You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Election’ tag.
Sarah Palin has done and said many foolish things. She is a hypocrite and a liar. She is a manipulator. She is dishonest. However the most illuminating event of her career as a politician was quitting her job as Governor. By quitting it was clear that she was unwilling to do the hard work necessary to fight for any principle in which she believed. By quitting she demonstrated that she felt no sense of loyalty to the people who had worked to make her election become a reality. When she quit her job as Governor, she confirmed that every person who had donated money to her campaign had wasted their money.
Now it appears that there is a real possibility that Trump will quit, either before the convention, or even after he gets the nomination. If he wins the nomination, and the Presidency, he might quit then.
When asked if he might quit after winning the election Donald Trump said: “I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens.” To even taunt reporters suggesting that quitting might be an option is unforgivable. Even if Trump believes he can make America great again, suggesting that he might quit is an indication that he might decide America is simply not worth it. Trump wrote The Art of the Deal. Amazon indicates it is the best selling business book of all time. Imagine the horror of watching Trump win the election, quit, and then write another best-seller, The Art of Quitting.
Remember when he introduced Palin, and made a point of saying that he RESPECTED her.
Who respects a quitter, except another quitter?
Sarah Palin would be the perfect person to write the forward to Trump’s book.
Perhaps the greatest President in American history was Abraham Lincoln. He is a perfect example of a person who never quit in spite of repeated hardship and failure.
Abraham Lincoln Didn’t Quit
- 1816 His family was forced out of their home. He had to work to support them.
- 1818 His mother died.
- 1831 Failed in business.
- 1832 Ran for state legislature – lost.
- l832 Also lost his job – wanted to go to law school but couldn’t get in.
- 1833 Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
- 1834 Ran for state legislature again – won.
- 1835 Was engaged to be married, sweetheart died and his heart was broken.
- 1836 Had a total nervous breakdown and was in bed for six months.
- 1838 Sought to become speaker of the state legislature – defeated.
- 1840 Sought to become elector – defeated.
- 1843 Ran for Congress – lost.
- 1846 Ran for Congress again – this time he won – went to Washington and did a good job.
- 1848 Ran for re-election to Congress – lost.
- 1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state – rejected.
- 1854 Ran for Senate of the United States – lost.
- 1856 Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party’s national convention – get less than 100 votes.
- 1858 Ran for U.S. Senate again – again he lost.
- 1860 Elected president of the United States.
If America elects any person who suggests, even before they are elected, that they might quit after the election, then we are the fools if we elect such a person.
A reporter for NBC indicates that inside sources in the Trump campaign express frustration that they just can’t get Trump to shut up! Every time he opens his mouth he seems to reveal what a bigot he is. At a time when white children 5 and under, are the minority in America, it seems that the Donald Trump would realize that offending the majority of voters in America isn’t a good idea.
Members of the Republican Party seem to have the same concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said “America is changing. When Ronald Reagan was elected, 84% of the electorate was white,”McConnell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This November, 70% will be. It’s a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans. And they’re an important part of the country and soon to be the largest minority group in the country.”
When former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer interrupted the discussion to inform Trump that his own campaign had asked surrogates to stop talking about the lawsuit in an e-mail on Sunday, Trump repeatedly demanded to know who sent the memo, and immediately overruled his staff.
“Take that order and throw it the hell out,” Trump said.
“Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” Trump said. “That’s one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren’t so smart.”
Trump’s five weeks as the presumptive nominee have been marked by several missteps: A refusal to release his tax returns, confusion among donors over which super-PAC to give money, audio of him using a pseudonym to act as his own publicist, failing to donate to veterans groups as promised until pressed by the media.
A clearly irritated Trump told his supporters to attack journalists who ask questions about the lawsuit and his comments about the judge.
“The people asking the questions—those are the racists,” Trump said. “I would go at ’em.”
Donald Trump is the biggest liability to his election in 2016.
For weeks “dave p” has tried to obtain information regarding the citizenship status of Ted Cruz. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking relevant information regarding the citizenship status of Ted’s father who is accompanying his son on the campaign trail. As I noted yesterday, in my own FOIA suit, the Federal Government, the least transparent in history, is so backlogged, that their attorney asserts they need at least TWO MORE YEARS TO COMPLY with the request, even though the original request was filed four years ago, and suit was filed one year ago, and even though the Judge ordered them to produce documents in 60 days.
Today dave p has included this comment, confirming that the Government is beginning the process of refusing to produce relevant information about a person running for the highest office in the country, the Presidency. When we elect a President, we put that single person in a position to do devastating harm to the entire country and to the entire world. Our President:
- is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy.
- has the power make treaties with Senate approval. He or she can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations.
- is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.
- can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.
- can issue pardons for federal offenses.
- can convene Congress for special sessions.
- can veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto is limited. It is not a line-item veto, meaning that he or she cannot veto only specific parts of legislation, and it can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress.
- delivers a State of the Union address annually to a joint session of Congress.
- is responsible for nominating candidates for positions in government, including cabinet positions, Federal Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
- send troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea).
- if there is an emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order.
- has almost limitless power to grant pardons to those convicted of federal crimes.
We have NO process in place to ensure that a candidate for President is qualified under the US Constitution to run for President. When a citizen, like dave, tries to get information that is important to every American, and for the future of our country, he is met with complete denial and delay. It was Ted Cruz who said that Obama’s mother’s citizenship was irrelevant because Obama was not born in the U.S. Ted was wrong. Obama was born in Hawaii, and his birth certificate has been produced. Ironically it is Ted Cruz who was not born in the United States. So the question now is whether Ted is qualified under the Constitution of the United States to be our President. There is no “public interest” more compelling than this question. If the Freedom of Information Act should EVER be a tool for citizens to obtain information, it is NOW.
This is the comment from “dave p”. Thank you dave for fighting this fight on our behalf.
this appeal to the uscis rejection of my foia/pa request is going out priority mail saturday morning.
April 22, 2016
USCIS FOIA/PA Appeals Office
Re: Freedom of Information Act Appeal – Case Number NRC2016041721
To Whom It May Concern:
On April 15, 2016, I received a letter from a Ms. Jill A. Eggleston, Director, FOIA Operations. She said that after carefully considering my request, that it was being denied in its entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (6) (Exemption 6). She continued by stating that in order to obtain these records, that my request must demonstrate one or more of the following criteria:
Written authorization from the individual(s) permitting disclosure of the records to me.
As I clearly stated in the opening paragraph of my original request:
I am requesting information as a private citizen under the Freedom of Information Act. I am not the Subject of Records being requested and I am not representing the Subject of Records. However, I do assert the disclosure of the Subject of Record’s information would further a public interest recognizable under the FOIA.
It was rather apparent that I did not file a FOIA/PA Request with a Subject of Records’ consent. What Ms. Eggleston didn’t say was that under the FOIA/PA, that if one does not or is unable to provide authorization that a request would still be processed, but release of records would be severely restricted to protect the privacy of another individual.
The second point she raised was unnecessary since I had also provided the following background information on the Subject of Records in my original request.
Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was born in Matanzas, Cuba on March 22, 1939.
The Subject of Records was 77 years old and clearly not a minor at the time of my request.
The third point raised the issue of proof of guardianship. I would allege that anyone who has paid attention to the current political campaign for president of the United States has heard, if not seen, the Subject of Records. He is put forth regularly as a spokesperson for his son, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, in Ted Cruz’s run to become his party’s nominee for president of the United States. While I am not alone
Page 2 of 9
in thinking that some of the ideas put forth by the Subject of Records are crazy, I do not believe it has been suggested by anyone that he is feeble enough of mind or body to be in need of a guardian.
The fourth point dealt with providing proof that the Subject of Records was deceased. Regarding that point, see my comment immediately above.
The last point indicated that there had to be a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interest(s) of the individual(s) and that significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the requested records.
I suppose if one were living under a rock for the last two years that it might be possible to have missed the discussion going on dealing with the citizenship status of Ted Cruz and whether or not he is a natural born citizen and thus meets the most restrictive constitutional qualification placed on an individual who seeks the office of president of the United States.
This is not only a topic of national, but international interest as well. It is a hugely historic issue which has never been addressed by the Supreme Court. There have been a number of lawsuits challenging whether or not the name of Ted Cruz should appear on various state primary and caucus ballots all of which have all been thrown out over technical issues. The substance of the natural born citizenship issue has never been addressed.
The records which have been requested would help to address those issues in a number of ways. The most important records would be those associated with the time spent by the Subject of Records when he left the United States in or around 1967/1968 to move to Canada and the period of time following his departure from Canada to return to the United States. Additionally, as noted in my original request, information contained in Form N-400 which the Subject of Records submitted to the USCIS would have information critical to the determination of the citizenship status of his son and thus have a critical impact on the presidential election this current cycle.
The Subject of Records, by his own admission, became a Canadian citizen. This, by various reports, happened between 1970-1973. Serious questions have been raised concerning his foreshortened timeframe for acquiring citizenship. Documents which have been requested would permit the construction of an accurate timeline for the Subject of Records’ movements back and forth between the United States and Canada. Entry and exit documents have no information, the release of which could reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Ms. Eggleston kind of summed up the rejection of my FOIA/PA request when she wrote:
Where a FOIA requester seeks information about individuals in personnel, medical, and similar files FOIA Exemption 6 protects from disclosure information that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
However, as I pointed out in my request, it is important to remember that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has declared that “under Exemption 6, the presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong as can be found anywhere in the Act”.
So, let’s cut to the chase about what the FOIA act does and doesn’t provide.
When she made her decision, she apparently overlooked that The Privacy Act of 1974 was enacted on December 31, 1974 and was not retroactive in respect of most of the documents which I am seeking.
Furthermore, when Ms. Eggleston so carefully pointed out there are concerns with protecting the privacy of another individual, she apparently overlooked the following:
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Section 552 (a) Definitions) states as follows:
For purposes of this section—
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
As described in my request, the Subject of Records, for most of the records which I am seeking, was neither a U.S. citizen nor an alien admitted for permanent residence. Therefore, any special protections, including the refusal to provide ANY documents, under the FOIA/PA simply do not apply since the Subject of Records didn’t have the required status under the FOIA/PA.
The Subject of Records was admitted into the United States via Key West, FL in 1957 on a Student F-1 Visa (see attached Port of Entry document). As you are aware, an F-1 Visa does not grant permanent residence status. In fact, great pains are taken by the consular officer conducting the interview to make sure the applicant is not using the Student Visa as a way of obtaining Permanent Resident status. When the Subject of Records made his application for a Student F-1 Visa, he had been accepted to the University of Texas, Austin to study for a four year program and was then to return to his native country, Cuba. The Subject of Records graduated from the University of Texas, Austin on June 3, 1961 and earned a BA in mathematics.
While at the University of Texas, Austin, the Subject of Records met and married Julia Anne Garza, a United States citizen who was born in McAllen, TX on April 5, 1959. They travelled to Cuba in the Summer of 1959, returning to the U.S. in September 1959 (see attached entry documents). They had two children the first of whom was born in November 1961 and the second in November 1962.
By his own admission, the Subject of Records has publicly stated that he applied for and was granted asylum after his graduation in 1961. Asylum however does not come with a grant of permanent residence. So, none of the documents in the Subject of Records A-File which I requested commencing with the year of entry into the United States on his Student F-1 Visa in 1957 up until the time the Subject of Records was granted Permanent Resident status sometime between the years 1962-1967 would not be documents given any special protection under the FOIA/PA because the Subject of Records was neither a United States citizen nor a permanent resident. As such, these records should be released with minimal redaction.
Page 4 of 9
Sometime in the 1967/1968 timeframe, the Subject of Records moved to Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his girlfriend, Eleanor Darragh Wilson, a divorcee who had married Alan Boon Wilson in the United States in 1956 and together they moved to London, England in 1960. Alan Wilson has publicly reported their marriage ended in divorce in 1963. Eleanor had borne a child in London in 1966 who died in December 1966 (I have attached a copy of what is purportedly a consular form reporting the death of her child).
It was sometime after Eleanor returned to the United States and settled in New Orleans in 1967 that she met the Subject of Records (see attached Selective Service System Registration card) who had separated from his wife and children in favor of Eleanor (see attached Petition For Separation From Bed and Board filed by Julia Garza, wife of Rafael B. Cruz vs Rafael B Cruz). The Subject of Records failed to file an answer to Julia’s petition and a default judgment was entered in favor of Julia and against The Subject of Records who was ordered to pay alimony in support of their two children. Julia was granted permission by the court to return to Texas to continue her education and remove the children from the jurisdiction of Louisiana.
Thirteen months later, Julia filed a Petition for Absolute Divorce (see attached documents) which was granted. Again, the Subject of Records failed to answer the Petition and a default judgment was entered against the Subject of Records and in favor of Julia Garza (Cruz) with a continued obligation on the part of the Subject of Records to pay alimony in support of their two children.
It is believed the Subject of Records and Eleanor Darragh Wilson left the United States to go to Canada prior to the above referenced divorce (and possibly before the judgment for separation was granted) to start a new business, R B Cruz and Associates, and a new life together. At that time, the Subject of Records effectively had forfeited any status he had in the United States. The Subject of Records married Eleanor in March 1969 and has self-reported that he obtained Canadian citizenship. Their names appeared on a Canadian general election list of eligible voters for the 1974 election (see attached document).
They had a child, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on December 22, 1970. By all accounts, no Consular Report of Birth Abroad was filed for Ted Cruz at the time of his birth or, for that matter, at any time while he resided in Canada. It has been publicly reported and Ted Cruz has admitted that he had Canadian citizenship which he renounced in May 2014 (see attached document). The Subject of Records continued to live in Canada until 1973/1974 when he abandoned his family and reentered the United States and went to Houston, found Jesus, then returned to Canada.
These actions raised a number of questions which I had hoped the requested documents would answer in whole or in part. So, from the time the Subject of Records moved to Canada and forfeited any status he might have had as an alien residing in the United States until the time he moved back to the United States and presumably reapplied for Permanent Resident status (minimally from 1968-1976), the Subject of Records was neither a United States citizen nor a Permanent Resident and as such his records would not receive any special protection under the FOIA/PA and should be released with minimal redaction. It is also possible that the Subject of Records might have claimed status through his wife, Eleanor, who claimed she was a U.S. citizen, although her actions while living in London and Canada may have negated that.
Page 5 of 9
The document which I requested be released first was the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization and I do not know if the Subject of Records was a Permanent Resident at the time he submitted this form. However, as pointed out above, even without the consent of the Subject of Records these records could still be released (though severely restricted) to protect the privacy of the Subject of Records (again, assuming that he was a Permanent Resident at the time he filed this form.
Following is a detailed look at the Form N-400 (see attached document which in its current state consists of 18 parts over 21 pages) with a discussion regarding what might be considered to be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in the event information in it were to be released.
Part 1. Information About Your Eligibility (only one box to be selected)
Since the Subject of Records was divorced from his thought-to-be second spouse, Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz in 1997 (see attached documents) choices (B) and (C) would not apply since he was not married for the requisite amount of time immediately preceding his Application for Naturalization. Choice (D) would also not apply since the Subject of Records fled to Canada on the heels of his Selective Service registration on July 26, 1967. The date he chose to file with the Selective Service Administration (see attached registration card which was obtained about 5 years after he was legally required to file) is probably not an accident and should also be viewed as a thumbing of his nose to the United States. The 26th of July Movement (Spanish: Movimiento 26 de Julio; M-26-7) was a vanguard revolutionary organization led by Fidel Castro that in 1959 overthrew the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship in Cuba.
Therefore, that leaves the choices (A) Have been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for at least 5 years, or (E) Other (Explain).
In either case, showing which box was checked would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Part 2. Information About You (person applying for naturalization)
Questions 1, 2 and 3 ask the Subject of Records to list the various names he has used. Since the Subject of Records tells everyone his name, the release of his name would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (see attachment).
Question 4 pertains to whether or not the Subject of Records would like to legally change his name. Since he still goes by and uses the name Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, it would seem this box was checked “no”. Releasing this information would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 5 asks for his social security number. This would be personally identifiable information the release of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would be expected to be redacted.
Page 6 of 9
Question 6 asks for the USCIS online Account Number (if any) and would probably also be considered as personally identifiable information and redacted as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 7 asks for Gender of the Subject of Records. Unless he is a transgender and has not come out of the closet, the release of this information would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 8 asks for Date of Birth. Since this information is already in the public domain, the release would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 9 asks for the date the Subject of Records Became a Lawful Permanent Resident. The release of this information could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 10 ask for Country of Birth. Since the Subject of Records readily discusses this and his son, Ted, also published it in his book which was questionably titled “A Time For Truth”, the release of this information could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 11 asks for his Country of Citizenship or Nationality. The Subject of Records, by his own admission, and as addressed in his son’s book, has made this a part of the public record and therefore the release of this information could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 12 asks whether or not the Subject of Records has a physical or developmental disability which would prevent him from demonstrating his knowledge and understanding of the English language and/or civics requirements for naturalization. Since the Subject of Records had been living in English speaking environments for about 48 years at the time he answered this question, and since the Subject of Records has publicly stated that he had memorized the bible so that he could quote it from memory during his speaking engagements, it is highly doubtful he would have checked anything but “no”. However, if by some chance he checked “yes”, then the Medical Certification, Form N-648, for Disability Exceptions would be withheld as a document that would reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Question 13 asks question designed to determine if the Subject of Records should be exempted from the English Language Test. These questions are centered on identifying the number of years the Subject of Records has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident. The answer to this question could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Part 3. Accommodations for Individuals With Disabilities and/or Impairments
Again, anyone who has seen the Subject of Records travelling around the country giving stump speeches for his son or in any of his evangelical events would clearly see that he is not deaf, blind, hard of hearing, and doesn’t use a wheel chair to get around and function. Therefore, it would be expected this box would have been checked “no” and the release of this information could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
Page 7 of 9
Part 4. Information to Contact You
Part 5. Information About Your Residence
Parts 6 and 7 deal with information about the parents of the Subject of Records and with Biographic Information about the Subject of Records
Part 8 deals with Information About Employment and Schools Attended
Part 9 deals with Time Outside the United States during the 5 years immediately preceding his Application for Naturalization
Whether or not the Subject of Records enjoyed a Permanent Resident status or not, the release of this information could not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Part 10 deals with Information About Marital History
Part 11 deals with Information About Children
Part 12 deals with Additional Informaton About the Subject of Records
Page 8 of 9
contradict the story which the Subject of Records or his son have told or written about his life, they would not reasonably be considered to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Part 13. Applicant’s Statement, Certification, and Signature
Part 14. Interpreter’s Contact Information, Certification, and Signature
Part 15. Contact Information, Declaration, and Signature of the Person Preparing This Application, if Other Than the Applicant.
Parts 16., 17., and 18 were completed in the presence of the USCIS Officer conducting the interview.
To summarize, your position is to evaluate any right to privacy the Subject of Records may have against the overriding public interest if this information were released. In this case, the Subject of Records has thrust himself into the public spotlight. As a condition to accepting the benefits that accompany public recognition, the law requires that such individuals accept a diminished level of protection of their privacy interests. Because the First Amendment confers less protection on public persons than it does on private individuals, the Constitution encourages the media to freely disseminate information about candidates for office, government officials, and other figures who influence or shape the course of events.
If the Subject of Records had merely filtered out embarrassing or harmful facts in order to influence opinion that might be one argument against releasing documents. However, in this case, both the Subject of Records and his son, who is seeking election to the highest office in the land, have actually created a narrative and I would argue that it is virtually impossible to argue for any privacy
Page 9 of 9
interests (excepting personally identifiable information which is not already in the public domain) that would even begin to outweigh the public interest in having access to these records.
As I proposed In my original request, everything which I have asked to be produced is of historic value and is in the public interest and deserves to get the widest coverage possible, I suggested that it be placed on your online library of documents which either have been or are expected to be frequently requested for access.
In closing, the overriding issue is that most of the documents which I have requested do not fall under any protection provisions of the FOIA/PA since the Subject of Records was neither a citizen of the United States nor an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of the documents which have been requested. Since the FOIA/PA was enacted on December 31, 1974 and was not retroactive, the Subject of Records has very little protection under the Act. Denial of these records in their entirety by citing the POIA/PA is an exercise merely designed to frustrate access to those records which are specifically provided under the Act.
Thank you for your anticipated immediate attention to this appeal.
cc: Rand Paul, United States Senator for Kentucky
Attachments: Passenger list, Key West, FL showing initial entry by Subject of Records at line 17
The Eyes of Texas and the entire country are upon Rafael Cruz. We don’t like what we see!
Senator Cruz is running for President of the United States. To say that he is a liar, deceptive, and running for self-glorification is an understatement. He was not born in the United States, and his father was not an American citizen. In his short term as Senator he single-handedly cost the American people 24 BILLION DOLLARS, by causing a shut down of the government. But what bothers me most regarding Cruz and most politicians is his inability to tell the truth. Regardless of political philosophies, the ability to tell the truth should be the most important characteristic of our elected officials. If a candidate is willing to lie, it doesn’t really matter what they say they believe, or what they will do in office. If they are willing to lie to get elected, we have no reason to believe ANYTHING THEY SAY.
With regard to Ted Cruz, he has identified “truth” as a critical characteristic for politicians since he ran for Senate. He approved this message during his Senate campaign:
“A Time for Truth”
Yet, Cruz is a perfect example of everything wrong with politics in America. He is a Harvard educated attorney, but it seems Harvard forgot to teach him the importance of truth. Here is one glaring example:
A fundamental platform of Cruz’s Senate race is the representation that he “ran for Senate entirely on my own money.”
In his bid for President, Rafael has taken the bold, and dangerous position, that the government should have let the big banks fail. That means that all the depositors in the big banks would have lost all their money.
The outrageous thing is that Cruz’s wife works for Goldman Sachs, so it seems unlikely that he’d let Goldman fail which would put his wife out of work. Moreover, it has now been revealed that Cruz did NOT finance his senate campaign with his own money, but instead took out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs. Citibank and Goldman Sachs were among the six largest banks that the fed bailed out. Those six banks received $7.77 trillion in loans. At the same time these banks were advertising their solvency and strength. Thus the American people paid to bail out the banks, including those that loaned Cruz money, and both Cruz and the banks lied about the business dealings of Cruz and the banks. Additionally, Cruz lied about these loans when making legally required disclosures regarding his campaign finances. Why is that important? Every candidate is required to disclose the identity of any institution supporting his/her campaign so that the public can evaluate the motivations of politicians once in office, if they favor a campaign donor or lender. Thus Cruz lied about how he financed his campaign, he publicly took the position that he opposed helping the very banks that financed his campaign, and then he lied again when making disclosures about how he financed his campaign pursuant to federal laws.
Rafael (Ted) Cruz has championed the rights of the working class. To emphasize his point, Cruz singled out Goldman Sachs when he said:
“Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”
Ted (Rafael) Cruz is a liar. He is the worst kind of politician as he is intentionally deceiving. No wonder fellow Republicans have such disdain for him. When John McCain called him a wacko bird, he was being kind.
Lewis Black describes how we feel about Cruz.
Remember is 2012 when she Voted for Gingrich?
She was impressed with Herb Cain.
She endorsed Mitt Romney.
The advice given by Sarah to Carly Fiorina was to be more like Trump. She didn’t tell Fiorina that she should stop telling lies. She didn’t suggest that Fiorina was lucky that she didn’t have a daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock, repeatedly. She didn’t tell Fiorina that she was lucky her husband wasn’t a two-toned, peeping tom, pimp.
Gloria Steinem identified Fiorina as worse for American women than Palin.
Palin also previously endorsed Ted Cruz.
Palin supported Marco Rubio.
Palin said that Trump is the “best thing to happen to the permanent political class since, oh, I guess the beauty of the Tea Party genuine movement rose up and shined light on crony capitalism, and then pulled the rug right out from under status quo politicians who just kind of embrace that permanent political class. ”
She praised Jeb Bush’s sensitivity to special needs children.
She has ignored Trump’s mocking of the disabled.
The unmistakable conclusion is that Sarah Palin has no moral compass. She goes in the direction of anyone she thinks might win, regardless of their positions, leadership, education, or ethics.