This election cycle was supposed to be entirely different. With
the initial candidacy announcements over a year ago (As early as late
March/early April 2015), it was looking like the ideological purity struggle
between the “Emotional morality of that ‘Sweet’ Democratic Socialism” (which is
more like a reimagined and reconstituted form of Communism) VS. Constitutional
Republicanism (Small Government, rugged individualistic Capitalism) would
finally be hashed out once and for all. Unfortunately, the Establishment on
both sides of the aisle have shoved their grassroots out into the parking lots
of their conventions in favor of that Cult of Personality Candidate that will
continue to uphold each party’s Status Quo. Some within these separated
grassroots factions have shared interests and some common ground, with
differentiated cores. Some don’t truly understand why they even have those
beliefs, as many of the Bernie Sanders “Sandernistas” have based upon their
indoctrination. They don’t realize Capitalism is the answer for what they are
actually longing to implement. And THAT was who Ted Cruz was directing his
speech towards. The outrage over the “vote your conscience” speech given by
Cruz is completely ridiculous.
To think that his sole reason for his speech would have been to
endorse Donald Trump based on a “Good Faith Pledge” that Donald Trump himself
disavowed on national television months ago is to be completely naïve. To
assume that a Candidate would turn their back on their core principles, in
order to graciously support an individual that publically impugned and
assassinated their character, branding them a LIAR, is complete madness. To
surmise that a Candidate, who was painted as an adulterous philanderer for
having affairs with 5 women in convention center closets and with unconfirmed
extra-marital relationships with campaign managers/advisors, would offer a
conciliatory recommendation for the highest office in the land is laughable…and
even intellectually vapid at best. To think that you can sabotage a person’s
speech by yanking his microphone audio as its being aired on a major news
network, where the only sound you could hear was the noise of Servers taking
orders and clanking plates shrouding a Candidate’s impassioned plea for
Constitutionality, and then expect that Candidate to provide a glowing
endorsement is plain lunacy. To opine that a Candidate is the ultimate
conservative choice, just after that candidate attacked your father with false
stories of a relationship between him and one of the most notorious
presidential assassins in American history would be literally unhinged. To
think that his speech was “Self Serving” as many of the RINO Establishment
players were trumpeting on FOX News, when he began his speech with
congratulating Trump on his nomination- QUOTE: “I congratulate Donald Trump on
winning the nomination last night”, is completely delusional.”
Now, Ted Cruz’s speech was actually filled with meat and potatoes
that the convention attendees were sopping with biscuits, until “someone” (More
like the Trump agents – specifically the Cruz infatuated Peter King) decided to
initiate a chant of “En-Dorse-Trump, En-Dorse-Trump”. This shut down the
overall reception of Ted Cruz’s final moments of his speech. Ted Cruz responded
with, "I appreciate the enthusiasm from the NY delegation" Anyone get
the NY delegation reference? That was a dig towards the same crew that yanked
his Microphone audio feed during his speech (which aired on Fox News and lacked
the concern of the Fox News producers to attempt an expeditious fix to the
problem)?
The focus changed from his ideas and messaging to that of an
anticipation as to whether or not an endorsement would be teetering on the
brink. Only, it never did.
But let’s take a look as what Ted DID cover:
· He wanted
to address what was really at stake. - The Case for America, the case that
Freedom Matters. He made the point that America is the only nation were We, The
People constrain our government.
· He gave the
answer to how to constrain either POTUS pick – Down ticket voting (Municipal,
State, & Congressional representation).
· He gave the
case for “Constitutional Conservative Inclusiveness”, which includes all sides
of the political spectrum, including disaffected millennials and Bernie Sanders
fans, or “Sandernistas”
· He made the
case for Individualism – Choice of your own Doctor, Individual Choice to defend
yourselves under the 2nd Amendment, Choice of your own
children’s education
· He debunked
the notion of the effectiveness of a Large Federal Government. He conversely
focused on the importance of States Rights. Gay marriage, Legalization of
Drugs…these were all “experiments” that the localities should be allowed to
vote on for their own preferences. It shouldn’t be a “One Size Fits Al” mandate
from the Federal Government Bureaucracy.
He made the points that we need to focus on to straighten the path
of our nation
· Border
Security
· Elimination
of Trade Deals with Terrorist Nations
· Taking the
Islamic Threat Seriously
· Minimize
taxation of the Citizenry
· Removal or
Obamacare
Cruz made a case for freedom to everyone that has been pushed
aside in favor of a self-serving political machine, including Sanders
supporters. It wasn't simply a speech for GOP party unity, but one without
endorsement...it was a National Unity speech for the disenfranchised. It was
for EVERYONE disenfranchised by Establishments on either sides. He was making
an additional case to those who think that Bernie Sander’s America is the
answer. He was displaying that Conservatism actually is! It was a Reagan
"We carry the message they're waiting for" idea. It was
Constitutionalism, with an Olive Branch to Misguided Millennials. And by the
way, Reagan never officially endorsed Gerald Ford at the convention, but when
he spoke, he spoke of the values that Conservatism provides and that we should
revere. Whether or not you agree that Ted’s speech was “Reaganesque”, you must
admit that his goal of making that case was met.
Unfortunately for us, the only part of the speech we
continually heard was the part that was never said – A Cruz Endorsement of
Trump. They cite the betrayal of Cruz’s word based on the Loyalty Pledge that
the candidates were to sign to eliminate a 3rd party run by
candidates that didn’t win (But mostly to ensure an unhinged, unpredictable 3rd party
run by the Businessman himself). The argument against Ted Cruz’s
Non-Endorsement was rooted in the infamous Pledge – signed by Trump on
September 2, 2015. Donald Trump eventually eviscerated the Loyalty Pledge on
March 29, 2016
So obviously, 3/29/2016 was the day Donald Trump eliminated the
pledge. Even Kasich was aware.
Jeb Bush resigned his allegiance to this pledge on May 6th 2016,
when he announced via his Facebook Page his intentions for Presidential
Support:
” In
November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will
support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I
have done my entire life. –
That’s called voting up and down the
ticket, which Cruz made the case for in his speech.
Lindsey Graham turned his back on the Loyalty Pledge that same
Friday:
“I also
cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a
reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and
temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.
After the election, regardless of who wins
the presidency I will do everything I can to help our new President deal with
the many challenges facing our nation. The next President will inherit a mess
and will need all the help they can get.
I will enthusiastically support Republicans
for other offices in South Carolina and throughout the country. I will focus my
time, energy and effort on raising resources and advocating for our Republican
majorities in the House and Senate. It is imperative that we have strong,
reliable conservatives acting as a check and balance against excesses in
government. I strongly encourage Republicans and Independents to vote even if
you are disappointed in your choice for President.
Finally, I do not plan to attend the
Republican convention in Cleveland this summer.”
Rand Paul, as of this July 26, 2016 morning VIA a Breitbart
article, stated that he would stick with the pledge and support the nominee
(Although, the word “endorse” was yet to be declared. But after Mr. Paul’s deal
that he cut with Mitch McConnell, it should be as no surprise that his strong
understanding of Constitutionality, that I admire, does not match the size of
his Cajones, to which are about the size of Donald Trump’s hands.
But Donald Trump knows how to play on the stupidity or naivety of
the low information crowd. This pledge issue was another "Cruz stole Iowa
from Ben Carson because Ben Carson told everyone he was going home to get clean
drawers and CNN Reported it" moment. Pin the issue completely on Cruz as
if he was the only one involved. Even though everybody rushed to inform
delegates that Carson left, they pinned it all on Cruz. So even though the
pledge was signed by Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, they acted as if Cruz was the
only one who broke the pledge, even though the other person who took the pledge
was the governor of the state convention and didn't even show up.
Cruz DID say he would show support for the Republican nominee. So
exactly what would be the legal definition of “Showing Support”? Would it be
actually attending the convention, as opposed to the sitting governor of the
HOST STATE’s absence from putting on his party’s convention? Would it be
speaking to the constituents to fortify the party platform? Or were the words,
“I ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP” be required? I don’t believe so…What we witnessed the
other night was a moment from past history.
This was a “Charles Sumner” Moment – When Charles Sumner was
beaten w/a cane in the Senate Chamber for following principles & not party
loyalty, a new party formed.
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was known for his deep
commitment to the cause of civil rights and emerged as an antislavery leader in
the late 1840s. In 1849, in the Roberts case, Sumner argued for
integrated public schools in Massachusetts. He also became active in political
protests against Texas’s annexation and the Mexican War. In 1848, he joined
with other disenchanted Whigs and Democrats to form the Free-Soil party, which
opposed the extension of slavery into newly acquired territories. Despite
the Free-Soil defeat in 1848, and especially after the passage of the odious
Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, Sumner persevered in his antislavery activities. In
1851, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Free-Soiler, where he campaigned
against what he saw as southern aggression on the slavery issue. In 1855 he
endorsed the Republican Party, which had been organized primarily to oppose
slavery interests. As North-South tensions heightened, so did Sumner’s
rhetoric. In his Crime against Kansas speech,
delivered in May 1856, he lambasted southern efforts to extend slavery into
Kansas and attacked his colleague, Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina. Shortly after that speech,
Butler’s cousin, Congressman Preston Brooks, assaulted Sumner on the Senate
floor. He spent three and a half years recovering from the beating. When Sumner
returned to the Senate in 1859, the North-South rift had intensified, but he,
like most other Republicans, did not realize or perhaps care that Republican
ascendancy would bring on civil war. From the war’s beginning Sumner argued
that it should be waged to abolish slavery, not solely to preserve the Union.
He regularly pressed President Abraham Lincoln to sponsor legislation
to free the slaves, grant them civil rights, and enlist them in the Union army.
He also argued for stringent conditions for readmission of Confederate states
to the Union.
Your CHARLES SUMNER moment, ladies & gentlemen...not a
physical caining...but a verbal one. But rumor has it that a physical one DID
occur…with Sheldon Adelson, the Rich RNC Donor Casino owner and Trump
supporter. It was reported that he was responsible for not allowing Cruz into
the RNC lounge. Others have said it was a physical confrontation with him along
with Susan Hutchison, chairwomen for the Washington State GOP. From an
unsubstantiated report, “As they wereheaded to the elevator that
would take them down to the super glamhospitality suites, Susan
Hutchison blocked their way. According to a witness,Hutchison “went bananas” at
the couple, calling Cruz a “traitor to the party”and his refusal to endorse
Trump “inexcusable.” She had to be
restrained and was hustled away by security, though she doesn’t seem to remember that part. I just told him I thought
his speech was inexcusable, and I was so disappointed in him,” Hutchison said…
she didn’t recall Cruz’s response. “I was angry, everybody was angry. You heard
everybody booing him. We were astounded at what he did.” Hutchison said she did
not think security got involved. To add insult to injury, the Cruz couple were not
allowed into that hospitality suite. Turns out that suite was Sheldon Adelson’s
and he is a Trump supporter. Some have said the Adelson’s confrontation with
Cruz was somewhat physical as well, although I can’t verify if this is true or
not.
The Trumpkins & the GOP Establishment were trying to put their
boot on Ted Cruz’s neck & said, "SAY HIS NAME, SAY HIS NAME!"
He didn't do it, folks. Kudos, Ted!
There was nothing in that speech that was disparaging, vindictive,
slanderous, or hate filled. This wasn’t an anti-Christian display of a lack
forgiveness? When you forgive someone, you don’t ENDORSE that person! Some that
you may have forgiven may not have even changed the actions and behaviors that
caused the animosity towards which your original rift caused a falling out. So
you forgive…but you aren’t mandated to endorse their behavior! Judging by the
cordial behavior surrounding the discussion for Trump requesting that he speak,
EVEN THOUGH by winning the 2nd highest number of delegates into
the race gives you the RIGHT to speak, shows that possibly forgiveness was
there. I don’t know his heart, but that is usually a good step. Being gracious
enough to congratulate him on his victory is another step in that direction. To
put aside the issue completely and to focus on what the actual issues in the
nation are currently, shows the importance of his focus…another step towards
what someone does to forgive…to move forward on what is important and not hold
a grudge or take a below the belt shot, when he clearly could while holding the
floor as he was allowed.
The Slanted News Media Outlets and Misinformed “Trumpers” have
cited that many in the #NeverTrump Movement have turned their backs on Ted Cruz
after this speech. These fail to realize #NeverTrump wasn't exactly
"Pro-Cruz", just as Mike Lee/Ken Cucinelli aren't “Establishment” by
simply having an R by their name. The Never Trump
movement was kick started by the Marco Rubio supporters, more specifically Liz
Mair’s “Make America Awesome” Super PAC who was responsible for putting out the
racy photos of Melania from GQ in an ad attempting to impugn the morality of
the Nominee, to which trump revisited in his press conference the following
morning. They latched onto Cruz after Rubio suspended his campaign in order to
defeat Trump. There was no connection or even loyalty to support him from the
beginning. So, sure, you’re going to have some defectors.
Speaking of Trump’s Press Conference the following the RNC Speech
that he gave, he made wild assumptions. He made the assumption that Cruz added
sentences that weren’t actually in the transcript of the written speech:
“Justa couple of things: I knew his speech. They gave me his
speech. I knew exactlywhat his speech was, because when you go up to speak, you
have to give yourspeech. You know, we don’t want surprises, right? So they gave
it, they came tome, they said, "It’s a boring speech, Mr. Trump. Nothing
good, nothingbad. He just congratulates you on the victory and here’s the
speech." Well he got up, and in the first two sentences,
he added a sentence. In other words, he got up, and he added a sentence. Which
could have been viewed as a nasty thing in terms of what he said because it was
implying something which is wrong, but that’s okay. So he took his speech — and
you’re bound by that speech, just like you’re bound by the pledge. You’re bound
by the pledge. So Ted Cruz took his speech that was done — was on the
teleprompter — said hello, then made a statement that wasn’t on the speech and
went back to his speech.”
But the off the cuff addition to the Cruz speech was this line:
"And just like each of us, I'd like to see the principles of our party
succeed in November" – hardly anything nefarious and of any concern at
all. But Trump can use legalize to say, “Well he did add things that weren’t
there” assuming his minions would never see the actual transcripts of the
speech. Trump has stated that he would consider creating a Super PAC to
attack Ted Cruz and John Kasich. There’s something very vindictive of a
Presidential nominee that looks to create a Super PAC in order to destroy those
whom he’s already defeated. Is vindictiveness a Fruit of the Spirit, Frank and
Jerry?
Then, he doubled down on the Rafael Cruz Lee Harvey Oswald
conspiracy. Even Photo specialist that questioned if that was Mr. Cruz in the
infamous picture said there’s a little similarity…but more Dissimilarity than
similarity. SERIOUSLY??
Now, as far as the Trump Media and their supporters, they’ve tried
to make a case that looking at the Russian Email Hack of the DNC emails that
were released through WikiLeaks have verified many of his wild assertions. They
have believed that they’ve found a few emails concerning Ted Cruz…and, like the
Roger Stone/Bridebart hit pieces that we were bombarded with during the
primary, they’re taking the association of a name within these emails as an
admission of guilt.
First was the news of the Cruz campaign asking, the DNC for
donations to help fortify a Delegate Protection fund, due to death threats by
the Trump campaign. Upon close inspection of the email, you’ll notice that the
Cruz campaign email was sent to Eric Bennett of the DNC’s personal gmail
account. This email, most likely due to the nature of the subject matter, it
was forwarded to his official DNC email account, where it would be scooped up
within the net of the wikileaks leak. Now, if you were a supporter of Ted Cruz
or had given your email address to their campaign and decided to do an email
search by subject line, you would have noticed that YOU received the exact same
email. That’s because it was a form email sent by all Cruz email accounts
asking for donations. There was no “plea” to the DNC for financial assistance.
But the rush to judgment in order to vilify and smear Senator Cruz still went
to the presses.
The next was the so-called “CONFIRMATION” of a Raphael Cruz/Lee
Harvey Oswald Connection
From Wikileaks :
“While
I will note that Cruz's father was in fact a militant who fought the Batista
regime (which Fidel Castro defeated) and it would not be unusual for him to be
caught up in the ugly web of Cuban militants with questionable histories (just
look at the cabinet in the basement, one of the Watergate burglars
was...Cuban...with plenty of
other examples including a guy who blew up a plane and was basically given safe
refuge in Texas...not to mention those who were involved in the ugly Central
American wars in the 80's... I think this is a fun hit. I made edits to dispute
each claim.”
So, I can only assume that because Raphael
Cruz DID fight with the Batista Regime in his youth in Cuba, the Trump Low
Information Supporters ASSUMED that he was a militant that would fall in with
Oswald. BUT, if you actually had background on Cruz and were familiar with him
as his supporters are, you’d realize that Raphael Cruz has been more than
forthcoming about his time in Cuba and how he fought the Castro Regime…this
doesn’t indicate a relationship with Oswald. This is akin to saying that a
person is a supporter of Mao simply because they ate at Number One Chinese
Buffet.
They seemed to find much humor in Trump’s
attacks on Ted Cruz’s father:
Could use the Eric Walker touch Dangerous
Donald's Conspiracy Theories: "All I know is what is on the
internet." This morning on Fox and Friends, Donald Trump accused Ted
Cruz's father of helping with JFK's assassination - "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." So, while
we're on the subject of the GOP's presumptive standard bearer just spouting
nonsense he reads on the internet or in the tabloids, here are some of the
other conspiracy theories and facts that the great mind of that Donald Trump's
"good brain" felt it was necessary to entertain: is gathering from
the tabloids and the internet:
· Donald
Trump speculates that Antonin Scalia was murdered
· Trump not knowing questioning whether
President Obama was born in America, and then sending investigators to Hawaii
to look into it - still cited as one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all
time. The President was born in Hawaii.
· Trump thinks that vaccination causes
autism. It doesn't
· Trump claims that thousands of American
Muslims cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed. Didn't happen.
· Trump repeatedly telling a hoax story about
an American general executing Muslim prisoners with bullets covered in pig's
blood. Also not true.
o After
it being told it wasn't true, Trump doubling-down on his claim that a man who
tried to rush on stage at one of his rallies was associated with ISIS - because
"all I know is what is on the internet."
This would explain his Alex Jones exclusive interviews in December
of 2015 and how he has galvanized the Jones Fan Base.
Have you ever in your lifetime witnessed people who are supposedly
"Anti-Establishment" as trump supporters scream "YOU BETTER PICK
OUR LESSER OF 2 EVILS?" They scream: YOU WILL UNITE, DAMN IT, OR YOU'LL
PAY! WE LET YOU SPEAK AT OUR TRUMP PARTY THAT WE JOINED ONLY A FEW YRS AGO! YOU
WILL COMPLY AND YOU WILL LOVE IT!
Not I…Apparently, Not Cruz either.
