Trump visits 9/11 memorial

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Saturday toured the 9/11 museum in New York City, according to reporters and onlookers on social media.

Trump left Trump Tower around midday with a motorcade. He was with wife Melania Trump, according to one report.

The campaign did not allow reporters to accompany the business mogul inside the building, and did not allow questions afterward.

Link

 

Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs Has Transformed Into a Trump Activist on Twitter

If he had any pretense of objectivity, Lou Dobbs abandoned it this weekend, tweeting up a storm of pro-Donald Trump activism.

Dobbs is the host of Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs Tonight, a commentary show he has hosted on Fox Business Network weeknights at 7pm since 2011. Many believe Dobbs lost his job at CNN after his proclivity to vent his conspiracy-laden opinions on a host of issues, perhaps most prominently regarding his anti-immigrant stance, compromised his objectivity in the eyes of the network.

Dobbs’ recent pro-Trump Twitter spree recalls his history of aligning himself with Trump’s extremist views — as when he gave airtime to birther conspiracies on his CNN show — a move that pre-empted him losing his job at the network in 2009.

Other conservative pundits have demonized Democrats and called for Republican unity, but have stopped short of this kind of frenzied endorsement for a single GOP candidate. Sean Hannity, for example, has taken to tweeting out #NeverHillary, but has restrained himself Dobbs’ level of rabid enthusiasm for Trump.

Dobbs, on the other hand, has been blasting Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Ted Cruz — the other two Republican candidates still seeking the nomination:

Some of Dobbs’ tweets link to articles to which the Fox Business anchor adds a dash of commentary. But many others are just unabashedly pro-Trump bromides punctuated by The Donald’s hashtag: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain.

In one tweet, he wonders aloud what Mormons are “preaching,” since a new poll showed that the LDS members were more likely to support a Democrat than Trump:

Sometimes Dobbs replaces an editorial’s headline with his own, even more ardenltly pro-Trump gloss:

Dobbs also praised the “great reporting” of Mike Cernovich, a Gamergater and Trump fan whose website, Gawker writes, is “a repository of the dullest, lamest forms of male chauvinism and pickup artistry.” The article in question attempted to discredit Michelle Fields, the former Breitbart reporter, who claimed Breitbart threw her under the bus after she accused Trump’s campaign chairman of assaulting her at a rally.

Dobbs retweeted a “prayer for the safety of Donald Trump.” Objectivity guidelines would suggest that Dobbs issue a similar public “prayer” for the other candidates — something he doesn’t appear to have done.

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 11.56.48 AM

He characterized a successful rally, despite “3rdWorld” and “unlawful” protester activity, as a “triumph.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 11.57.39 AM Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 11.57.54 AM

Dobbs described an anti-Trump post from Mitt Romney as “hateful,” by virtue of the fact that it articulates an anti-Trump position.

Does adding the hashtag signal an endorsement? Arguably, Dobbs could be using the tag to draw Trump supporters to his tweets. But — in aggregate — phrases like “Trump’s Triumph,” the mocking of Mormons who may be backing a Democrat, the characterization of anti-Trump endorsements as “hateful” and anti-Trump protest as “3rdWorld,” to an unmistakable conclusion: Lou Dobbs has surrendered his objectivity.

Dobbs was not always so enthusiastic about Trump. Speaking to Jimmy Fallon in 2011, Dobbs was witheringly skeptical of Trump’s qualifications to be president, saying: “He’s a well-meaning guy, a smart guy, but you know, one thing folks should always understand are their limitations.”

Link

Parade of endorsements to Donald Trump

Trump endorsed by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

LEGAL Immigrants 4 TRUMP!
A.D. Amar, Anand Ahuja & Davendra Makkar,
Founders of Indian-Americans

Tony Mele, (Chairman of the Latino National Republican Coalition of Rockland County, NY) Endorses Trump!

 

The Real Ted Cruz

I studied nearly every word the Texas senator uttered during the immigration showdown. He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president.

Ted Cruz is the only true conservative running for president. That’s the message of his campaign: He’s the only senator who stood and fought against amnesty, Obamacare, and Planned Parenthood. His finest hour was the defeat of immigration reform three years ago. Democrats wanted to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Cruz said no. He took on the establishment and won.

It’s a good story, and the immigration fight tells us a lot about Cruz. But the fight didn’t happen the way he says it did. Cruz didn’t marshal the opposition or even take a firm stand. He’s a lawyer, not a leader. He chose his words exquisitely so that down the road—say, in a future campaign for president—he could position himself on either side of the immigration debate. And he delivered, with angelic piety, speeches that he now claims were lies.

Cruz told his version of the story last month at a campaign debate in Las Vegas. The “battle over amnesty,” he said, was “a time for choosing.” In that battle, Cruz stood with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama to secure the border. Sen. Marco Rubio, Cruz’s Republican presidential rival, stood on the other side, colluding with Democrats to push “a massive amnesty plan.” “I have never supported legalization,” Cruz told the debate audience. In fact, he asserted, “I led the fight against [Rubio’s] legalization and amnesty.”

I’ve studied nearly every word Cruz uttered during the immigration showdown. I’ve put it together in a timeline that runs from January 2013, when Cruz was sworn in, to the end of June 2013, when the Senate passed the bill. The timeline, which you can read here, shreds Cruz’s mythical account. But it also paints an unsparing portrait of how Cruz—who has now clawed his way to the front of the Republican presidential pack—thinks and operates. Here’s what really happened and who Cruz really is.

In January 2013, when Cruz entered the Senate, he held the same view he espouses today. The proper way to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, he said, was to “enforce the laws.” That meant barring them from employment and deporting them. Democrats wanted to offer these people a legal route to stay and earn U.S. citizenship. Cruz opposed that idea. Such a concession, he argued, would reward lawbreakers and punish honest people who were waiting to immigrate legally.

In late January, a bipartisan group of eight senators—four Democrats and four Republicans, including Rubio—issued an immigration reform proposal that included a path to citizenship. Cruz could have ruled that provision out, but he didn’t. For months, he expressed “deep concerns” about it but made no commitment. He cautioned that a path to citizenship would alienate many Republicans. But when reporters asked Cruz the yes-or-no question—“Would you vote against anything that has a path to citizenship?”—he refused to answer.

One plausible reason for Cruz’s reticence was that he wanted changes in immigration policy. He favored tighter borders, better enforcement, and an easier process for law-abiding applicants. He might be able to get those things in a deal. Furthermore, a path to citizenship was popular. In polls, more than 60 percent of Americans endorsed the idea, depending on how the question was phrased. Even self-identified Republicans supported it. So politics and policy told Cruz to keep his options open. But principle—fairness to legal immigrants and respect for the rule of law—stood in the way.

Cruz was in a tough spot. But there was a way out: Undocumented immigrants could be offered something less than citizenship. They could be given a path to “lawful permanent resident” status—a green card—that would let them live and work in the United States. They would be allowed to stay but not to vote.

Many Republicans liked this idea. It also scored well in polls. When Americans were asked to choose between creating a path to citizenship and creating a path to permanent residency, many preferred the latter. By offering green cards instead of deportation, conservatives could mobilize a national majority against citizenship.

Still, Cruz had a problem with the green-card idea. Under the proposed immigration framework, green cards would lead to citizenship. And that, Cruz explained, “worries me,” because “if we pass something that allows those here illegally to achieve citizenship, it means you’re a chump for having stayed in your own country and followed the rules.”

By late April, Cruz had worked out a solution. By permanently barring undocumented immigrants from citizenship, Congress could punish them and respect the priority of legal immigrants. In that context, as an inferior status, green cards were acceptable. At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 22, 2013, Cruz urged his colleagues to pass legislation that foreclosed citizenship but would “ensure that we have workers who are here, out of the shadows, able to work legally.” Two days later, in an interview aired on CBS, he said, “There probably could be a compromise” on undocumented immigrants “if a path to citizenship was taken off the table.”

Ted Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration on May 9, 2013, in Washington.

Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

In May, Cruz spelled out his compromise. He offered an amendment that would deny citizenship to anyone who had entered the United States illegally. One stated purpose of the bill, Cruz noted, was “to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally, to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen. But what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship, so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.” Legal status without citizenship, Cruz argued, was “reform that a great many people across this country, both Republican and Democrat, would embrace.”

On May 21, the Judiciary Committee rejected Cruz’s amendment. But he didn’t give up. He reintroduced the amendment in the full Senate. In one venue after another—a forum at Princeton University, a speech on the Senate floor, an interview with the Washington Examiner—he made his case that the green-card compromise would grant “legal status” while still imposing “consequences.” Even after the Senate passed the bill without his amendment on June 27, Cruz continued to explain that he had offered to accept green cards, not citizenship, because “there needs to be some consequence for having broken the law.”Citizens”

That’s a short version of what happened in 2013. Cruz moved on to other issues, and the bill never came up for a vote in the House. There’s more to the story, and we’ll get to that. But let’s consider what we can assess so far.

 Three elements of Cruz’s current story about the immigration fight are clearly false. First, it’s not true that he embraced a “time for choosing.” Cruz postponed his immigration decision as long as possible. He refused to answer point-blank questions about whether he could accept a path to citizenship. When he finally came out against it, he did so in the context of offering a path to legal status. Even at the end of May 2013—four months after the immigration reform framework was unveiled, five weeks after the bill’s text was finalized, and a week after the Judiciary Committee passed it—Cruz still refused to say whether he would vote for the bill if it included his amendments.

Second, it’s not true that Cruz “led the fight” against amnesty. On April 21, 2013, three months after the path to citizenship was announced, Politico reported that Cruz still hadn’t “yet decided whether to become the face of the opposition.” The article noted that Cruz had “repeatedly avoided talking to reporters” about the bill and “was instead focused on fighting gun control legislation.” A year later, Politico detailed how House members had organized the opposition. The story said Cruz wasn’t even one of the most active senators. In November, PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, re-examined the record and “found no evidence that he [Cruz] should get credit for stopping the bill from reaching a vote in the House. During the summer of 2013, Cruz was one of many voices in the Senate opposed to the bill. It was House Republicans who blocked the bill, and they were already calling for its defeat.”

Third, it’s not quite true that Cruz fought “shoulder to shoulder with Jeff Sessions,” as Cruz puts it. It’s certainly not true that their positions were “identical.” Cruz and Sessions served together on the Judiciary Committee. Both men offered amendments to the bill. Sessions’ amendments proposed to restrict access to green cards. Cruz’s did not. This is important, because Cruz now claims that his alliance with Sessions proves that he never supported legal status for undocumented immigrants.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to the press on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 25, 2013.

Photo by Jason Reed/Reuters

And that leads us to two more difficult questions. One is: Did Cruz support legalization? An ordinary person, after reading the narrative presented here, would probably say yes. But Cruz and his aides insist that he never explicitly embraced legalization. And they’re right.

No matter how carefully you study the timeline of Cruz’s statements, you’ll never catch the Texas senator endorsing—as opposed to conceding—legal status for undocumented immigrants. On May 21, 2013, he told the Judiciary Committee that his amendment would “allow that to happen.” On May 31, when he was asked whether he would “grant” green cards or “move” people from illegal to legal status, he replied: “That would be the effect of the amendment.” On June 11, he attributed legalization, under his amendment, to “the underlying bill.” Again and again, Cruz chose language that implied an offer of legal status but technically avoided responsibility for it.

Today, Cruz touts this record as proof of his innocence. To understand why, you have to watch his interview with Greta Van Susteren on Dec. 18, three days after the Las Vegas debate. Van Susteren reads from a letter issued by Cruz and three other senators on June 4, 2013. The letter faults the Judiciary Committee for rejecting “an amendment (Cruz 3) that would have allowed immigrants here illegally to obtain legal status—to come out of the shadows and work legally—but not to be eligible for citizenship.” Van Susteren, like any normal person, reads this sentence as a tacit endorsement of legalization. But Cruz points out that allow doesn’t necessarily mean support. He insists: “The letter says Rubio’s bill gives them legal status. It doesn’t say my amendment gives them legal status.”

Cruz thinks this distinction vindicates him. He proudly tells Van Susteren: “Greta, truth matters. I have never once supported legalization.” But what’s striking in the interview, in the letter, and throughout Cruz’s statements in 2013 and in 2015 is how carefully he parses words such as supported, legalization, and truth. Cruz doesn’t think like a normal person. He thinks like a lawyer. For him, truth isn’t a matter of plain meaning. It’s a matter of technicalities.

That’s why nobody can prove Cruz endorsed legalization in 2013. Like a crime scene without fingerprints, Cruz’s verbal record is a work of art. On Dec. 15, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, unable to pass judgment on Cruz’s account of the 2013 fight, surrendered to his ingenuity, explaining: “Cruz positioned himself in a way so that he would appear pro-legalization if an immigration overhaul passed—or appear anti-legalization if hard-liner stances became more acceptable.”

But Cruz doesn’t just deny that he supported legalization. He denies that his amendments were serious at all. He now claims that every measure he proposed in 2013—to tighten border security, streamline legal immigration, and close the path to citizenship—was a ploy to sabotage the bill.

To appreciate the audacity of this claim, you have to watch the speeches Cruz delivered three years ago. At a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 21, 2013, Cruz pleaded for “bipartisan agreement and compromise,” declaring, “I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass.” On May 29, he assured Washington Examiner reporter Byron York, “My objective was not to kill immigration reform, but it was to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem.” And on May 31 at Princeton, Cruz told his former professor, Robert George: “I believe if the amendments I introduced were adopted, that the bill would pass. And my effort in introducing them was to find a solution that reflected common ground and that fixed the problem.”

Now Cruz says he was faking it the whole time. He says everyone knew he was just trying to sabotage the bill. But that’s not true. Many conservatives believed him. York, in his write-up of the May 29, 2013, interview, took Cruz at his word. George, in his public conversation with Cruz, also took the senator seriously. And in a Fox News interview on Dec. 16, just after the Las Vegas debate, Bret Baier made clear that he wasn’t in on the joke, either:

Baier: It sounded like you wanted the bill to pass.
Cruz: Of course I wanted the bill to pass—my amendment to pass. What my amendment did—
Baier: You said the bill.
Cruz: —is take citizenship off the table. But it doesn’t mean—it doesn’t mean that I supported the other aspects of the bill, which was a terrible bill. And, Bret, you’ve been around Washington long enough. You know how to defeat bad legislation, which is what that amendment did …

Van Susteren, in her conversation with Cruz two days later, seemed baffled:

Van Susteren: You are now saying that the whole purpose of the amendment back in 2013, that you put on, was a poisoned pill. It was meant and designed to kill the whole bill.
Cruz: And it succeeded. …
Van Susteren: And your strategy, just so we’re clear—your strategy was to put this poisoned-pill amendment—
Cruz: That was actually five amendments that were all designed to defeat this.

These people—York, George, Baier, Van Susteren—aren’t stupid. They work in the thick of conservative politics. What confounds their ability to understand Cruz isn’t ideology or intelligence. It’s artifice. Normal people can’t sustain a façade of earnestness for months. Normal people don’t lecture others about good faith while lying and conspiring. To live a sane life, you have to assume that the people with whom you interact are, to some extent, real. York, George, Baier, and Van Susteren are normal. Cruz is not.

If Cruz was faking it in 2013, consider the extent of his deceit. He didn’t just put on performances for his colleagues in the committee and on the Senate floor. He requested an interview with a conservative publication, ostensibly to clear the record, and lied to its reporter. He went to his alma mater and feigned sincerity to his mentor in front of an audience of students. And he didn’t stop when the Senate passed the bill. In an interview with the Examiner on July 1, 2013, and again in an interview with the Texas Tribune on Aug. 21, 2013, Cruz cited his legalization offer as evidence that he was willing to compromise.

Was the whole thing a ruse? Only Cruz knows. But the rest of us can draw a few conclusions. First, Cruz is a spectacular liar. If he wasn’t lying about his motives in 2013, he’s lying about them now. That’s not speculation; it’s a distillation of the only two logical possibilities. Cruz’s current performance is just as straight-faced as his 2013 performance, which he now dismisses as fraud. If Cruz told the truth to York and George—if his 2013 amendments were for real—then in the past month, he has lied to Baier, Van Susteren, and many other reporters, not to mention the public.

Second, Cruz got through the entire immigration fight without leaving any solid evidence that he was faking it. That’s remarkable. Last month, FactCheck.org asked Brian Phillips, a Cruz campaign spokesman, whether he could “point to any instances in which Cruz tipped his hand” that the 2013 legalization offer “was not a plan he [Cruz] actually proposed, but was a legislative strategy to make a point.” Phillips said he couldn’t. “We were not trying to let on our legislative strategy,” Phillips explained. But Cruz’s 2013 record is so pristine, so perfectly devoid of nods and winks, that it’s impossible to know what his real game was. And that’s what sets Cruz apart. Lots of politicians lie. Cruz did something more impressive. He talked and talked and still managed to leave himself both options: to deny in the future that his amendments were sincere, or to claim that they were.

Press aides on Cruz’s presidential campaign, and at least one person who worked for him in the Senate, say his offer of legalization without citizenship was never serious. But there are two clues they can’t explain. One is Cruz’s insistence that his amendment adhered to conservative principles. Throughout the 2013 debate, Cruz emphasized that by imposing sufficient “consequences” on lawbreakers, his ban on citizenship made green-card legalization acceptable. He was preparing a rationale that could justify a deal.

The second clue is that Cruz also prepared himself politically. Maybe it was assumed in Cruz’s Senate office that his amendments were fake. Maybe Cruz even said so in private, for what that’s worth. But outside the office, Cruz did something that doesn’t fit that story. He poll-tested legalization in his own state.

On June 19, 2013, Cruz gave a long radio interview to Rush Limbaugh. Today, Cruz claims that this interview turned the tide against the immigration bill. That’s false: A week after the interview, the Senate passed the bill, 68 to 32, and—as Cruz repeatedly argued at the time—the bill, as written, was already doomed in the House. But during the call, Cruz said something curious. “We polled Hispanic voters in Texas,” he told Limbaugh. “We asked, ‘Do you support a pathway to citizenship or work permits that do not allow citizenship?’ And a plurality, 46 percent of Hispanic voters in Texas, supported a work permit without citizenship. And only 35 percent supported a pathway to citizenship.”

Cruz brought up the poll to quote the numbers. But what’s far more interesting is the structure of the poll question, who asked it, and where. This wasn’t a public survey. It was conducted by Cruz’s own pollster, a month after the senator’s election and just before the start of the immigration debate. So the question was written to be useful to Cruz. And the question didn’t pit a path to citizenship against the no-legalization, border-security policy Cruz now claims to have stood for. It pitted a path to citizenship against a different option: “Give them work permits to allow them to work here legally but do not make them eligible for U.S. citizenship.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz immigration news conference
Sen. Ted Cruz, flanked by Sens. Mike Lee (left) and David Vitter, speaks about immigration legislation during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on June 20, 2013.

Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Cruz loved the question. Between June 19 and July 1, 2013, he quoted its results at least three times. The point, he argued, was that Hispanics were on his side. But that explanation left three puzzles. One puzzle was: If Cruz wanted to prove that Hispanics were on his side, why did he ask them about work permits instead of border security? Why would Cruz poll-test a policy of letting undocumented immigrants “work here legally”—and brag about the positive results six months later—if he weren’t seriously considering it?

The second puzzle was: Why Texas? If the survey were designed to influence other lawmakers, the logical sample would have been voters nationwide. Instead, the question was asked only in Cruz’s state. And the third puzzle was the timing. In December 2012, Cruz wasn’t facing an election. He was facing a decision about how to handle immigration.

For me, these two clues—the poll and the “consequences” argument—show that Cruz was serious about legalization. First, he checked out the political benefits and risks in his own state. Then he spent at least two months preparing a public rationale for a deal. But if I’m wrong—if Cruz was never open to work permits or green cards—that’s much worse. It would mean that Cruz polled Hispanics to find out whether, by pretending to offer legalization, he could divide and neutralize them.

We can’t know what Cruz really thought. And we don’t need to know. From the record assessed here, we’ve learned enough about him to decipher his words and predict his behavior. He’s a passionate, indefatigable liar. He speaks with the cadence of a preacher but the craft of a lawyer. When the time for choosing comes, he keeps his options open. Don’t let his vehemence fool you. Watch every word he says.

When you study Cruz this way, through the lens of history, his pretense of clarity dissolves. Last August, he ducked questions about undocumented immigrants, saying “we can have a conversation” about that after the border is secured. In November, he issued an immigration plan that said nothing about a path to citizenship or green cards. When reporters asked Cruz whether he would rule out legalization, he changed the subject.

In the Las Vegas debate on Dec. 15, Cruz tried to silence the doubters. “I have never supported legalization,” he proclaimed. Rubio, unsatisfied, pressed him: “Do you rule it out?” The time for choosing had come, and Cruz was ready. He turned to Rubio, raised an index finger for emphasis, and vowed: “I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.” I do not intend. There’s nothing more Ted Cruz than that.

Link

Ann Coulter: MOONIES FOR CRUZ

Congratulations to Ted Cruz for winning his fourth primary! Usually Donald Trump wins the primaries — where you go and vote, like in a real election. Cruz wins the caucuses — run by the state parties, favored by political operators and cheaters.

Until now, the only primaries Cruz has won are in Texas (his home state), Oklahoma (basically the same state) and Idaho (where Trump never campaigned).

So now, Cruz has finally won an honest-to-goodness primary. This is great news for him, provided: (1) the general election is a caucus, and (2) the national media universally denounce Cruz’s Democratic opponent the same way the Wisconsin media denounced Trump.

In that case, Cruz should do fine.

The Cruz-bots don’t care. They don’t care that they’re being used as a cat’s-paw by the Never Trump crowd, and that a brokered Republican convention is more likely to end with Bernie as the nominee than Cruz.

The Cruz cultists don’t even care about plain honesty, which I always thought was a conservative value. Republicans used to be appalled by guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons. Now they are guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.

It’s all hands on deck to stop the only presidential candidate who wants to save America from the cheap labor plutocrats.

Cruz has flipped to Trump’s side on every important political issue of this campaign — which only ARE issues because of Trump. These are:

— Quadrupling the number of foreign guest workers to help ranchers and farmers get cheap labor: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.

— Legalizing illegal aliens: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.

 — The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.
 — Building a wall: Cruz was against it, and now is for it.

These are all positions Cruz has changed since being a senator — most of them he’s flipped on only in the last year. I’m supposed to believe that U.S. senators can sincerely change their minds about policies it was their job to know about, but a New York developer can never change his mind about pop-offs he made more than a decade ago.

Back in 1999 — 17 years ago — when Donald Trump was considering a presidential run on the Reform Party ticket, he said this when asked about abortion by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press”: “Well, look, I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”

Russert then asked him specifically if he’d ban partial-birth abortion. Trump said, “No. I am pro-choice in every respect and as far as it goes, but I just hate it.”

A year later, Trump wrote in his book “The America We Deserve”: “When Tim Russert asked me on ‘Meet the Press’ if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would indeed support a ban.”

Sometime in the intervening 16 years, Trump became fully pro-life.

You can say you don’t believe him — just as you might say you don’t believe Cruz has truly changed his mind on amnesty, the wall, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. But to claim Trump is pro-choice today — present tense — is what’s known as a “lie.”

But that’s what Cruz says over and over again, including in a campaign ad — and not one of those “super PAC” ads that count even less than a retweet. A Cruz ad plays the clip from that 1999 interview where Trump says, “I am pro-choice in every respect,” repeats it three times, and then cuts to a narrator proclaiming: “For partial-birth abortion, not a conservative.”

These are the kinds of lies that used to drive conservatives crazy when the Clintons did it. Not anymore. All’s fair in smearing Trump.

Trump has said a million times that he’d scrap Obamacare and replace it with a free market system (which, by the way, he explains a lot more clearly than Washington policy wonks with their think-tank lingo). Merely for Trump saying that we’re “not going to let people die, sitting in the middle of a street in any city in this country,” Cruz accuses him of supporting “Bernie Sanders-style medicine.”

Yes, because Trump is against people dying in the streets, Cruz says that Trump thinks “Obamacare didn’t go far enough and we need to expand it to put the government in charge of our health care, in charge of our relationship with our doctors.” Over and over again, Cruz has repeated this insane lie, telling Fox’s Megyn Kelly: “If you want to see Bernie Sanders-style socialized medicine, Donald Trump is your guy.”

Trump’s alleged support for the kind of national health care they have in Scotland and Canada is another big fat lie. Trump was issuing his usual effusive praise before he drops the hammer — “It actually works incredibly well in Scotland. Some people think it really works in Canada.” Then he continued, in the very same sentence: “I don’t think it would work as well here. What has to happen — I like the concept of private enterprise coming in. … You have to create competition.”

Cruz and his cult-like followers lie about Trump wanting a health care system akin to Canada’s and Scotland’s. They lie about his supporting Obamacare. They lie about his supporting partial-birth abortion. They lie about his ever having been a Democrat. They lie about his campaign manager assaulting a female reporter.

I tried being nice after Florida, when it became clear that Trump was the choice of a majority of Republican voters, nearly choking on a column praising Cruz for his admirable flip-flops to Trump’s positions on immigration and trade. I censored loads of anti-Cruz retweets. But — as with the Clintons — you offer these Cruz-bots an olive branch and they bite off your hand.

The next thing I knew, the Cruz cult was accusing Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of criminal battery for brushing past a female reporter. Anyone who claims this video shows a “battery” is as big a liar as the liberals who lined up to say Clinton did not commit perjury when he denied having “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky.

If James Carville and Paul Begala had a baby, it would be a Cruz supporter.

They lie about my own tweaking of Trump — I didn’t like the Heidi retweet! — amid a tidal wave of support. Trump is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime who will build a wall, deport illegals and pause the importation of Muslims. He’s the only one who cares more about ordinary Americans than he does about globalist plutocrats. Does anyone really think I’m “tiring” of him because of a retweet?

Apparently, for slavishly devoted Cruz-bots, a normal human making a small criticism of her preferred candidate is unfathomable! That fact alone proves how dishonest they are about their own candidate.

I was under the misimpression that I was dealing with adults and not swine like Carville and Begala, willing to twist someone’s words to win a momentary political advantage. Mostly, I was under the misimpression that honesty was still a conservative value.

FRAUD: Michelle Fields’s Honduran Born Mama Is Pro-Amnesty, Anti-Trump Activist #GrabGate

Michelle Fields’s mother, Xiomara, is a Honduran-born activist who opposed Donald Trump long before her daughter’s alleged incident.

The elder Fields runs a nonprofit for illegal immigrants in Los Angeles that receives a substantial portion of its funding from the U.S. and California tax payers.

A 2014 posting on a forum for the Honduran consulate in Los Angeles accuses Fields’s mother of cheating illegal immigrants.

We reached out to both Fields and will update this post when we hear something back.

Michelle Fields clearly has a conflict of interest regarding Trump.

Her mother’s federal money will be cut off if Trump kicks out all the illegals makes America great again.

Here’s just one of the many anti-Trump statements that Fields’s mother has since deleted from her Facebook:

mama anti trump statement

Fields’s mama deleted this from her Facebook.

Fields, for her part, deleted a tweet from her mother warning that Donald Trump may deport her.

(We found the tweet though!)

Michelle Fields's mother suggests she'll be deported at a Trump event.

Michelle Fields’s mother suggests she’ll be deported at a Trump event.

Fields’s mother is also an immigration consultant connected to pro-amnesty Honduran organizations in the U.S. She is a leader and founder of La Casa del Hondureno (The Honduran House). She was also president of the Honduran-American Alliance, according to the Los Angeles Times in 1999.

 

Fields, pictured at right at an event promoting benefits for illegal aliens and Hispanic immigrants.

Fields, pictured at right at an event promoting benefits for illegal aliens and Hispanic immigrants.

Fields was quoted in a Spanish language newspaper discussing all she does for illegal immigrants.

We help them fill out applications deferred action and Temporary Protected Status (TPS); we also have immigration lawyers who come to give free legal advice… says Xiomara Fields, president of the organization.

La Casa del Hondureño is dedicated to guide the community in legal, educational and health issues, in order to contribute to progress and knowledge of migrants.

The idea is to guide the community and tell people that do not be fooled; there are many people with asylum cases that are defrauded by notaries who pose as lawyers, promising something that will not ever meet… she adds.

This organization offers free legal seminars once a month, where reporting on immigration protections, labor rights, prevention of domestic violence and victims of crime benefits.

They also provide free counseling programs county health for pregnant women and older adults; and report on the procedures for establishing a business.

People who come to our countries is what makes the most difficult tasks and this is the way to help them, so they have a better quality of life… said Fields.

This organization offers Hondurans the process of birth, marriage and death; likewise, it provides support to families who need to repatriate a corpse and those require a rap sheet.

The only thing we charge shipping is spending and what is paid to tramitador, or $ 30 for a birth certificate. Sometimes it is more expensive to get help from a family member… says Fields.

Ada Martinez-Befort, prosecutor of the organization, ensures that these contributions allow finance the operations of the office. However, higher costs are covered by community events. [From Google translate because you aren’t paying me (ha!) to do any translations for you. Emphasis is ours].

Fields mama

Ay carumba! Like mama, like daughter?

Fields mama 2

As I am banned from Twitter, go ask Ms. Ayer-Fields for yourself. And please tell user @1Gueest that I’d like to offer him (or her–I ain’t no sexist) a job.

Fields’s boyfriend Jamie Weinstein is similarly anti-Trump. Weinstein’s late father Harris Weinstein was a major Republican donor.

It was Weinstein who first promoted Fields’s story.

Fields claimed on national television that she was a supporter of Trump’s but given her family’s financial incentives to lie and her history of lying.

Why should we believe her?

Link

Molenbeek Hit And Run: How The Mainstream Media Spread Another False ‘Islamophobia’ Story

The journalists and publications which implied the hit and run in Molenbeek this weekend was a ‘far right’ anti Islam attack had no evidence to suggest that it was as they reported, but they knew what story they wanted to write.

That’s why most hesitantly wrote “during” a “far right demonstration” instead of bluntly labelling the driver a “far right activist” as did the Daily Mail, the first publication to report on the story.

Instead of acknowledging the categorical error, or clearly reporting the truth as it emerged, however, the Mail quietly edited their original article, burying the factual change three quarters of the way down the page, and failing to issue a correction or clarification.

Their headline shifted from: “…Muslim Women Is Mown Down By Grinning Far-Right Activist”, to, “…By Grinning Driver…” (see above) and the critical new details only appeared in the sixth paragraph:

“Police later announced that they had arrested two men, believed to have been the car’s driver and passenger, who have been named as Redouane B. and Mohamed B – both of whom are thought to be residents of Molenbeek.”

Numerous other articles in the Independent, Express, New York Post and others are yet to be amended or followed up with the truth. Some, like Evening Standard, only published their misleading story this morning, after all the facts had become widely available.

Journalists who bothered to check with sources in Brussels were able to ascertain the man was not ‘far right’, but a local, Muslim teenager, a fact reported two days ago by those such as Channel 4’s Paraic O’Brien.

The Times, a well respected paper know as the UK’s ‘paper of record’, was one of the only major publication to report the perpetrators names from the start.

However, they only did so in the fifth paragraph, opening with the unnecessarily unclear: “A woman was seriously injured when she was struck by a speeding car during scuffles between Belgian police, far-right protesters and local youths…”

This reporting may have something to do with the fact that the ‘far right’ was mostly well behaved in Molenbeek this weekend. The only significant disturbance came from ‘rioting’ local migrant youths and bored, violent ‘anti fascists’.

Predictably, the ‘Islamophobia’ industry was quick to seize upon the fantastical story.

Britain’s ‘Tell Mama’ Organisation, which was once backed by the government and says it “supports victims of anti-Muslim hate” and “measures and monitors anti-Muslim incidents” tweeted about the story no less that TEN times (right).

 

As one Twitter user exclaimed: “Its amazing, these people are more outraged by fake tales of ‘Islamophobia’ in Brussels than the deadly terror attacks!”

Similarly, just last week, the murder of Asad Shah, a well loved Muslim from the persecuted Ahmadiyyah sect, rocked the British media.

However, the Guardian and others completely omitted the fact the killer was a Muslim, and the rest of the media lost interest when blame could not be pinned on ‘Islamophobia’.

The latest incidents highlight how the UK media is desperate to report false ‘Islamophobia’ stories, often failing to correct its reporting when it becomes clear that the crimes in question have no link to ‘Islamophobia’.

In December last year the media was led to believe that a normal Muslim family were the victims of ‘Islamophobia’ when they were simply trying to go to Disneyland. The story soon unravelled as it became clear that the family had connections with the same “army of darkness” mosque attended by the recent San Bernardino terrorist attackers. Breitbart London noted the discrepancies in their story almost immediately.

In September 2015, the BBC used a three-year-old video of a non-‘Islamophobic’ incident to highlight the “rise in Islamophobia”.

In June 2015 the BBC promoted a story about a man who couldn’t get a job because he had a Muslim name. But Breitbart London exposed the fact that not only did he change his name, he also removed all reference to an extremist, Islamist school from his Curriculum Vitae (Resume).

At the point of publication, none of the media outlets involved in the false reporting have responded to Breitbart London for comment. But the Daily Beast’s Dean Obeidallah did tell us to “f**k ourselves”.

Link

error: Content is protected !!