If Ted Cruz wins the Republican nomination, he will lose. It couldn’t be more obvious. He will not take a single purple state. He hasn’t taken one yet (Iowa he won by a dirty trick) and he couldn’t even secure the South, his supposed allies. Plus his preacher ways, looks and speech patterns – the pregnant pauses, over dramatic sentences – turn off plenty of religious people and seculars as well.
So why is the GOPe backing him? Is it just a desperate move? Or is it because he is really one of them?
Do they want to lose to Hillary Clinton? The answer is yes.
You might find that unbelievable, but some of them have outright said it.And more of the same is in Politico; not exactly an Alex Jones type of blog. “GOP Elites Line Up Behind Ted Cruz” is the headline.
“Republican elders, desperate to stop Donald Trump, are increasingly convinced they would rather forfeit the White House than hand their party to the divisive Manhattan billionaire.
“That’s why the party’s establishment is suddenly rallying behind Ted Cruz, a man they’ve long despised and who has little chance, in the view of many GOP veterans, of defeating Hillary Clinton on Election Day.”
The Conservative Treehouse blog explains the why of it very well:
Point One – Every media website, MSM or Alternative, and media outlet MSM or Alternative, is dependent on revenue. Those who control the revenue control the content of those outlets – period. Including large blogs like Lucianne, AT, and the Salem Communications Group (Human Events, Red State, Twitchy,) as examples.
Other obvious examples include: The Wilks Brothers purchased and underwrite The Daily Wire, a Ben Shapiro propaganda site. Robert Mercer purchased and underwrites Breitbart.com. Rupert Murdoch purchased and underwrites Fox News, etc. Each of these are influence agents.
You should think of all media, traditional and non-traditional, as influence agents. Then ask yourself why and what are they trying to influence?
You should do the same thought processing with polls. Almost all polls are influence agents. What and who are they trying to influence? What is the value in broadcasting a Frank Luntz focus group? Why broadcast what a group of people think in Florida? What’s the purpose?… etc.
There are some, a few, valid media polls. But someone always has to pay for the polling process. Again, these are not altruistic endeavors.
♦ Point Two – There will always be things with are true, but unfortunately can never be proven. Two examples:
◊ First Example – I firmly believe the IRS targeting of Tea party and Patriot groups was a specific outcome of 1) the 2010 mid-term “shellacking”, 2) The SCOTUS Citizens United decision, 3) The White House seeking a way in the early years of their term to keep control of their legislative agenda.
Jack Lew (Obama’s Chief of Staff) and various White House agents, met and brainstormed ideas to dilute the position of their opponents. As a consequence the IRS and DOJ scheme to weaponize the Dept. of Treasury began.
After discovery, Jack Lew became secretary of the Dept. of Treasury, insuring protection; and well, you know the rest of the political ‘hide-the-guilty-pea’ shell game. – HERE’s WHY – (w/ dozens of MSM embed links)
◊ Second Example – I firmly believe the Benghazi murder fiasco was blood on the hands of both the Democrats (Via Hillary Clinton/State Dept) -AND- The Republican party leadership (via Intelligence Oversight Gang-of-Eight).
Both presidential finding memos in 2011 (Libya) and 2012 (Syria) authorized the joint State Dept./CIA operations which included various covert arms deals that make Iran/Contra seem like childs-play. The oversight for both operations fell upon the Congressional Intelligence “Gang-of-Eight”. – HERE’s WHY – (w/ hundreds of MSM embed links)
However, despite my own opinion of these two examples being grounded in facts – that I can point to with specific reference and certainty – there’s also never going to be any accountability for either usurpation because both sides of the UniParty benefitted from them.
• The Democrats (White House and Leadership) and Big GOPe Republicans (Leadership) both benefited from the Tea Party being targeted.
• The Democrats (White House and Leadership) and Big GOPe Republicans (Leadership) both benefited from hiding their duplicity in the Libyan/Syrian covert operations. Both sides of the UniParty (4 members each party – with oversight) have blood on their hands.
Thus neither of these two events can ever hope to find accountability. However, that doesn’t mean the truth underwriting my opinion isn’t real. It just means history will never find the exposition in the news media. 99+% of America is oblivious.
Here’s the disconcerting unfathomable part.
We could never reconcile, fully reconcile, how Senator Ted Cruz fit into the grand scheme of the GOPe roadmap. For the longest time we could find evidence of his affiliation, but never enough substance to identify the motive. Unlike all of the other “splitters” there simply wasn’t enough historical reference to rule in, or out, a specific motive.
Cruz took office in 2013 and announced his decision to run in March 2015. A short window to find the trail of evidence needed to determine motive. As a consequence we always granted him benefit of the doubt.
However, as time progressed throughout 2015 (post announcement) things clarified which made the October ’13 though July ’14 begin to make more sense. Sometime around late 2015, with mounting evidence of affiliations and activity, I realized with specific certainty that Cruz was NOT outside the roadmap, he was actually within it.
However, the final pixels needed for a clarified motive remained elusive. Well, that was until last week and the revelation which fit like the missing piece of the Cruz/GOPe puzzle.
The GOPe dislikes Ted Cruz for the same reason the larger majority of the U.S. is turned off by him, his transparently inherent ‘do-anything-to-gain-status’ selfishness. The original distrust born NOT because he’s an outsider per se, but rather because he’s an INSIDER who decided the best way to advance himself was to bite the hand that fed him.
When Ted worked for George W Bush, he was angling for a bigger position than he received. As described, Cruz actually wanted to be the U.S. Attorney General.
Cruz was thinking (as a campaign lawyer who helped win the 00′ Florida election challenge) he had more pull than he actually did. Thinking he possessed more juice because of some of his Texas connections. His marriage to Heidi was supposed to solidify his position because she was actually held in higher regard than Ted within the Texas/GOPe sphere.
Ted Cruz was seen by the insiders as over ambitious, an opinion that was only reinforced by his ambitious reach and expectation to be named Attorney General.
So Ted Cruz decided since he knew the ins and outs of the GOPe (insofar as the GOP and Bushes were one and the same), and since he couldn’t advance any further within that sphere, that he would run against them.
He ran for Senate against a GOPe favorite in 2012 and won. Cruz hoping this would show the GOPe that he was a serious contender and they would welcome him back into the fold.
Except, his actions backfired, mostly because of Ted’s outsider rhetoric, and also because his freshman year (2013) was spent antagonizing the very political group he would need to gain additional influence.
The customary view of Ted Cruz choosing to run for POTUS, appeared on its surface to be a slap in the face Jeb Bush and the GOPe. However, in reality, when considered against the backdrop of the GOPe Roadmap, his run was an olive branch by Ted to the GOPe.
How? Because two-year Senator Ted Cruz entered the race to split the conservative vote in order to help Jeb win.
Cruz was never supposed to be in his current position after Iowa. New Hampshire, was always where Jeb’s path began. Cruz was a needed splitter in the SEC states, and if the race got down to him and Jeb, well, the fact that Ted isn’t natural born was going to come out, forcing him to drop out, leaving Jeb and his millions in donor money as the last man standing.
This is the classic GOP maneuver. An almost identical scheme to the process that allowed Mitt Romney to attain the nomination, with little support, in 2012. Why do you think Jeb always spoke about winning without the base, and also losing the primaries to win the nomination?
In hindsight, it all makes sense now, doesn’t it?
Again, Trump was the wildcard the GOPe didn’t expect. All other angles and players were carefully, strategically, and electorally mapped out. But Trump screwed up the entire plan. In July 2015, not knowing how it would all work out, Ted Cruz was sent to cozy up to Trump with a non-aggression pact, but Trump was no dummy.
Trump also knows the eligibility issue is a major problem, a major problem that can be beneficial at a contested/open convention.
However, no-one knows the scope and multi-trillion dollar consequences of the race better than those who constructed it (Battle Group #3). As an outcome, those who understand the scope of the current race, are also the same power-brokers who work earnestly to control every possible outcome.
Throughout the first two months of 2016, as the race began to take on increasing shape, and against the reality the Trump juggernaut of vulgarians were not going to be easily stopped, Trump’s “eligibility ace-in-the-hole“, would need to be diminished as an insurance policy against Trump being victorious.
How would such influential power-elites remove the risk inherent in the Trump Eligibility Card? Well, if you think deeply enough about it, they’d need to reference prior historical activity when such consequential presidential election decisions are made.
Who would ultimately be making such an emergency eligibility determination? The “Natural Born Citizen” argument has never been settled before. Mostly, because no-one with standing has ever faced a need to challenge its meaning.
But Trump has that “standing”. And Trump has that eligibility challenge available to him. So who would ultimately be charged with making such a consequential decision for all future American politicians to follow?
Follow the problem to its natural conclusion and you’ll find The Supreme Court of The United States. Who on that panel would be most likely to be considered an “originalist” within that body of constitutional decision makers – and who would be virtually guaranteed to side with Trump’s challenge?
Donald Trump won New Hampshire February 9th, 2016. Jeb Bush, who, according to the best laid plans – was supposed to begin rolling down the road of the GOPe roadmap, finished FOURTH.
Donald Trump won South Carolina February 20th. Jeb Bush, again, finished FOURTH with only 7.8% of the vote. Jeb suspended his campaign.
In between New Hampshire on the 9th, and Jeb’s exit on the 20th, was February 13th.
On February 13th, 2016 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the originalist, died unexpectedly, on a ranch in Texas….
…. as a direct and specific outcome, and as bizarre as it seems, against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential election, both sides of the UniParty benefit.
Just a Reminder, this is an insurgency. – The modern enemy of Wall Street is Main Street vulgarians. The enemy of the RNC/GOPe is not Democrats, it’s Grassroots Conservatives, more vulgarians.
The Republican Party, and the Republican media apparatus, view us as their enemy. We are the enemy they need to protect themselves from:
In 2014, the RNC approved selection rules that govern how each state’s delegates are portioned out from the primaries. Under one of the changes, states holding their primaries between March 1 and March 14 will have their delegates doled out proportionately with election results, a change that will likely stymie a movement candidate.
States that have primaries on or after March 15 will be winner-take-all states.
That’s important because another RNC rule change requires that a candidate must win a majority of delegates in eight or more states before his or her name may be presented for nomination at the 2016 Republican National Convention.
With 18 GOP presidential candidates, for now, it will be that much harder for any candidate to win a majority in any state, let alone eight. (Article July 2015)
Now, ask yourself, why would the RNC want to “stymie a movement candidate“? Who exactly does that benefit? Obviously, the “non-movement” candidate, ie “the turtle“.
Isn’t the entire reason for campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc. to make a movement/momentum?
In addition Rule #40 changed in 2014 from previously five needed state wins, to a newer threshold of eight (8):
Officially, it’s Rule 40 in the RNC handbook and it states that any candidate for president “shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention. (article March 2014)
Again, ask yourself who does this benefit? A candidate can win seven states outright, and still not have their name presented for nomination?
These rules were made/affirmed in 2014 – Who or what exactly was the GOP concerned about blocking in 2016 that would necessitate such rules? When combined with other rule changes you can clearly identify a consolidation of power within the RNC apparatus intentionally constructed to stop the candidate of the GRASSROOTS from achieving victory.
Ahead of the American people and our welfare, the status quo must win. Those in DC have too much invested, along with their wealthy allies, to let an outsider come and shake it all up.
Even if it means having Hillary Clinton and losing any possibility of turning the Supreme Court towards the right.
It’s all about power and money.