What were Ted Cruz’s aspirations in high school? Well, the presidential candidate told classmates they were for power and fortune, mixed with a little bit of world domination. The YouTube user who uploaded the viral video “Young Ted Cruz” tells Yahoo News that the clip was part of a senior class video from the Texas senator’s high school in Houston.
When asked what his aspirations were, young Mr. Cruz joked to camera, “Aspirations? Is that like sweat on my butt?” Cruz then joked that he was hoping to perhaps star in a teen film, like “Malibu Bikini Beach Shop.” The lighthearted response continued as Cruz deadpanned that his aspirations were to “take over the world, world domination, you know, rule everything. Rich, powerful, that sort of stuff” . . .
In the original video shared with Yahoo News, Cruz’s father is asked if it is crazy to think his son will rule the world one day: “I hope not,” he replies while chuckling. (Read more from “‘Young Ted Cruz’ Video Goes Viral” HERE)
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are currently leading in nearly every poll across the nation, so it’s only natural that the two take shots at each other from time to time.
Trump recently misspoke by saying “two corinthians” rather than “second corinthians” at an event, and the ever-witty Cruz was right there to call him on his gaffe.
At an Iowa campaign event Monday, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz cracked a joke on front-runner Donald Trump and his “two Corinthians” gaffe.
While answering a question at a town hall meeting, Cruz referred to a Bible verse from the book of 2 Chronicles. Before he could finish the verse, someone interrupted Cruz and said, “two Chronicles.”
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-25 23:45:552016-04-11 10:53:27Ted Cruz Makes a Joke About Donald Trump for ‘Two Corinthians’ Gaffe
Like clockwork, political campaigns degrade to low-rung rhetoric for some candidates. They also bring old acquaintances out of the woodwork who didn’t like you then and don’t like you now.
Such is the reported case for Conservative Presidential candidate Ted Cruz and a film writer in Hollywood. Conflicts in principles and ideas appear immediately apparent in any sentence that mentions Conservative and Hollywood. The Senator and the writer, Craig Mazin, have a very brief history. They were reportedly on the same dorm at Princeton during Freshman year. Mazin has been dogging Ted Cruz with attacks that surfaced nationally during the Conservative’s 2012 run for the Senate.
A skilled trash-talker, who weaponizes Twitter, screenwriter Mazin resorts to schoolyard taunts and name-calling worthy of a bully who enjoys attacking someone who rises above the ugly fray and chooses to walk away. Say, a Christian, perhaps. In a less profanity tinged missive about Cruz, Mazin recently tweeted: “Getting emails blaming me for not smothering Ted Cruz in his sleep in 1988. What kind of monster do you think I am? A really prescient one?”
What is really going on here? What would possess an adult film writer to resort to the pettiness and mean-spirited jargon of a pubescent adolescent? What could a Hollywood screenwriter have against a Senator who runs for office in the defense of faith, freedom and patriotism? The question likely answers itself.
Assuming that Mazin is for freedom and patriotism, possibly it is the issue of faith that so sticks in his craw. It is well reported that the young Ted Cruz was principled in prayer in his college days. Senator Ted Cruz hides his Christianity from no one. It is safe to say that his faith is an irritant at best for a writer of scripts that the Motion Picture Rating (MPAA) assigns an R-Rating for “graphic nudity, violent images and drug use.” It can be said for Mr. Mazin that he stands by his “graphic nudity, violent images and drug use” in his films and his juvenile, low-grade tweets.
There are others with differing opinions. Famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (a renowned Liberal) calls Ted Cruz “off-the-chart brilliant”. Now, that’s got to hurt a guy like Mazin whose tweeted claim to fame is: “In 1988, I puked all over Ted Cruz’s textbooks.”
A closer look at Senator Ted Cruz and his support of the faith may only give Mazin fuel for his Twitter fire. Possibly, however, there may be a lesson in it for who Ted Cruz is today as opposed to how Mr. Mazin chooses to conjure him up during the college years. Assuming that it is the Christian faith that has Mazin all rankled, he may find the following highly disturbing. That Cruz put his years of law school to work and prevented a “takeover” of churches by the Obama administration could create a full-on, tweet blast from Mr. Mazin.
While Mr. Mazin was writing Hollywood films which can have great cultural impact, both good and bad, Ted Cruz was already protecting faith and freedom of religion before ever announcing a run for the Presidency.
In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz (TX-R) exposed unprecedented power grabs by the Obama administration in multiple cases before the Supreme Court. Cruz stood firm against Obama’s Justice Department in these cases and successfully helped block an attack on the faith and its pastors:
“If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to… “dictate who churches choose as ministers…” — Ted Cruz (The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts To Expand Federal Power)
On the Obama Justice Department’s hit list was freedom of religion with Christianity as the primary target. Long a bane to the Progressive Left (that rejected God from it 2012 Presidential convention) is that the Ten Commandments – that are foundational to the Judeo-Christian faith – served as the biblical inspiration for both the U.S. Constitution and Capitalism. True Christians stand with Israel much to the disdain of Democrat Presidents from FDR, to Jimmy Carter, to Barack Obama. True Christianity is a blockade to bigotry and tyrannical aspirations.
In an outrageous attempt to increase its power, the Obama administration attempted to usurp the right of a church to choose its own pastors. In the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Justice Department reportedly argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it “had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers.” The Supreme Court foiled Obama’s egregious attempt to curtail a fundamental right of churches. In a 9-0 opinion, the justices sided in favor of the Lutheran Church.
The day Barack Obama swore on the Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution – which includes the freedoms of speech and religion – the assault began. Obama’s gibes at Judeo-Christian belief and scripture are well documented. Gaining control of who preaches in Christian churches would have given the Obama administration control of the message. Obama acolytes in the pulpit would be in position to convolute the scripture to serve their political ideologies.
Socialist-Progressives in the Democrat Party are going to great lengths to escape the authority of God, preferring to live by their own countenance and self-devised morality while attempting to subjugate or eliminate God out of society. In a head-fake to voters, many assume the role as pretenders of faith. Those who outsmart themselves in matters eternal, including those in Washington and Hollywood, go so far as to cherry-pick the Bible and mismatch or purposely convolute scriptural intent to serve their political agenda.
That Ted Cruz professes the Christian faith may cause any number of Hollywood screenwriters angst. If so, that explains it. Though just being conservative, or simply independent in thought, has always been enough to tee-off any Hollywood liberal worthy of their far-Left credentials. Third-grade name calling or vitriolic rhetoric, whether from the Left or from the Right, that does not promote serious discussions — does the country no service. The message to Mr. Mazin is that the pillars of faith on which Ted Cruz professes to firmly stand cannot be knocked down. Whether a bitter sounding, former acquaintance can cheapen the national dialogue, that is a whole other matter entirely. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz, Hollywood and Faith” please click HERE)
___________________________
Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING– Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-22 23:38:362016-04-11 10:53:31Ted Cruz, Hollywood and Faith
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is seeking to siphon evangelical voters from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, by revealing the senator’s inconsistencies in his faith.
Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, said tax records show that Cruz tithed less than 1 percent of his income to his church. Cruz and Huckabee are Southern Baptists, and that denomination’s doctrine states members are to tithe 10 percent of their income.
The tax returns are from Cruz’s 2012 senate race. According to Huckabee in one interview, “Cruz contributed less than 1 percent of his income to charity between 2006 and 2010 – a far cry from the 10 percent most evangelical leaders believe the Bible demands.” Huckabee said the amount given to his church demonstrates Cruz’s priorities in his life.
“I just think it’s hard to say God is first in your life if He’s last in your budget,” Huckabee said. “If I can’t trust God with a dime out of each dollar that I earn, then I’m not sure how I can tell Him that I trust him with my whole life.”
He said tithing demonstrates a person’s spiritual place . . .
Huckabee launched an attack on Cruz earlier in the week when he criticized the Tea Party favorite for meeting with New York gay hotel owners early in his campaign while stating he is against gay marriage. Huckabee’s criticism came after Cruz attacked “New York values” in criticizing leading GOP presidential rival Donald Trump. (Read more from “One of Ted Cruz’s Opponents Just Called Him out Over 1 Thing No One Else Is Talking About” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-21 23:10:552016-04-11 10:53:33One of Ted Cruz’s Opponents Just Called Him out Over 1 Thing No One Else Is Talking About
By Rosie Gray. Ted Cruz dismissed Iowa governor Terry Branstad’s opposition to his campaign on Tuesday, implying that Branstad is part of the same “cronyism” establishment as Donald Trump.
“It is not a surprise that the establishment is in full panic mode,” Cruz told BuzzFeed News in an interview on his campaign bus. “We predicted from the very beginning that the Washington cartel would fire every tool in its arsenal to prevent a conservative victory in this primary.”
“The cartel exists to make deals and to pick winners and losers through cronyism and corporate welfare,” Cruz told BuzzFeed News. “And so it’s no surprise that more and more of the establishment is beginning to support Donald Trump. Because Donald has promised to make deals and to continue the cronyism and corporate welfare of Washington. That’s what the cartel does. They make deals with Democrats.”
Branstad told reporters at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit on Tuesday that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.” Cruz opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard, a government standard requiring transportation fuel to include a certain amount of ethanol, which is a touchstone of Iowa politics.
Branstad confirmed to reporters that he doesn’t want Cruz to win the Iowa caucuses. He had previously said he remain neutral. Branstad, whose son works for a pro-ethanol group, has also said that Donald Trump’s questions about Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency because of his birth in Canada are “fair game.” (Read more from “Ted Cruz Just Announced Something Major About Trump’s Support System: ‘The Establishment Is…'” HERE)
___________________________
Bob Dole on Ted Cruz: ‘Nobody Likes Him’
By Josh Hafner. Bob Dole said Wednesday that Ted Cruz at the top of the GOP ticket would mean “wholesale losses” for the party in Washington and across the country.
“I don’t know how he’s going to deal with Congress,” Dole said in an interview with The New York Times. “Nobody likes him.”
Dole, a former Kansas senator, was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1996.
Donald Trump would “probably work with Congress,” though, Dole mused, because he’s “kind of a deal maker.”
Dole characterized Cruz as an “extremist” unwilling to work with his own party. The Times’ Maggie Haberman notes that Dole’s comments reflect a larger tension that establishment Republicans feel with Cruz, who portrays himself on the campaign trail as their antithesis. (Read more from “Bob Dole on Ted Cruz: ‘Nobody Likes Him'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-20 19:31:532016-04-11 10:53:36Ted Cruz Just Announced Something Major About Trump’s Support System: ‘The Establishment Is…’
“If I’m elected president, we will not let in refugees from countries controlled by ISIS or Al Qaida,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said at Thursday’s night’s debate in South Carolina.
Although Cruz was the first candidate to be asked about refugees, all of the candidates weighed in, and their responses are included below.
Cruz said he understands why Donald Trump called for a ban on all Muslim immigrants “until we can figure out what’s going on,” as Trump put it.
“You know, I understand why Donald made the comments he did, and I understand why Americans are feeling frustrated and scared and angry when we have a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat we face and even worse, who acts as an apologist for radical Islamic terrorism” . . .
“If I’m elected president, we will not let in refugees from countries controlled by ISIS or Al Qaida. When it comes to ISIS, we will not weaken them, we will not degrade them, we will utterly and completely destroy ISIS,” Cruz concluded. (Read more from “Cruz: We Will Accept Refugees as Long As…” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-17 23:06:432016-04-11 10:53:44Cruz: We Will Accept Refugees as Long As… [+video]
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Kevin Cirilli. Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,” a fellow Texan claims in a “birther” challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.
The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.
“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”
Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump pressed the issue during a televised candidate debate Thursday evening in South Carolina, saying he’s bringing up Cruz’s Canadian birthplace “because now he’s doing a little bit better” in the polls. Trump insisted that Cruz receive a judgment from the courts because it would be bad for Republicans to have the issue hanging over their presidential or vice-presidential nominee. (Read more from “Now, Lawsuit Filed Against Cruz Eligibility by Texas Attorney” HERE)
____________________________
Ted Cruz Is a U.S. Citizen at Birth, Natural Born Is a Different Question
By Lawrence Sellin. According to Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth, the relevant section being:
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
With the stipulation that:
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State for at least five years: Provided That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
Ted Cruz fulfilled those requirements and is, therefore, a US citizen at birth and meets the Constitutional test outlined in the Supreme Court decision Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
According the Department of State, Ted Cruz’s parents should have applied at a US Consulate for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) and/or a U.S. passport to have registered him as a U.S. citizen. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Ted Cruz has not released any documents directly related to how and when he obtained US citizenship.
Being a US citizen at birth does not necessarily make you a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the Presidency.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. That raises the question whether Ted Cruz can be a “natural born citizen” at all if he obtained citizenship through an act of Congress, which regulates naturalization?
The definition of “natural born citizen” itself is presently disputed depending on whether you make an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution based on the wording and historical context at the time of its writing or consider the Constitution a “living” document interpreted based on changing societal and cultural circumstances.
The “originalist” interpretation was described as recently as September 2008 in a Michigan Law Review article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause” written by Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”
Donald Trump, for example, is clearly a “natural born citizen” by the “originalist” interpretation because he was born in the United States of parents both of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth.
Only since 2008 and the candidacy of Barack Obama, have those believing in a “living” Constitution interpreted “natural born citizen” as simply a citizen at birth of one US citizen parent. There are no Supreme Court decisions describing it in that way, but many decisions including statements referring to natural born citizens as US citizens of two US citizen parents, for example: The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Many “living” Constitutionalists have also used statutory law to buttress their arguments, often incorrectly in my opinion, such as citing the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The Act established US citizenship of children of citizens born abroad without the need for naturalization:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
The Citizenship Act of 1795 (Act of January 29. 1795, Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415) repealed the 1790 law and replaced the phrase “natural born citizen” with “citizen:”
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
To demonstrate transparency, Ted Cruz should release documents directly related to how and when he obtained US citizenship, such as a CRBA.
Separately, there should be a resolution by proper adjudication of the dispute over the definition of “natural born citizen” and, thereby, eligibility for the Presidency; not simply amending the Constitution by press release or via the pronouncements of talking heads. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Is a U.S. Citizen at Birth, Natural Born Is a Different Question” please click HERE)
Watch a recent interview with Lawrence Sellin below:
Not that I know what the word really means, but because we spent an entire week discussing this Yiddish slang word uttered by Donald Trump, it evidently connotes what happened during last night’s debate.
For the past 7 months, everyone has been saying that Donald Trump has finally met his demise, only to be proven spectacularly wrong. The reason they were wrong time and time again is simple: the other candidates and the moderators always attacked Trump from the left, particularly on immigration. Instead of hurting him, it always fueled Trump’s appeal. Americans are tired of being lectured to on the issue of immigration, and Trump was speaking to where most voters are at this point.
But as I noted earlier this week, nobody has really attacked Trump from the right and exposed his lack of command of both the Constitution and conservative values. Cruz finally did that last night and Trump was left sputtering. He was lacking any good come-back lines for the first time in the race. He was diminished to defending New York values. Cruz turned the tables on him by looking like the macho, anti-PC crusader, while Trump went all emotional with his non-sequitur about 9/11. He was also caught promoting a left-wing law professor. Trump even used the “on the soil” argument for citizenship which ironically is the left-wing version of birthright citizenship that is used to justify anchor babies – the very issue through which Trump gained initial prominence for opposing. He played into Cruz’s caricature of him perfectly.
Had the debate ended here, it wouldn’t surprise me if Cruz went on to catch Trump in the national polls. And I still believe, on net, Cruz will benefit more than anybody else. But Trump came roaring back in the second half of the debate. Much like the earlier debates, Trump got asked questions about immigration and was delivered the gift that keeps giving – the straw man of Jeb Bush attacking him from the left on the issue. Between immigration, trade, and the presentation of his business career, Trump resurrected the version of himself that much of the voters clearly have come to love.
The only problem for Trump, however, is that many people watched only the first half of the debate. Moreover, his opponent is not Jeb Bush. Bush is irrelevant at this point in the race. His opponent is Cruz, and many Trump supporters will now see a viable alternative who is speaking to their anger.
The challenge for Trump headed out of this debate is to keep up the persona he exhibited in the second hour and stay on message as a conservative, especially on the issue of immigration. But if he is going to continue to make his closing argument about being insulted by Cruz’s taunt of “New York values,” he’s making a colossal mistake. Some of the elite conservative media might feel insulted by Cruz’s comments, but they need to learn that the center of gravity for conservative voters is in the South and the West, and very much anchored in rural culture. There are very few primary voters who will agree with Trump on this exchange. He is needlessly allowing Cruz to get to his “right” and paint him as a Manhattan liberal.
On another note, the true winner of the debate is Maria Bartiromo. Who would have thought we’d live to see a time when a moderator would actually ask the questions about Muslim immigration (100,000 green cards a year) and the broad question of mass migration. Jeff Sessions loomed large at the debate.
Unfortunately, all of the candidates dodged the question in some manner. They all seemed to feel comfortable parlaying the issue exclusively into national security and the question of “vetting” but refused to discuss the general cultural problems with mass migration and the influx of Sharia-adherent immigrants, in particular. This is about a lot more than ISIS. We’ve had the cultural and security concerns that arise from mass migration and the radicalization of Muslim immigrants long before 2013.
The moderators also deserve credit for finally discussing the rise in crime. Once again, this was a missed opportunity for several of the candidates to bring up the get-out-of-jail free agenda and distinguish themselves from the Washington group think on criminal justice.
On a final note, the conservative media will make a big deal of Marco Rubio, but ultimately he is still not speaking to where voters’ hearts lie at this juncture. And worse for him, Chris Christie continues to gain prominence and this debate will only continue the perfect establishment chaos that is preventing Rubio from making this a three-man race.
On net, this debate will only secure the status quo as a two-man race, albeit Cruz will likely gain on Trump in the coming days. (For more from the author of “Cruz Schlongs Trump, Trump Schlongs Jeb” please click HERE)
By Bradford Richardson. Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz on Thursday said National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is a “traitor” who should be “tried for treason,” shifting away from the praise he expressed for Snowden in 2013.
“It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason,” Cruz said in a statement to The New York Times.
“Today, we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia,” he continued. “Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason.”
Cruz struck a different tone when Snowden first went public with classified details about NSA snooping in 2013.
“If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light,” he said at an event hosted by The Blaze in 2013. (Read more from “Cruz Hammers Snowden, Labels Him a Treasonous Traitor” HERE)
______________________________
Cruz Has Problems With Goldman Sachs Loan
By Mick McIntire. As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.
Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago. (Read more from “Cruz Has Problems With Goldman Sachs Loan” HERE)
______________________________
Reasons That Cruz’s Goldman Sach’s Loan Will Continue to Give Him Grief
By Jennifer Rubin. He is still indebted to Goldman. (“As for the Goldman Sachs loan, it remains outstanding, though the balance has been reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000.”) Goldman, among other things, employs hundreds of workers on H-1B visas. Cruz used to advocate a huge increase in the number of H-1B visas, without, of course, saying he was on the hook to Goldman. . .
He didn’t simply “forget” to file the disclosure; he made up a self-reverential story to go with it. “Liquidate everything” really meant “get a honking-big loan from my wife’s company.” This will underscore his slipperiness on other issues, such as his stance on immigrant legalization. Can we take anything he says at face value?
Cruz’s campaign is built on the populist, anti-establishment narrative. That is how he won his Senate race in the first place and why it was a good reason for him to conceal the loan at a critical time in that race. (“Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president.”). . .
It is hard to say this is an oversight. . .Voters can surely draw the inference that he wanted to hide the loan. As the Times report noted, “Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders.” Saying this all got reported later when his seat was won is hardly an excuse. It’s evidence that Cruz was hiding the ball when it mattered to his election. . .
Oh, it was not just Goldman. The Times report says that “in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.” Citibank was another Wall Street firm tied up in the housing disaster. (Read more from “Reasons That Cruz’s Goldman Sach’s Loan Will Continue to Give Him Grief” HERE)
By B. Christopher Agee. Thursday’s GOP economy-focused presidential primary debate, hosted by the Fox Business Network, sought to get Sen. Ted Cruz’s take on Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address. Specifically, moderator Maria Bartiromo wanted to know what differences Cruz had with the optimistic economic picture Obama painted during Tuesday’s speech.
Saving his direct answer for the latter portion of his response, however, Cruz used the opportunity to address a pressing issue Obama’s address completely ignored.
“Today,” he said, “many of us picked up our newspapers and we were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads.”
Referring to the ships seized by Iranian forces earlier this week, Cruz lamented that Obama “didn’t so much as mention” their plight during his speech even as nine men and one woman remained in custody. He also noted that the act came just days before a deal is set to go into effect that would lift sanctions with Iran, releasing more than $100 billion.
Though the situation is “heartbreaking,” Cruz noted that “the good news is the next commander in chief is standing on this stage.”
If he is successful in his White House bid, the Texas legislator gave his word that “no serviceman or service woman will be forced to be on their knees.” (Read more from “Watch: Cruz Kicks off Debate With Massive Shot at Obama, Makes Powerful Vow to America” HERE)
_______________________________________
Trump’s Lead Over Cruz Doubles in Latest Poll
By Mark Murray. Donald Trump has more than doubled his national lead in the Republican presidential race ahead of Thursday night’s GOP debate here, according to the results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Trump is the first choice of 33 percent of national Republican primary voters – his highest percentage in the poll. He’s followed by Ted Cruz at 20 percent, Marco Rubio at 13 percent and Ben Carson at 12 percent. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are tied at five percent. No other Republican presidential candidate gets more than 3 percent.
Trump’s 13-point lead over Cruz is an increase from last month, when he held a five-point advantage over the Texas senator, 27 percent to 22 percent. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 00:20:062016-04-11 10:53:48Watch: Cruz Kicks off Debate With Massive Shot at Obama; Trump Excels, Doubles Lead
