Stewart J. Rahr.
The campaign did not identify any contributors Friday who pledged funds without following through in actual donations.
Charities that have benefited from the fundraiser include Fisher House Foundation, Green Beret Foundation and Disabled American Veterans, while others, such as Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said they did not want to receive any of the contributions. (Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans; By Curt Devine; CNN; 5/20/16 Updated 6:55 PM ET)
Where in the world in this article or video does ANYONE in the Trump campaign ADMIT that “$6 million” was NOT raised for veterans? The only Trump campaign admission ranged from uncertain to the exact amount to a guess of about $4.5 million. Talk about deception! This why I often say the acronym for CNN stands for the Communist News Network.
Is Trump a liar? Steve Deace goes to The Daily Wire which claims to provide 101 absolute lies Donald Trump. I’m not going to go through all 101 accusations. Frankly that would take too much of my time to see if Trump told a flagrant lie, made a mistake, said something taken out of context or told the absolute truth. I have to wonder if The Daily Wire is going to go through all the lies Hillary (and Bill) told to the American public and measure her verbiage as outright lie, mistaken, taken out of context or (chuckle) told the absolute truth?
The article Deace goes to is “Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies”. If the next 100 accusations are as flimsy as the first listed accusation, one has to wonder on the integrity of The Daily Wire –
March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie. (Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 4/11/16)
Hmm… The accused lie is that MSNBC edited the Chris Matthews-Donald Trump conversation to make Trump look bad. However, the real problem Trump has is being made to look bad for saying quite haphazardly that women that seek an abortion should be punished. Huh… Maybe Deace would have had a better chance with the misogynistic accusation if he went to the abortion issue in this conversation. The Dems and the Pro-Choice (i.e. women can have a doctor kill their unborn baby as a birth control method) think such Trump thoughts are misogynistic.
So I’m going to share the MSNBC transcript the begins with abortion rather than the entire transcript:
MATTHEWS: OK, look, I’m monopolizing here.
Let’s go, young lady?
TRUMP: Hello.
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?
TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I — with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?
TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law — I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges — I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative…
MATTHEWS: I understand.
TRUMP: … this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, “what’s the law, nobody knows what’s the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.
MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
TRUMP: Which it is.
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look…
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a — no, no…
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
TRUMP: I’m going to say — well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you — is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?
MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?
TRUMP: I would — I am against — I am pro-life, yes.
MATTHEWS: What is ban — how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
TRUMP: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.
MATTHEWS: Yes?
TRUMP: But you have to ban it.
MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think…
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it…
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny.
What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe…
TRUMP: No, but…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: Let me just tell you — I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion — I mean, you say that you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this…
MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic.
(LAUGHTER)
And secondly, I’m asking — you’re running for President.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m not.
TRUMP: Chris — Chris.
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?
TRUMP: You have…
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.
MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the — this isn’t Spain, the Church doesn’t control the government.
TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the…
MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Don’t ask me about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.
TRUMP: You told me that…
MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.
TRUMP: I have — I have not determined…
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: What does that mean?
TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life.
I have not determined what the punishment would be.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.
MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because…
TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life…
MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem — here’s my problem with this, if you don’t have a punishment for abortion — I don’t believe in it, of course — people are going to find a way to have an abortion.
TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?
MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
TRUMP: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).
MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your Church?
MATTHEWS: I have a view — a moral view — but I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
TRUMP: But then you are…
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.
TRUMP: I know but I’ve heard you speaking…
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t able — one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.
TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TRUMP: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: What do you say to your Church?
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.
By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?
TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t — it hasn’t — different feelings, different people. I would say no.
MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We’ll be right back.
On a personal level I wouldn’t punish a woman for participating with baby-murder with done as a form of birth control. I might not have a problem with accessory to murder. Trump’s complaint is this townhall meeting was skewed to defame Trump as a misogynist and mentioned very little Chris Matthews double-talk hypocrisy on being a good Catholic agreeing with Church doctrine against abortion but being pro-abortion legally for those deluded women who want birth control by murder.
And so merely by showing that the first accusation in The Daily Wire was actually disingenuous manipulation and time constraints I’m not going to wade through the 100 other skewed accusations of Trump lying. AGAIN Steve Deace should examine the Hillary lies and make a voter decision based on how wicked she is rather than how much Trump doesn’t measure up to Conservative snuff or Christian ethics.
I am a Cruzer. BUT Senator Cruz has suspended his candidacy for the GOP nomination for POTUS. YET, if Cruz has any kind national future as a leader in the United States – I will again be a Cruzer. The Financial Times provides a decent summary that correlates to the reason I chose to be a Cruzer:
A self-described fighter for “limited government, economic growth and the Constitution”, Mr Cruz joined the Senate in 2012, boosted by support from the anti-establishment Tea party. He quickly earned a reputation as a wrecker, championing controversial attempts to scupper the implementation of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law in 2013, in an effort that included a 21-hour filibuster in the Senate floor that helped pave the way to a government shutdown, and during which he read “Green Eggs and Ham” to his daughters on television. (Bold Text Mine – How Ted Cruz dropped the ball in his bid for the White House; By Sam Fleming & Demetri Sevastopulo; Financial Times; Last updated: 5/4/16 6:53 am)
I can add (Ted’s Website and OnTheIssues) that Senator Ted Cruz is an Evangelical Christian a son of a Pastor AND a huge supporter of Israel as America’s partner in the Middle East. I can also add Ted supported obliterating ISIS with the Rules of Engagement that would including a WWII-style crushing goal of victory at all costs. Gosh let me add the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy with an entirely different and simpler tax code AND a strong border to keep illegal alien out.
Ted Cruz failed to vigorously campaign based on the reasons he came from behind to win the Senate seat in Texas and take on the Republican Establishment at the National Level in both Houses of Congress. Rather Ted spent much of his campaign highlighting Trump’s negatives including The Donald’s propensity to communicate like a New York tycoon. As an ex-telemarketer I can tell you will not sell or have a pleasant conversation with a New York/New Jersey person by being a polite nice guy. The New Yorker will lose patience and rip you to shreds quite probably with insulting words you may not have used since becoming a responsible adult. I had to mirror the New Yorker language mannerism to come close to making a sale. I can’t recall how many times I nearly got into trouble with my managers for talking like a rude New Yorker until … I MADE A SALE.
When a Christian who has made his political stock on integrity and faithfulness to Conservative ideology, tries to match a New Yorker in tit-for-tat character devaluation, that Christian will fail and tarnish himself in the meantime. I pray Ted has learned that lesson for future campaigns or dialogues, because it was Ted’s demise in attempting to win the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.
Let me be honest. I am no longer a registered Republican. In 2012 I was not a Romney guy. I considered him a RINO at best and a closet Liberal at worst. And yet he won the GOP nomination. In 2012 I was (and it holds true today!) that Obama was a Socialist in not also a closet Communist, who had huge sympathies toward the Islamic religion because of his Dad and stepfather. I am fairly convinced that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Christian. Obama’s deceptive politics of the Left means at best he is a Progressive Christian denying the Divinity and the miraculous of the Bible as only adages rather than Truth. Shucks partner, for that matter Obama could be a Progressive Muslim (if such a thing can exist) denying all the absolutes of Islamic theo-politics while also looking to the Mecca portions of the Quran as an adage rather truth.
If Muslims in the West understood that Obama is using Islam to promote a Leftist New World Order in order to completely destroy the Christian influenced Old World Order, those violent absolutists would mark Obama for assassination. Obama should thank whatever Black Liberation Theology (BLT) deity he might believe in that he lives in a nation that is tolerant to all religious faiths to a fault and tolerant to both Left and Right ideologies. Americans have no clue that Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda for America correlates to the intolerance of Biblical Christian principles and the Founding Father principles that made America a great nation.
That lack of understanding of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda led to American voters electing Obama in 2008 and reelecting Obama in 2012. Romney’s HUGE FAILURE was not attacking the Obama lies and the Benghazi lies of 2012 that should have elected Romney as President. Instead Romney stuck to political correctness of a RINO/Liberal and allowed Obama to back him into shadowland every time Romney dipped his little toe in the shallow pond of exposing Obama’s and essentially Hillary’s lies.
Romney’s failure to NOT expose the Obama/Hillary lies resulted in reelection in 2012 and me leaving the Republican Party and registering as an Independent.
I still believe Ted Cruz would have defeated any Dem Party candidate for President in this 2016 election cycle. Cruz was anti-establishment and a principled Conservative.
I am just not sure that Donald Trump can follow through in being a principled Conservative. Nonetheless, if Trump sticks to his guns on those anti-establishment and non-politically correct promises he has put forth, then Trump should be able to not only dip his little toe into the exposé-pond, but also should be able to immerse himself in the ability to expose Hillary Clinton as the lying crook that she inherently is.
AND so as a registered Independent I am voting for Donald Trump for President in November 2016.
The Planned Parenthood abortion business is emailing its members warning that Ted Cruz is the biggest pro-life threat the abortion business faces from the Republican presidential candidates.
In the email seeking funds for its political campaign supporting Hillary Clinton, Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, says “every Republican candidate for president this year would be a complete disaster” but explains “Cruz could very well be the biggest threat we face.”
Laguesns says Cruz would be the biggest threat to the abortion corporation because “unlike Trump and Kasich, who are more or less in line with the Republican Party’s already terrible positions on reproductive rights, Cruz takes things much, much further.”
“And he has the fan base to prove it. About 50% of Trump’s and Kasich’s supporters think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, but a whopping 73% of Cruz’s supporters want to ban abortion in all or most cases,” the Planned Parenthood VP complains.
Laguesns gripes that Cruz “consistently says he will open an investigation into Planned Parenthood on his first day in office. But maybe that’s less surprising when you see some of the people who have endorsed him — people like Troy Newman, the notorious anti-abortion extremist.”
She says Cruz has “a real shot at the nomination and the presidency” and then makes up a false attack saying, “We can’t let anyone near the White House who would force a woman to carry a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy.”
During an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, the host sought clarification from the Texas senator about this controversial aspect of his platform. From the transcript via Lexis Nexis:
KELLY: [Y]ou don’t favor a rape or an incest exception to abortion and for people like me, this may be a problem in getting behind President Ted Cruz. They think you may be too far right on social issues.
CRUZ: Well, listen, let’s talk – you know, when it comes to rape, I’ve spent a lot of years in law enforcement. I was the solicitor general in the state of Texas and I have handled cases with horrific cases of rape, of people who committed child rape, people – I went before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued in defense of state laws imposing capital punishment for the very worst child rapists. And when it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person and needs to be punished and punished severely but at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime. We want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.
__________________
About LifeNews.com
LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and bloggers, LifeNews.com reaches more than 750,000 pro-life advocates each week via our web site, email news reports, social networking outreach and weekday radio program.
LifeNews.com also acts as a service provider to furnish news content to media that share the pro-life perspective. The topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and cultural legal and legislative issues as they affect the pro-life community.
Formerly the Pro-Life Infonet, LifeNews.com has been harnessing the power of the Internet since 1992 to bring pro-life news to the pro-life community. We’ve developed a reputation for fairness, accuracy and timeliness in our two decades of service. We are not affiliated with any organization, religious group, political party or church denomination.
LIFENEWS.COM STAFF
Steven Ertelt – Founder and Editor
As the founder and Editor of LifeNews.com, Steven Ertelt has provided the pro-life community with news via the Internet since 1993. He also serves as the President ofColorado Citizens for Life, a statewide pro-life group, and a member of the board of directors of the National Right to Life Committee. He is the past president of Right to Life of Wyoming and … READ THE REST
Don Moore posted an interesting analysis focused on Donald Trump. The article is written by Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post. I actually also receive a Patriot Post subscription but I thought I’d give credit to where I read Alexander’s thoughts which Don Moore’s group on the Blind Conservative Group on IO.
It appears to me that Mark Alexander is not a Trump supporter; nonetheless Alexander provides a fairly decent examination that if Trump wins the GOP nomination and the Dem nominee is Hillary Clinton. Which is to say Trump loses unless these set of circumstances emerge …
“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullability [sic] takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” -Thomas Jefferson (1822)
The 2016 general election will determine not just our next president; it will also determine which political party controls the Senate and House.
While the House is securely in Republican hands, Senate control is most assuredly in play1. That’s because Republicans will be defending 24 Senate
seats2 while Democrats only need defend 10. Currently, Republicans hold a narrow 54-46 majority in the Senate.
Consequently, this election is not just a four-year decision but a generational one, because the next president will nominate the Supreme Court justice who will fill the swing-vote vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia3, and perhaps three additional seats – those of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer. If Hillary Clinton4 holds off the challenge from Socialist Bernie Sanders5 and is then elected president on November 8, only a Republican Senate would stand between her and the progressive dream of a statist-controlled Supreme Court for the next quarter-century.
We elect our presidents every four years, but those presidents nominate Supreme Court justices for life.
This is what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Let me be clear: If Republicans lose both the presidential election and control of the Senate, the Socialist Democratic Party6 will control the despotic Judicial Branch7 for the foreseeable future, and the tyranny of the so-called living constitution8 will reign supreme.
Thus, those of us who support Liberty and First Principles9 should engage in a vigorous debate about the qualifications of presidential candidates, and the consequences of who will run against Hillary Clinton this November. We should consider with great deliberation the character of our presidential candidates10.
For the record, that debate among those of us who advocate for Liberty by way of the ballot box, among other means, is not restrained by Ronald
Reagan’s11 admonition about fratricidal attacks – his “Eleventh Commandment12.”
In his 1990 autobiography, “An American Life,” President Reagan wrote of that brother-against-brother fratricide in his first campaign for the California governorship: “The personal attacks against me during the primary became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”
Reagan fared well by following that rule, and after soundly defeating Jimmy Carter for the presidency in 1980, he won 49 of 50 states during his re-election campaign of 1984 – losing just Minnesota, the home state of his opponent Walter Mondale, by a mere 3,800 votes. (Oh, and he also lost the District of Columbia – an outcome that speaks for itself.)
Unfortunately, Republican presidential contenders since, most notably the 17 GOP candidates13 who began this primary, have taken the art of fratricidal attacks to new lows.
In every respect, this election cycle is like no other I have ever witnessed
– or read about – and primarily for one reason: The “establishment politicians,” the professional political class, are disconnected from those of us who live outside the Washington Beltway.
It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders is nipping at Hillary Clinton’s heels, having thumped her in seven of the last eight contests – including last night’s double-digit win in Wisconsin14 – and I totally understand the popular appeal of Donald Trump15. According to the most recent (and reliable) Quinnipiac University political poll16, 57% of Americans agree that “America has lost its identity.” The same percentage say that they are “falling further and further behind economically,” and 53% say they want “a leader who is willing to say or do anything to solve America’s problems.”
These findings are consistent with our analysis and what we hear from our fellow grassroots Patriots17, most of whom have expressed their support for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump over the more centrist John Kasich.
But unlike each of these remaining three candidates who have broken their
pledges18 to support the eventual GOP nominee, I will support that nominee because I know for certain the perilous threat that “President Hillary Clinton” poses to the future of Liberty.
Last night’s Wisconsin win for Ted Cruz notwithstanding, Mr. Trump still has a commanding delegate lead in the race to see who will likely face Hillary Clinton.
But there are serious questions about the election math – not of the GOP convention math19 as determined by the delegates20, but of the general election math.
That is the only math that matters.
Until recently, Donald Trump has frequently referenced his “lead in the polls.” I tend not to reference most media polls because of what we define as the “Pollaganda Effect21,” which is: Outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome), which in large measure reflect prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the same media conducting the poll. The incestuous results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular candidate or opinion on an issue enjoys majority support.
But that being said, there are some very distressing research polls assessing a matchup between Clinton and Trump in the general election.
Notably, the results of these polls have been affirmed consistently for several months now. Allow me to reference a couple of the most recent findings below, and, of course, you determine what to make of these findings.
On Monday, there was a report from Whit Ayres, president of the conservative polling firm North Star Opinion Research and author of “2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America.”
According to Ayres’s research, “A Trump nomination has as much chance of success in the general election as Trump University, or Trump Mortgage, or Trump Shuttle, or Trump Vodka, or Trump Casinos. Trump is an electoral disaster waiting to happen.” He then notes the demographic trends22 that will have enormous impact in 2016: “A Republican nominee who hopes to win a majority of the popular vote in 2016 must gain either 30% of the nonwhite vote or 65% of the white vote, a level not seen since President Ronald Reagan’s 49-state landslide sweep in 1984.” There are more women than men voters, and “Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among white women are 29% to 68%. . Millennials have now passed baby boomers to become the largest generation. Trump’s ratings among millennials are now 18% favorable to 80% unfavorable, with 70% strongly unfavorable.” (Trump’s unfavorable ratings with women are even higher in the latest Wall Street Journal/ABC News poll23.)
Ayres continues, “Since 1984, no victorious Republican presidential candidate has received less than 91% support from Republicans. Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Republicans are 52% to 47%, with 34% strongly unfavorable. A candidate beginning a general election campaign with almost half of his party holding unfavorable views is a non-starter.
Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Democrats of 78% to 20%. A Trump nomination would put a Democrat in the White House, seriously threaten Republican majorities in Congress and leave the Republican Party in shambles.”
For the record, Trump’s GOP unfavorable ratings are on par with those24 of George W. Bush at his presidential low point.
Next up is the most recent research from Public Policy Polling25 on the most popular Republican in the race – Donald Trump – unless Kasich drops out.
According to this and similar polls, 42% of Republican voters would support Trump if the election were held now. About 33% would support Cruz and 22% Kasich. However, when asked if Kasich were to drop out, 51% of his supporters go to Cruz while only 23% support Trump. That would put Trump and Cruz in a statistical dead heat.
Notably, the latest Reuters rolling averages26 today put Cruz ahead of Trump nationally. These numbers have significant implications for the general election, particularly since Mr. Trump has yet to collect more than 49% of the votes in any primary.
The general election results, and the likelihood that Republicans will lose their Senate majority with Trump on the ticket, are upheld by both conservative and liberal media research, as noted both in New York Times poll summaries27 and Washington Post poll summaries28. They are also affirmed by the 30-day rolling average of polls29.
Perhaps most ominously, Larry Sabato, a seasoned election forecaster at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, concludes that in a Clinton v Trump contest, Democrats will go into Election Day with a whopping 347 electoral votes in their pocket or strongly leaning30 toward Clinton. They only need 270 to win. And by way of affirmation, Clinton leads Trump by double digits in six of the most comprehensive polls taken in the last month.
The fact is, whether the polling source is Left, Centrist or Right, Trump takes a beating in a head-to-head general election matchup with Clinton.
Based on the total number of primary votes cast to date, about 5% of all eligible voters have checked ballots for Donald Trump. That means an even smaller percentage have cast primary votes for Ted Cruz and others – because until a few weeks ago, the field was still flooded with GOP candidates. But, the percentage of primary votes cast for a candidate is of less importance than the percentage of total eligible voters supporting a particular candidate.
All that having been said, as utterly perplexing as the current primary cycle is, it remains possible that once Trump and Clinton debate each other mano a mano (yes, the masculine applies to Hillary), Trump might pull enough blue-collar and rustbelt Demo support away from Clinton to defeat her. This will be especially true if the momentum generated by Sanders does not transfer to Clinton. (She is, after all, a historically weak, unpopular and untrustworthy candidate.)
And where can Clinton attack Trump31 without undermining her own campaign?
Not Wall Street connections, not personal integrity, not honesty, not wealth, not marriage infidelity, etc. Raising any of those issues with Trump will draw fire on her own record. Of course, there is that wild card: A Clinton indictment32.
Unfortunately, she is coated with as much non-stick Teflon as Bill Clinton33. Even under the most unfavorable circumstances for Clinton, a Trump victory would still be a long shot.
If Trump is the nominee, I hope he can defeat Clinton – but I don’t base my reasoned, critical analysis on popular opinion or “hope,” and neither should any of us.
Again, this is not just a four-year decision but a quarter-century decision.
If Hillary Clinton wins and Republicans lose control of the Senate gauntlet against her judicial nominees, batten down the hatches.
Ultimately, the math that matters is the poll taken on November 8th of this year. I care less about the name of the GOP candidate than I do that candidate’s ability to defeat Clinton at best, or leave the GOP Senate majority intact at worst.
(Finally, a request for prayer: This morning, our nation lost another great Patriot. Sandy McMillan served with SEAL Team 2 and was a fellow Navy Leaguer. He was a family man, a long-time colleague and friend. Please pray for his wife and their family. Fair winds and following seas, my friend! We will miss you.)
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
In yesterday’s Tony Newbill post it was pretty clear that Heidi Cruz is supportive of a globalist agenda that will endanger the sovereignty of the United States as well as open a path for Mexican immigrants to flow into this nation with a legalized status and place a strain on taxpayer supported entitlements that American citizens in need will not receive.
And yet I still support Ted Cruz for President. Heidi Cruz is not running for President. As I pointed out yesterday, Donald Trump’s Conservative credentials are unproven.
Honestly I support Trump’s campaign lines that has made him a populist candidate popular with many fed up Americans. That means if Trump indeed wins the GOP nomination will still vote for him. I have to have faith that Trump will act to process his campaign promises. I wouldn’t believe a single word emanating from Hillary Clinton’s mouth let alone keep a campaign promise that would please a Leftist. Hillary is the epitome of a liar in Biblical terms.
If someone is a Trump supporter or a Cruz supporter I am more than willing to post a submission from writers that support their case.
Also in Newbill’s post I added an excerpt from a BizPac Review article about Ted Cruz having extra-marital affairs with five different women while married to Heidi. The so-called Cruz sex scandal was originally broke by tabloid rag the National Enquirer. Photos of the five ladies was blurred by the National Enquirer, yet some eager Twitter users feel they have discovered the identities of three of the ladies:
Katrina Pierson
Sarah Isgur Flores
Amanda Carpenter
I find it a bit ironic that the three alleged expose women deny the National Enquire they participated in any affair with Ted Cruz. I thought it might be helpful to profile these ladies since all three have had at least somewhat of a public profile.
Katrina Pierson
Most Left oriented websites (that included MSM) castigate Pierson as a foot-in-mouth speaker and so imply she is a good fit as Donald Trump’s national spokesperson in this campaign for election to POTUS. Everpedia provides a short profile that other websites write in a negative manner:
She was born in Kansas. Katrina’s mom gave birth to her when she was 15. Her mom relied on government assistance (Katrina currently opposes welfare). [+] She lived most of her life in Texas. Just like her mom, she gave birth at the age of 15. Her marriage to the child’s father did not last very long, Katrina raised the child on her own. [+]
Criminal Record:
In 1997, at the age of 20, she stole $168 worth of clothing from JCPenney (RETAILER). Katrina was arrested and pleaded no contest to the charges. [+]
Political Career:
She got involved in politics after 9/11. [+] Katrina joined the Tea Party after going to one of their meetings. The tea party’s stance against social programs was what drew her to the party. [+] She worked for Ted Cruz‘s 2012 senate campaign (Fact: Katrina was on welfare while working for his campaign).[+] She ditched Ted Cruz after hearing Donald Trump‘s anti-immigration rant. Donald Trump and Katrina both have similar views on Islam. Donald Trump personally asked her to work for him. [+]
Perhaps the most recognizable face of Carly Fiorina’s abysmal campaign for the GOP nomination was Houston native Sarah Isgur Flores. The conservative firebrand particularly liked to appear on the liberal-leaning MSNBC circuit to have it out while pushing for Carly. She previously worked for still-in-the-race Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Like Cruz, Flores is a graduate of Harvard Law. Since dropping out of the race, Fiorina has endorsed Cruz.
Here’s what you need to know about Sarah Isgur Flores:
She Was Named as One of the Most Influential Latinos in Politics — but She’s Not Latino
…
Her Husband Is a ‘Rising Star’ of Appellate Law in America
…
She Believes Cable News Cares More About Ratings Than About Democracy
…
She Was the Political Director for ‘Texans for Ted Cruz’ in 2009
Flores has had a long and storied career in Republican politics. Her biggest role came in September 2015 when she was appointed as Carly Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager. In a statement, Flores told CNN, “Carly Fiorina is a sharp, thoughtful and committed conservative leader who believes in the limitless potential of all Americans, and I’m looking forward to getting started.”
The network notes that prior to joining the campaign, Flores worked as a communications director for the Republican party. She was also an advisor for Mitt Romney’s failed 2012 campaign.
On her Twitter page, where she goes by the moniker @WhigNewtons, Flores describes herself as, “Republican strategist and campaign junkie. Texan by birth, lawyer by education, cat lady by choice.”
In 2009, Flores worked on the “Texans for Ted Cruz” campaign, according to her LinkedIn page. She’s a graduate of Northwestern University and got her law degree at Harvard law, just like Cruz.
Flores Wrote in 2014 that the Democratic Party Tried & Failed to ‘Mislead’ Female Voters
Amanda B. Carpenter is an American author, political advisor, and speechwriter. She previously worked as a columnist for The Washington Times, and is the author of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has worked in the staffs for Senators Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz. In 2014, the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call reported that Carpenter had surpassed 50,000 Twitter followers, far more than other congressional staffers.[1]
Life and career
Carpenter was born in Montrose, Michigan, and raised there by her mother Lisa.
On March 1, 2009, Carpenter took a position with The Washington Times,[4]where she wrote a daily column called the Hot Button, that covered political and cultural issues, as well other news articles.[5]
Carpenter is also known as a blogger, author, and commentator. She has made numerous media appearances, including segments on the BBC; Fox News‘s The O’Reilly Factor, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, Hannity & Colmes, and The Big Story; MSNBC’s Tucker; PBS‘s To the Contrary and CNN‘s Larry King Live and Reliable Sources. Her book The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton was published in 2006, and she later wrote about the 2008 presidential election for Glamour magazine’s blog “Glamocracy”.
On January 25, 2010, it was announced that Carpenter was leaving The Washington Times and joining then Senator Jim DeMint‘s staff as senior communications advisor and speechwriter.[6] She worked in this role until Senator DeMint resigned from the Senate on January 1, 2013, to become president of The Heritage Foundation. On January 22, 2013, Carpenter announced on her Twitter account that she was now working in that same capacity for Senator Ted Cruz.[7] She worked in that role until July 5, 2015, returning to her journalism career.[8] (Amanda Carpenter Explained; Every Explained Today)
Trump Supporter Derails CNN Segment by Accusing Fellow Guest of Having an Affair With Ted Cruz Live on Air A CNN debate between a Donald Trump supporter and former Ted Cruz communications director Amanda Carpenter went off the rails Friday when the Trump supporter suddenly accused Carpenter of having an illicit affair with her former boss.
CNN’s Kate Bolduan was hosting a segment on the feud between Trump and Ted Cruz. “Are you ready for Trump to move on?” she asked Boston Herald columnist Adriana Cohen.
“Oh, absolutely I think we should move on,” she responded. “Where we should move to is The National Enquirer story that has reported that has Ted Cruz has had affairs with five mistresses, including you’ve been named as well, Amanda.”
“I don’t think that’s ‘moving on’ at all, Adriana,” an exasperated Bolduan interrupted.
“If we’re going call Donald Trump’s character into question, I would like Ted Cruz to issue a statement whether or not the National Enquirer story is true, that he has had affairs with many women, including you were named, Amanda,” Cohen repeated. “Will you denounce this story or will you confirm it?”
Bolduan stepped in to make it clear that CNN wasn’t supporting the Enquirer report. “It will come as no surprise to our viewers, CNN has no reporting on what you’re talking about coming from from The National Enquirer,” she deadpanned.
Carpenter kept her composure pretty well, considering the circumstances. “What’s out there is tabloid trash. If someone wants to comment on it, they can talk to my lawyer,” she responded.
“It’s categorically fault,” she continued angrily. “You should be ashamed for spreading this smut. Donald Trump supporters should be held to account for it.”
“I’m not spreading smut,” Cohen responded.
“I will not be intimidated,” Carpenter shot back. “I will continue to make my thoughts known about Donald Trump. I’m not backing down.”
A National Enquirer story that broke on Thursday claims the Texas senator cheated on his wife with at least five women. Two women implicated in the story strenuously denied the tabloid’s reporting, and Cruz weighed in to denounce the “garbage” disseminated by “Trump’s henchmen.”
“The CEO of the National Enquirer is an individual named David Pecker,” Cruz told reporters on Friday, the Washington Post reported. “Well, David is good friends with Donald Trump. In fact, the National Enquirer has endorsed Donald Trump, has said he must be president … [and] years from now, when my daughters google this, they will read these lies.”
“What’s out there is tabloid trash. If someone wants to comment on it they can talk to my lawyer. It is categorically false. You should be ashamed for spreading this kind of smut,” Carpenter said.
Pierson denied her involvement with Cruz while the Twitter hashtag #Cruzsexscandal was trending and a crowdsourcing effort was underway to identify individuals whose … READ THE REST (CRUZ ‘SEX SCANDAL’ ERUPTS: DENIALS ALL AROUND; WND; 3/25/16)
+++
Woman Named As Ted Cruz ‘Mistress’ Speaks Out With Bombshell Statement – ‘They Know…’
One of the alleged mistresses who the National Enquirer claims Sen. Ted Cruz had an affair with dismissed the charge as “BS.” Further, she does not believe the other four women the tabloid supposedly uncovered had affairs with him either. Two of the five women have already publicly called the allegations false.
The Gateway Punditobtained an exclusive statement from one of the women. “It’s ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain knows it’s false,” the anonymous woman said. “I don’t think the article is true. I can’t see Cruz being like that… All I know is it’s not me. There’s a reason they don’t use my name. They know it’s BS.”
A National Enquirer teaser used pixelated pictures of five women, but named none of them, though it promised to do so in its print edition. According to the tabloid: “‘Private detectives are digging into at least five affairs Ted Cruz supposedly had,’ claimed a Washington insider.”
Various Twitter users believe they have matched the photos to three of the women, who include former Cruz senate staffer Amanda Carpenter, a former deputy campaign manager with Carly Fiorina’s campaign, and Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson.
After a Trump supporterraised the allegation against Carpenter on CNN (which is not reporting on the story) on Friday, she labeled it “tabloid trash” adding if people want to make such “categorically false” charges, they should speak to her lawyer.
Pierson took to Twitter to shoot down the allegation against her.
Fox News contributor Stacey Dash, who has backed Donald Trump in public statements, tweeted a post that she authored about the tabloid’s allegations. “I personally dislike the National Enquirer and the way they deal with candidates’ lives,” she writes. “However, they were the ones who broke the news about John Edwards and Gary Hart.”
Dash adds, “With the race coming down to two viable candidates, the GOP needs to know — Is Ted Cruz hiding five mistresses that Hillary could use against us in the general election? Let’s get to the bottom of this.”
The Cruz mistress story has not been picked up by main stream media outlets; the candidate’s campaign has not responded to the National Enquirer’s allegations.
Update: Cruz posted a response to the National Enquirer story on Facebook Friday:
I want to be crystal clear: these attacks are garbage. For Donald J. Trump to enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go.
These smears are completely false, they’re offensive to Heidi and me, they’re offensive to our daughters, and they’re offensive to everyone Donald continues to personally attack.
Donald Trump’s consistently disgraceful behavior is beneath the office we are seeking and we are not going to follow.
_____________________
2 out of 3 Accused Mistresses Deny Affair with Cruz
Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.
WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S.(Quantcast).
Western Journalism has a distinguished team of journalists and support staff who work together to achieve common goals. WesternJournalism.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according toNewsWhip. Fifteen million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, ranking the site as a Top 250 most visited website in the United States, according the site metric tracker,Alexa.
Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles, which are honesty, integrity, and meticulous work ethic. These values are demonstrated through honest and accurate reporting of information and events happening around the world. Read more athttp://www.westernjournalism.com
I am a Cruz supporter for the GOP nomination for POTUS. After you read this Tony Newbill piece on Ted Cruz you probably wonder why. It is quite obvious that Newbill is not a Cruz supporter. Although Newbill does not exactly endorse Trump for President, the organization of these series of emails certainly leads one to the conclusion that Newbill supports Trump.
The reason I support Cruz is his reputation as a Conservative, as a friend of constitutional Original Intent, his overt support for Israel and Cruz promotes authentic Christianity meaning also he is a social Conservative.
There are many reasons I have doubts about Trump and those reasons center around his flip-flops back and forth over the years of everything Cruz has never wavered in. AND YET I’m not really anti-Trump like many Conservatives are. If Trump wins the nomination I’m willing to gamble on Trump’s most recent stands rather than the alternate stands he previously had.
It doesn’t matter to me who wins the GOP nomination. I’ll be voting for the GOP winner, whoever it is, rather than enduring another four to eight years of a Democrat dismantling America in continued Left Wing transformationism.
How in the HECK can Ted Cruz overcome this Issue here???????? I mean if this is true Then he has run an Illegal Campaign and gathered Delegates Illegally and being a Constitutional Scholar should Know Better!!!!!!!!!!
US Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas, has been under fire in his bid for the White House due to his Canadian citizenship records which make it quite clear that he does not meet the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, despite the opinion letter from his Harvard friends.
…
At 42 years old in 2012, Ted Cruz obviously met the age requirement of 30 years. However, he also needed to meet the requirement of at least “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” As the Constitution states, one cannot be just an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
The known source for the Founders use of the term natural born Citizen, The Law of Nations, also defines “Inhabitant” as follows;
§ 213. Inhabitants.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”
Today, the legal term for this condition in the United States is “illegal alien,” someone in our country and living under U.S. jurisdiction, without legally belonging to society. Modern social justice attitudes often refer to these people as “undocumented citizens” which of course are not citizens at all. …
Further, in any matter of law, authenticated evidence supersedes any and all politically motivated opinions, especially opinions which are either unfounded or poorly founded. Unlike Barack Hussein Obama who posted three forged U.S. Certifications of Live Birth and later a Hawaiian newspaper announcement of his birth to evidence his Oval Office eligibility, Ted Cruz issued his Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence of being “born a citizen of Canada.”
The above Canadian document is proof of Canadian Citizenship at birth for Senator Ted Cruz. The next piece of authenticated evidence released by Ted Cruz is a Canadian document proving that he remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship in May of 2014, which means, he was still a legal citizen of Canada in 2012 when he ran for, was elected and took the oath of office for the US Senate.
Again, the above authenticated evidence proves that Ted Cruz was born Canadian in 1970 and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014. These official documents also prove that Ted Cruz was a legal citizen of Canada in 2012, when he sought and claimed a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal US citizen.
…
It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a … READ ENTIRETY (TED CRUZ IS IN THE U.S. SENATE ILLEGALLY? By JB Williams; The North American Law Center [TNALC])
+++++++
More Ted Cruz???????
Sent: 3/22/2016 11:21 AM
I don’t see how this is not Leverage that can be used against Cruz, I mean what kind of a game are we playing here with all this uncertainty over citizenship and that citizenship boiling down to being determined by a Bunch of Communists at Harvard, that Cruz said were Communists:
According to Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, Harvard Law School was more Red than Crimson as recently as 1995, when he graduated.
A spokeswoman for Cruz said that the Senator still stands behind comments he made in at a political rally on July 4, 2010, in which he accused the Harvard Law School faculty of having a stark communist bent. …
Cruz’s spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, defended the senator’s comments by telling The Blaze that, indeed, “the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’—a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism—and they far outnumbered Republicans.”
In his 2010 speech, Cruz said that President Barack Obama “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School” after he attacked Obama as “the most radical” President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.”
Cruz also said that “there were twelve [Communists] who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States … READ ENTIRETY (New Accusations of Communism at Harvard; By Dev A. Patel; flyby – the blog of The Harvard Crimson; 2/24/13)
Following the War of Independence separating America from Great Britain and establishing a new free sovereign nation, our Founders set a course to establish a Constitutional Representative Republican form …
Ever since, political powers here and abroad have sought to undermine, dismantle and destroy the United States and eliminate it as the world’s most free, prosperous and powerful nation on earth.
Two hundred years later, trapped in a growing global shift towards a One World system of global governance based on communist principles of social justice, the United States would soon find itself in a silent battle for its sovereignty and security emanating from within…
… Four years later, the man with no verifiable past would become the first truly anti-American occupant of the Oval Office under color of fraud.
His name is Barack Hussein Obama and Barry Soetoro and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. He was born to a Kenyan Father and a young American mother, in Hawaii as the story goes, and grew up an Indonesian citizen for a time. He has more than twenty Social Security numbers attached to his name[s] – and six years later, all records sealed, not one American citizen can tell you for sure who or what this person really is…
But we have watched him destroy our country at light speed for six years – stirring up racial divides, seizing more and more dictatorial executive powers, taking over entire private economic sectors, importing illegal aliens and illegal Islamic “refugees” at a record pace, driving our nation to nearly $20 trillion in debt, setting records in Military KIA and WIA under suicidal ROE, losing Iraq, Afghanistan, …
…
Back in 2012, a new young up and coming hot shot Republican was emerging in the great once very conservative state of Texas. He was, like Obama, a Harvard trained lawyer, except he actually had more on his résumé than communist community organizing.
…
… Cruz was running to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who had just retired and vacated her seat. …
That’s when calls for him to seek the Oval Office in 2016 started to take shape, and that’s when Sen. Ted Cruz became very concerned about a fact that he knew, but had never disclosed to the public, including during his Senate campaign a year earlier… Ted Cruz was born a Canadian citizen at birth, and remained a legal citizen of Canada, all the way up until May14, 2014.
In short, Sen. Ted Cruz was a legal citizen of Canada when he ran for and became a U.S. Senator, without ever having disclosed his Canadian citizenship to Texas voters, which under both Texas and U.S. Election law, is an act of fraud. …
…
Enter the Harvard lawyers… the same lawyers that had been protecting Barack Hussein Obama for six years… Cruz was advised by his legal friends to immediately renounce his Canadian citizenship, which he did, on May 14, 2014…
…
Of course, two critical problems remained… Renouncing his Canadian citizenship affected his Canadian citizenship, but not his citizenship records in the United States, which so far, appear not to exist even today.
…
Enter the Harvard lawyers again… On March 11, 2015 – two Harvard law friends published a Harvard Law Review opinion declaring both Ted Cruz and Barack Hussein Obama “natural born Citizens” of the United States.
…
So, people with no U.S. documentation, “undocumented citizens” according to Ivy League lawyers, are “natural born Citizens” and average citizens must rely upon Ivy League Law experts (or judges, political appointees) to help Americans figure out what the true meaning of “is” is… a term the average American is not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves. This is not a new tactic, Hitler did it with the help of Goebbels, Marx did it, Castro did it, Stalin and Lenin did it, even Hugo Chavez did it… READ ENTIRETY (THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY; By J.B. Williams; NewsWithViews.com; 3/29/15)
Enter the Harvard lawyers again… On March 11, 2015 – two Harvard law friends published a Harvard Law Review opinion declaring both Ted Cruz and Barack Hussein Obama “natural born Citizens” of the United States.
Hello – What the hell is going on here???????????????????
In an interview with NPR in June 2013, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz stated that while he and his wife were working in the Canadian oil industry, he became a Canadian citizen. It has been suggested, but not yet been verified, that his wife also became a Canadian citizen during that time. Speculation also exists that Eleanor may have maintained her U.S. citizenship while in Canada but applied for and received Canadian citizenship, rendering her a dual US-Canadian citizen.
… You get the gist where this is going but you READ ENTIRE ARGUMENT against Ted Cruz (Exclusive: USCIS Denies FOIA Request for Ted Cruz’s Naturalization Papers, If They Exist; By Sharon Rondeau; The Post & Email; 4/11/15)
+++
Here’s the Deal with the Cruzs
Sent: 3/23/2016 12:30 PM
Mrs. Cruz is on the CFR Task Force for creating the North American Union. See here:
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they … READ THE REST (Building a North American Community; Council on Foreign Relations; 5/2005)
CFR: 2016 Candidates Must Build an ‘Integrated’ North America
Welcome to Americanadexico; bye bye sovereignty.
Former General David Petraeus and former World Bank head Robert Zoellick are leading the Council on Foreign Relation’s latest push for an “integrated” North America.
According to Robert Zoellick, North America can become a “new growth market” under integration, rife with exploitable opportunities through a “doubling down” of NAFTA-style policies that they expect 2016 presidential candidates to pursue.
Zoellick explicitly stated, “I hope that this report will provide an agenda for both [U.S. political] parties in the presidential elections in 2016.”
Under the CFR’s vision, North America would … READ THE REST (CFR: 2016 Candidates Must Build an ‘Integrated’ North America; By AARON DYKES; Truthstream Media; 10/6/14)
Mrs. Cruz is on the CFR Task Force for creating the North American Union, see here:
The CFR is made up of Harvard Lawyers …… and it’s the Harvard Lawyers who said Ted was eligible for POTUS, and so if the Harvard Lawyers want open borders for their North American Union then they will have lots of Leverage ON TED, SO THE BANKERS and the Harvard Lawyers GET THEIR SOROS dream of a North American Union one way or the other if Hilary gets elected!!!!!!!!!!!!
Information is a patriot’s most valuable weapon against tyranny. The next president of the United States may be the most critical one of all time, the one that will decide whether or not this nation survives. Patriots owe it to themselves and their children to make this decision wisely. This information is something everyone should consider.
Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have all wrongly attacked rival Ted Cruz for flip-flopping on birthright citizenship since his run for Senate in 2011. Cruz has consistently opposed the policy.
What has changed is that Cruz questioned the chances of a successful legal challenge to the 14th Amendment — which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. That has been interpreted to apply to those born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally. Cruz now says Congress should pursue a legal challenge.
Interestingly, Cruz is being attacked by Republican opponents who have opposing views on what to do about birthright citizenship. Trump has said unequivocally that he wants to end it, while Rubio has said he is “not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment, but I am open to exploring ways of not allowing people who are coming here deliberately for that purpose to acquire citizenship.”
(Special Thanks to all Contributing researchers and contributors – I only edited their material and added links to new material.)
Who is Heidi Cruz. She is one interesting lawyer! Did you know that she sat on a Council on Foreign Relations task force for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? Yes, right up until 2011 when Ted announced he was running for the Senate!
WHY do you people think our Government won’t secure our border? Do you think it is Incompetence? Ignorance? Is it to destroy the nation? Well a lot can be said about all of those at this point but let’s just say the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) CFR and that sweet little task force has other plans! Open up the borders and go deeper south into Mexico and beyond!! Awake yet???? Yes, they are actively working to create a new nation of North America, called the North American Union, (NAU) just like the EU, with a controlling politburo, where members are NOT elected by the people.
Heidi Cruz was:
“SPECIAL” Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick? Do you know WHO he is??? Mitt Romney put Zoellick on his team and caught great criticism over it but we didn’t hear about that through Fox or anyone else now did we! Google it!! Just type in Romney and Robert B Zoellick. It’s there!!
So WHY would Heidi be a “special assistant” to him of ALL people? Is this a lawyer doing the work of a lawyer? Hardly, there is an agenda here.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS: HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City. – (This information is prior to the economic crash, during the Bush administration.)
“Special Assistant to Robert Zoellick” what did that mean?
“Robert Bruce Zoellick is a former U.S. trade representative, deputy secretary of state, president of the World Bank, and vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (2006-2007). As U.S. trade representative, Zoellick played a key role in the passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, and the restoration of fast track negotiating authority via the Trade Act of 2002. He was also a top U.S. negotiator during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations that lead to the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO).” ”U.S. Trade Representative Prior, Zoellick was appointed United States Trade Representative and assumed office on February 7, 2001. As a member Bush’s Cabinet, he served with the rank of Ambassador. Zoellick is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as the Trilateral Commission, and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) letter to President William Jefferson Clinton.[10][11] Zoellick completed negotiations to bring China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization (WTO), developed a strategy to launch new global trade negotiations at the WTO meeting at Doha, shepherded Congressional action on … READ THE REST (IT’S TIME TO MEET THE CRUZ’S… By dianne marshall; The Marshall Report; 12/4/15)
+++
Heidi Cruz’s Boss: Allow a Shared Sovereignty with Canada and Mexico
Sent: 3/24/2016 12:29 PM
So under Heidi Cruz’s Boss we would allow a Shared Sovereignty with Canada and Mexico????
Amid Global Disorder, North America Should Tighten Bonds
Interviewee: Robert B. Zoellick, Chairman of Goldman Sachs’s International Advisors
Interviewer: Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor
A more closely integrated North American continent could become a new growth market, combining the best of U.S. and Canadian innovation with the fruits of ongoing structural reforms in Mexico, says Robert Zoellick, co-chair of a new CFR Independent Task Force Report. The three countries should build on the foundation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), expanding coordination on areas like trade, energy, and security policy, the report says. That means including Canada and Mexico in transatlantic trade talks and approving the XL Pipeline between Canada and the United States, says Zoellick, a former U.S. trade representative and president of the World Bank.
This Task Force Report seems to call for greater regional integration at a time when centrifugal forces in many parts of the world are quite powerful. For instance, there was a close call with Scottish independence in the UK; Ukraine may be coming apart; the EU has had some fundamental problems. How do you view the report in this context?
This report places North America in the context of U.S. global policy. In particular, it recognizes how a stronger North America could assist the United States, as well as Mexico and Canada, with their interests around the world. North America can provide a model of deeper integration, while respecting national sovereignty and independence, which is very important to all three countries. That “integration and sovereignty” approach would be distinguished, for example, from the European Union’s notion of shared sovereignty.
In addition, North America provides a model of deep integration between two developed countries and an emerging market, so it offers a constructive, practical perspective on the North-South relationship. The report stresses … READ THE REST (Amid Global Disorder, North America Should Tighten Bonds; Council on Foreign Relations; 10/1/14)
+++
Perhaps Ted should Defend Constitution & Drop NAU from Heidi
Sent: 3/24/2016 2:37 PM
It would be good business if Ted would start defending the US Constitution from Heidi and her North American Union Globalist mentors ……
Heidi Cruz Explains Her Global Connections and Career Path To It
What’s all this about Heidi Cruz? Does she have a hidden secret, or is her secret lurking in plain view? Start looking here, and you see something alright.
Heidi Cruz, current wife of 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz, helped form the European Union, has global connections, and has plans to work once again for all she loves in a future White House administration.
How did she get to the heart of the EU? How did she get the Bush family political connections she did? What has she been willing to do to be an insider? Just what really does Ms. Heidi Nelson Cruz have in mind for herself?
I don’t need to explain it to you. You can hear Heidi say it all herself in an interview she gave at her own Alma mater of Claremont McKenna College in June of 2010.
Here is the video you need to watch to fully understand just how involved Heidi Cruz was in the formation of the European Union and just who she has rubbed elbows with along the way.
As part of the President’s Leaders Forum at Claremont McKenna College, Heidi Nelson Cruz ’94, Vice President of Goldman Sachs sits down with a CMC student discussing her path to becoming a prominent leader in the global investment arena. Heidi Nelson Cruz also discusses her early career experiences working in Congress and the White House and why taking risks and having convictions in your life are key attributes to personal success.
Below are notes from the interview, but I suggest you also take your own notes as well. There are a lot of people named here, and they are all worthy of research, especially if you are one who is concerned about, or studies the ideas of, globalization, the Bible’s description in the Book of Revelation of a “One World Government”, George H.W. Bush’s declaration of a “New World Order”, or you just have a simple interest in the far-reaching professional goals of Heidi Nelson Cruz, with or without her husband Ted… her goal perhaps easier if Ted Cruz DOES win the 2016 presidential election but … READ THE REST (Heidi Cruz Explains Her Global Connections and Career Path To It; Posted by Chris Stevens; Caleb’s Report)
+++
Blog Editor: I actually received another email today (3/25/16) pertaining to Ted & Heidi Cruz but I actually deleted it by accident. Shame on me. Interestingly the one thing Tony Newbill didn’t send to me was the Heidi Cruz vs. Melania Trump dissing going on the Cruz and Trump camps. Maybe that was the email I accidently deleted:
This week, the two leading Republican presidential candidates spiraled into a hypermasculine feud over each other’s wives.
Donald Trump responded to an attack ad in support of Ted Cruz that used a nude photo of Trump’s wife, Melania, with a vague threat to “spill the beans” about Cruz’s wife, Heidi.
The Facebook attack ad, targeted at Utah’s conservative Mormon base before Tuesday’s primary, was sponsored by Make America Awesome, a Super PAC supporting Cruz. It used a photo from a GQ spread with the caption, “Meet Melania Trump. Your Next First Lady. Or you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.”
A now a story has been leaked that Ted Cruz has had five extra-marital affairs:
‘Cruz sex scandal’ blows up Twitter after tabloid prints photos of 5 alleged mistresses
It wouldn’t be politics if there weren’t sex rumors involved.
In a “scandalous” report out Friday, the National Enquirer caused a stir on social media by alleging that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has had affairs with five different women.
Even more salacious is the speculation that one of the women is Donald Trump’s spokesperson Katrina Pierson.
The National Enquirer, known as an outlandish American tabloid, claims that the affairs included an incident where Cruz had sex with a mistress in a closet.
Cruz team & shills will be pulling an all nighter on a damage control plan #CruzSexScandal
Twitter users allege that they have already discovered the identities of three of the five women photographed and blurred in the National Enquirer piece.
This is the image Twitter users are sharing, claiming they have identified a few of the alleged Cruz mistresses:
Wild guesses about their identities finger the first of the three women as Trump’s spokeswoman Katrina Pierson. The guess for the second woman to the right is former Carly Fiorina staffer Sarah Isgur Flores and to the far right is CNN pundit and former Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter.
Flores’ appearance on the alleged Cruz mistress list is notable, as the Washington Post reported on Thursday that a Cruz super PAC gave a Fiorina super PAC $500,000 during the early stages of presidential … READ THE REST (‘Cruz sex scandal’ blows up Twitter after tabloid prints photos of 5 alleged mistresses; By John Binder; BizPac Review; 3/25/16)
Despite the insults being passed between the remaining GOP candidates, I’ll be voting for whichever one of these three in my order of preference without apprehension:
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Donald Trump
Senator Cruz because he comes the closest to my sentiments on Conservatism and Social Issues.
Senator Rubio for roughly the same reason, but I have suspicion of his immigration agenda which if he follows through with a Gang of Eight process may favor a complimentary status for the illegal aliens who should not be here due to criminality or welfare benefits.
Donald Trump is third because of his open dislike for America’s current border security and his make America Great via a strong military and at least the intention of forcing lower wage and export price gouging from foreign nations to the detriment of Americans. Frankly I have big doubts about Trump’s Conservative and Christian dedication bona fides; however I can live with a President who doesn’t push any ideological position other than American Exceptionalism. Trump American Exceptionalism benefits Conservatives way more than the self-destructive American Left.
Now in saying all that I find it quite annoying that Mitt Romney has openly come out against Donald Trump in a pro-GOP Establishment manner. Honestly it is because of Romney that I left the Republican Party as a registered voter and change to a registered Independent. It’s the likes of LOSER Romney and GOP Establishment Americans had to endure another four years of the Obama deception and more America-destroying Leftist transformation.
ERGO I was quite pleased that the Gateway Pundit posted a segment portion of Fox News’ OutNumbered with Andrea Tantaro taking Mitt Romney to task for hating Donald Trump as if the words of a loser who should have won his bid has a valid opinion.
Andrea Tantaros unloaded on former liberal Mitt Romney after his Anti-Trump speech in Utah.
This was brutal!
“It’s almost like a coach who lost the Super Bowl 42-0 is now coming out and telling the winning coach what plays to call. If you look at his record in Massachusetts and I want to take him to task on this, because he hit Donald Trump in some key areas. Mitt Romney is a liberal. He used to be pro-choice. Jonathan Gruber, the one who called everyone stupid, wrote Romneycare and Obamacare. That was Mitt Romney’s top aide. I don’t know if he was at the speech today I didn’t see him in the audience. Also, he lectured Donald Trump on foreign policy? Mitt Romney did not want to go after Osama Bin Laden. And that we should attack Pakistan or ask Pakistan for permission before we attack. Harris, I could go on and on and on. Mitt Romney has NO BUSINESS lecturing voters on electability or conservatism. And I think voters today look at him and tell his brand of conservatism to take it and shove it.“
In late 2004 I started The Gateway Pundit blog after the presidential election. At that time I had my twin brother Joe and my buddy Chris as regular readers. A lot has changed since then.
Today The Gateway Pundit is a leading right-of-center news website. The Gateway Pundit has 6-7 million visits (Stat Counter – Google Analytics). It is consistently rankedasone of the top political blogsin the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.
Jim Hoft was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013. Jim Hoft received the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2015.
Not everyone appreciates our success.
Jim Hoft is active in the Tea Party and was the associate producer ofHating Breitbart. He has a devotion to growing democracy and freedom movements everywhere, from inside Iran to the darkest corridors of the U.S. Capitol. His passion is liberty. His …READ THE REST
The next day after the Cruz victory in Iowa the Senator was castigated by Ben Carson for disseminating false information that possibly led Carson supporters to support Ted Cruz. The question then is: Did Cruz tell his campaigners to lie about Carson or did the campaigners take it upon themselves to tell caucus goers that Carson had pulled out of the Iowa contest?
If Cruz was involved in that decision that indeed would be a dirty trick that probably isn’t illegal but morally bankrupt. If Cruz wasn’t culpable the next logical step would be to fire the campaign staff personnel involved in the error in decision or outright scandalous political behavior. Myself I am going to err on believing Cruz had little to zero involvement in giving marching orders to undermine Carson’s campaign.
This whole issue has inspired Donald Trump to cry foul probably because if Carson delegates left for Cruz, that may have rocketed Cruz to his win and relegated Trump to second place. After understanding situation, Trump has become furious. Not because Trump’s good buddy Carson was robbed of delegate votes but because the issue may have cost Trump an Iowa victory. Ergo, if I heard correctly on the news this morning, Trump wants the Iowa Caucus vote nullified and a do-over to occur. Frankly I doubt such a re-vote or re-count will occur; nevertheless, the tone taken by Trump demonstrates just how vicious the hotel/casino magnet can get when a “deal” falls through.
Now this led me to ask myself who are my favorite candidates to win the GOP nomination for President.
I have to be honest with you. I was as intrigued by the Trumpmake America great again message as many other Americans have been and still are. I want to reverse the Obama curse, make the military strong again, name and confront American enemies, stop illegal immigration, kick out illegal immigrants taking advantage of entitlements while deserving Americans are still waiting in line (e.g. Veterans), refusing Muslim refugees whose devotion to Islam will eventually lead to un-American activities rather than assimilation and so on.
With all that intrigue I had this gnawing in the back of my mind about how the old deal maker mixed with Big Business causes to the detriment of basic core Conservative values, mixed with Democrats that definitely promoted anti-Conservative principles and had a mixed pro-life and a mixed Christian affinity past.
Then I have always had an affinity to the causes that Cruz stood for such as pro-life, pro-Tea Party causes, a staunch Conservative and anti-Establishment GOP kind-of-guy.
I also liked Marco Rubio as a Christian and Conservative but thought his experience was a bit lacking especially when GOP Establishment individuals began to throw support behind Rubio after it became evident that Jeb Bush did not have the support of the GOP Conservative base.
And so perhaps we Conservatives should pay attention to Conservatives like Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post who have always questioned Trump’s dedication to Conservative principles and values as you can read in Alexander’s February third essay that is less than favorable toward Donald Trump.
“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.” —Patrick Henry, 1775
If Donald Trump is the answer, then what’s the question his supporters are asking?
Fact is, they’re asking the most important questions every genuine conservative is asking. Consistent with The Patriot Post’s mission statement, all of us are asking, “How do we restore constitutional limits on government and the judiciary? How do we restore free enterprise, our national defense capabilities and traditional American values? How do we undo all of the damage Obama has done and correct our nation’s course back toward Liberty? How do we defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and win the next presidential election?”
But Donald Trump?
By way of disclosure, let me say that I would “vote early and often” for Trump if he is the Republican nominee. Having said that, I hope there will be a more viable and reliable ballot option.
Bear with me.
In the wake of the Iowa caucus results, Trump is again asking, “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” After a 15-hour blackout, he woke up mad, claiming, “Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. … Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” This from a guy who has notvoted in a Republican primary for almost 30 years… (This sounds like a set up — “I’m being treated unfairly, thus I will run third-party to insure a Democrat victory in 2016!”)
Though I consider Iowa more a generator of media advertising revenue than I do a solid predictive indicator of presidential election outcomes, the caucus results are, just the same, instructive.
Trump, who assumed he had Iowa in the bag, made two mistakes that will influence the results of the upcoming primaries.
First, he backed out of the Iowa debate just before the caucuses, not because he has “zero respect for [Fox News journalist] Megyn Kelly,” as he claimed, but to avoid being called out on a growing list of prevarications and obfuscations. Despite the not-too-clever diversion of his alternate event “for the veterans,” his supporters in Iowa stayed focused on the task at hand — casting a vote for the candidate they think is best suited to be the 45th president of the United States.
Second, while he may have avoided the Iowa debate, Trump’s petulant attack against his primary rival, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in the days after that debate resulted in exposing his clear and continuing support for ObamaCare, one of the most important agenda items on conservative lists for legislative repeal.
Just before the Iowa Caucus, Cruz asserted, “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor.” That is not quite accurate — Trump’s socialist health care plan is actually more statist than Clinton’s plan.
Trump attempted to deflect the criticism, protesting, “Ted Cruz is a total liar. I’m so against ObamaCare. … I don’t even know where he gets this.” Where Cruz “gets this” is the same place he got Trump’s liberal “New York values” — remarks from Trump himself! Trump has written and spoken repeatedly in support of state-run health care systems. In his book, “The America We Deserve,” he praised Canada’s failed socialist single-payer health care system: “We must have universal health care. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.”
Betrayed by his own words, Trump refuted (and simultaneously confirmed) Cruz’s claims, saying, “He has got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine because frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country.” Of course, Trump’s socialized medicine proposals would deepen the disastrous consequences of the so-called “Affordable Healthcare Act” and accelerate the deterioration of health care services. Think “Veterans Affairs on steroids.”
The fact is, Trump is a case study in contradictions, with long-held and defended liberal positions averse to Liberty, including his support for state-run health care, gun control, enormous tax increases and executive unilateralism. His apparent contradictions are now the toasts of late-night liberals like Stephen Colbert, who recently aired a “debate” segment, Donald vs. Trump.
Apparently, Trump didn’t receive the memo that a man has only one chance to make a first impression. Now, instead of providing a candid and honest explanation for his 11th-hour conversion to conservatism and all the flip-flopping, Trump is content to simply deny he ever held those liberal positions. His undeniable denial of reality should concern anyone who supports him.
Having said this, I expect protests from Trump supporters that will fall into two previously established categories.
About 10% will offer reasoned objections, which I welcome. They are actually open to criticism of Trump, and the resulting dialogue provides useful insights for both of us.
However, the remaining 90% will hurl vitriolic diatribes, shooting insults and threats at this messenger, much like the shots Trump takes at his critics. The rage and resentment in these protests are a testament to Trump’s anger-driven support, which I described in “The Trump Card — Ace of Anger Affirmation.”
For the record, I have been shot at on a few occasions — and by “shot at” I mean with high-velocity projectiles, not derogatory words — so insults don’t bother me. But what I do find deeply troubling is that the vitriolic variety reflects a cultish devotion to Trump, whose narcissistic persona basks in the light of such unquestioned devotion. Too many of his supporters are intolerant of any divergent perspective on Trump, no matter how well reasoned.
Don’t get me wrong: Grassroots Americans should be angry about the lame “establishment Republicans” who haven’t made way for the growing ranks of young conservatives now in the House and Senate.
And it’s not only Trump’s conservative supporters who are mad. Notably, analysis in The New York Times — “Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat” — recently reflected that “[h]is very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.” These are folks who, in 1980, might have been described as “Reagan Democrats.”
The comparison is understandable, given that Trump’s simple mantra, “Make America Great Again,” was “borrowed” from President Reagan’s slogan, “Let’s make America great again.” Fact is, Trump is a “good communicator” and his simple solutions to complex problems resonate with both grassroots Republicans and Democrats.
But Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, who was a genuine, humble conservative, and a model of servant leadership.
Human nature tells us that many people are more convicted by what they want to believe than by a considerable body of evidence contradicting those beliefs. Noted historian John Lukacs, in his book “Democracy and Populism,” wrote, “Most people believe and think what they prefer to think and what they want to believe: their vision of the world and their own likes and dislikes … are seldom separable.”
In the timeless words of John Adams, however, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Facts and evidence, fellow Patriots. Facts and evidence.
Donald Trump is not the answer to the critical questions genuine conservatives are asking, including those genuine conservatives among his supporters.
So, it’s off to New Hampshire we go, where I expect Trump’s “New York values” to play well. However, take note. His national disapproval rating has soared to 60%, which renders him all but unelectable against potential adversaries as fundamentally flawed as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.
But if Trump actually makes it to the general election and defeats his Democrat opponent, I note this irony: Now that the ranks of conservatives (as opposed to “Republicans”) in the House and Senate have surged, those conservatives might be faced with a “Republican” president who is both autocratic and statist, a combination that will be perilous to the future of Liberty.
Finally, Donald Trump was asked recently to define “conservatism” and he was at a loss of words – rare for Trump. But last week, Ben Sasse, one of the rising young conservatives in the U.S. Senate, was asked the same question, and Trump should listen to Ben’s 90-second response.
[Blog Editor: Here’s Youtube video not a part of original Patriot Post]
VIDEO: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on MSNBC Defining Conservatism
REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with ourTerms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
