The Wife of Ted Cruz https://tiburoncalifornia.wordpress.com/.../heidi-and.../ SO WHAT IS THE TRUTH? ~ i'D LIKE TO KNOW ~What Say YOU???
~ Shannon Cila · WordPress ·
For anyone who cares, here are my reasons I support the candidate I've chosen and why I am turning from most Evangelicals' first & second darlings. I know my views are not popular in either my current circle of Christian fundamentalist friends in Iowa and the Midwest, nor in my circle of Liberal-leaning friends and family of my secular past mainly congregated in the Pacific Northwest and Texas.
The article I've posted is about Cruz and is meant for that Christian circle. It delineates the big reasons why Cruz, though a compelling Conservative candidate, is not getting my support. Very important: Read to the end.
As I've said before, i feel he's been deceptive as shown in his voting record on TPP and fast track, but this Christian writer points out that Cruz has clearly lied about his alliances, too, misleading the Right about his views, such as Tea partiers and Evangelicals.
Senator Ted Cruz's positions favoring global trade agreements are especially troubling, for they aim toward the NewWorld Order and global wealth redistribution. Rubio, too, strives toward this end (Rubio, by the way, is even less desirable than Cruz, for his record on immigration is dismal, he's beholden to big donors, and I don't believe he qualifies based on citizenship).
Trade deals have served to destroy our nation's economy and national sovereignty. They are in essence, instruments of global wealth redistribution, or Socialism, code word "Social Justice." America has been on the short end of the stick on all of these deals, though these politicians continue to promise huge benefits to us, ever since Clinton ushered China and Taiwan into the WTO fold back in the 1980s- an economic epic fail for the U.S.
I awoke from a dream this morning where we Americans had suddenly become the Refugees in our own country. Our homes & property confiscated, we wandered homeless, living in vehicles, seeking safe havens, while foreigners usurped the land and our domiciles.
I hope it's not a harbinger of what's to come at the rate things are deteriorating before our very eyes.
Who we vote for is going to matter. A lot.
Do we want more of the same, or will we choose to take a risk on a new direction that seeks to return to what we once knew and treasured, to reinstate the nation and the bedrock values it was built great upon, that we've fought and bled for, and also died for, since it's inception so long ago?
It is my hope and prayer that all of us venture to learn everything we can about our candidates, and weigh the pros & the cons.
Dishonesty and deception is a huge red flag when it comes to matters of national policy and motives in the international arena.
Certainly no one candidate can be everything to everyone. Are we seeking a deified saint? No. But the biggest thing to know is, where does this candidate intend to take our country?
For those poor, deceived friends who believe that Socialism will bring Utopia to our nation, Bernie Sanders will be your gleeful choice, but Socialism was never the road our Constitutional Republic was intended to take.
As for Clinton, who openly admitted under oath she lied and connived in the handling of Benghazi, in which our men suffered horribly because of her indifference, and then succumbed to that horrific torture- how can I, in clear conscience, ever cast a vote for someone so evil as to wonder why it even matters at this point? To the parents & families of those men, it will ALWAYS matter! And it will to me, too. To cast a vote for her would be a moral travesty in my mind. I will NEVER EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
But Cruz has demonstrated a definite intention of taking our nation toward the New World Order, and this is a direction I personally cannot and will not champion.
Furthermore, Cruz's beliefs have been called into question by a respected Christian radio commentator, Brannon Howse of Worldview Weekend. Ted Cruz's pastor father is involved in a church that follows the Word of Faith, New Apostolic Reformation heresy of the Seven Mountain Mandate.
According to Howse, "Huch is a major false teacher that teaches that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God."
See link here: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/…/exposing-worldview-ted-cr…
This is a red flag for me, but should certainly be for those who are voting for him only based on his perceived piety and Christian values.
I think you all know by now who my choice is at this point. This is by no means set in stone, but suffice it to say I am by no means just jumping on someone's bandwagon who sounds good. Sure, my guy's a little rough on the edges and is not as slick and smooth, golden-tongued, or as classic-looking as most politicians.
But that is exactly where the appeal begins. The beltway, Mainstream Media, and Big Brother Government Establishment despise him because they cannot control him. Isn't this what we want? Who else can break up this corrupt cabal that is our pretend two party system? For this the proverbial underdog still has my endorsement so far. That's not likely to change unless we see him suddenly embrace Islam and the flood of unvetted, undocumented immigrants; veer toward open borders; tout Socialist values of wealth redistribution; pander to the media chumps; reject 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights; apologize for calling things out the way he sees it; turn his back on veterans; denounce Christian values; promote amnesty; endorse Common Core; or begin raking in special interest group and unions bribe money. I don't see that happening.
Until then the "Make America Great Again" bumper sticker will remain proudly displayed everywhere I go, and I don't foresee that changing, or else I'll be eating my words and lamenting the tentative future this great nation faces.
I know all of you are rooting for the one you think is best, and for that you have my admiration and respect. I, too, will do the same. God bless.
Beltway Confidential
Morning Examiner: Republicans already losing debt limit war
Politico
has never been kind to House Republicans, so maybe this morning’s Jim
Vandehei, Mike Allen, and Jake Sherman item on what they will demand in
exchange for a debt limit hike is just plain wrong. But if it is
accurate, Republicans are in for certain failure in the coming debt
limit fight. Politico reports:
Remember, even though many journalists refer to raising the debt limit in units of time (months, years, etc.), the debt limit is actually measured in dollars. Currently it is set at $16.394 trillion. In the past, Boehner has traded a dollar decrease in spending over the next ten years for a dollar increase in debt limit now. But “a dollar-for-dollar decrease in spending in the time period covered by that debt increase” is a different formulation. That would be a dollar in spending cuts now for a dollar in debt limit hike now. In other words, a trillion dollar debt hike would require a trillion dollar spending cut
But that would require spending cuts just as large as not raising the debt limit at all. If the debt limit is not raised, the federal government would still take in enough money to pay existing debt obligations, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. But virtually everything else would face steep cuts. Overall, the federal government would have to cut spending by about 44 percent. Cutting $1 trillion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget would require similar levels of cuts. It is simply unworkable.
It is an absolute travesty that our federal government has reached a point that simply paying our bills, without adding to the debt, would require a 44 percent cut in spending. House Republicans have every right, indeed they owe it to their constituents, to set America on a different path. But cutting government spending by 44 percent right now would cause severe economic pain — pain for which the country would rightly blame Republicans.
Americans do want to rein in spending. Allowing the $1.2 trillion sequester to happen would be a positive step in that direction. Those would be real spending cuts House Republicans could take credit for back home. But there is only so much spending that can be cut right now. House Republicans need to come up with a more realistic price for raising the debt limit, otherwise they are setting themselves up for certain failure.
From The Washington Examiner
Examiner Editorial: For Obama, deficits don’t matter any more
Tim Carney: Jack Lew — From K Street to Wall Street to Treasury
Byron York: Defense spending can and should be cut — in the right way
Michael Barone: History suggests that era of entitlements is nearly over
In Other News
The Wall Street Journal, Ugly Choices Loom Over Debt Clash: The showdown over the nation’s debt ceiling could force the government to consider drastic steps to manage its limited cash, including delaying trillions of dollars of payments to employees, Social Security recipients, contractors and others.
The New York Times, Both Sides in Gun Debate Want To Punish Background-Check Liars: Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.
The Washington Post, Maryland Gov. O’Malley to push for tougher gun-control rules: Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will seek to institute some of the nation’s strictest gun-licensing requirements, ban assault weapons and restrict visitor access to schools in one of the most expansive government responses sought to last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
The Washington Post, Sour U.S.-Russia relations threaten Obama’s foreign policy agenda: From Syria and Iran to North Korea and Afghanistan, Russian President Vladimir Putin holds cards that he can use to help or hurt Obama administration objectives.
The Los Angeles Times, California’s debt still a heavy cloud over state’s future: Gov. Jerry Brown proclaimed last week that California, which now has enough cash to pay its day-to-day bills, can no longer be described by naysayers as a “failed state.”
Newsday, Gun permit map used by burglars to target White Plains home: A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.
Righty Playbook
Merrill Matthews and Mark Litow on Obamacare’s sticker shock.
Paul Mirengoff catches Bill Clinton lying about gun control.
Eliana Johnson on Colin Powell’s bizarre defense of Chuck Hagel.
Lefty Playbook
BuzzFeed reports that the Federal Reserve killed the trillion dollar coin.
Paul Krugman attacks Jon Stewart for his trillion dollar coin coverage.
The Center for American Progress has produced a 13-item gun control wish list.
To pacify conservatives, [Boehner] made two promises to his members that will greatly restrict his ability to craft a compromise in the spending fights ahead. The first promise was to bring to the floor only legislation a majority of his members support and do it through the committee process. The second was to increase the debt limit only in exchange for a dollar-for-dollar decrease in spending in the time period covered by that debt increase.The first promise is perfectly reasonable. House Leadership should be as open and transparent as possible when crafting legislation that deals with out nation’s fiscal problems. But the second promise, “a dollar-for-dollar decrease in spending in the time period covered by that debt increase” would be no different than not raising the debt limit at all.
Remember, even though many journalists refer to raising the debt limit in units of time (months, years, etc.), the debt limit is actually measured in dollars. Currently it is set at $16.394 trillion. In the past, Boehner has traded a dollar decrease in spending over the next ten years for a dollar increase in debt limit now. But “a dollar-for-dollar decrease in spending in the time period covered by that debt increase” is a different formulation. That would be a dollar in spending cuts now for a dollar in debt limit hike now. In other words, a trillion dollar debt hike would require a trillion dollar spending cut
But that would require spending cuts just as large as not raising the debt limit at all. If the debt limit is not raised, the federal government would still take in enough money to pay existing debt obligations, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. But virtually everything else would face steep cuts. Overall, the federal government would have to cut spending by about 44 percent. Cutting $1 trillion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget would require similar levels of cuts. It is simply unworkable.
It is an absolute travesty that our federal government has reached a point that simply paying our bills, without adding to the debt, would require a 44 percent cut in spending. House Republicans have every right, indeed they owe it to their constituents, to set America on a different path. But cutting government spending by 44 percent right now would cause severe economic pain — pain for which the country would rightly blame Republicans.
Americans do want to rein in spending. Allowing the $1.2 trillion sequester to happen would be a positive step in that direction. Those would be real spending cuts House Republicans could take credit for back home. But there is only so much spending that can be cut right now. House Republicans need to come up with a more realistic price for raising the debt limit, otherwise they are setting themselves up for certain failure.
From The Washington Examiner
Examiner Editorial: For Obama, deficits don’t matter any more
Tim Carney: Jack Lew — From K Street to Wall Street to Treasury
Byron York: Defense spending can and should be cut — in the right way
Michael Barone: History suggests that era of entitlements is nearly over
In Other News
The Wall Street Journal, Ugly Choices Loom Over Debt Clash: The showdown over the nation’s debt ceiling could force the government to consider drastic steps to manage its limited cash, including delaying trillions of dollars of payments to employees, Social Security recipients, contractors and others.
The New York Times, Both Sides in Gun Debate Want To Punish Background-Check Liars: Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.
The Washington Post, Maryland Gov. O’Malley to push for tougher gun-control rules: Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will seek to institute some of the nation’s strictest gun-licensing requirements, ban assault weapons and restrict visitor access to schools in one of the most expansive government responses sought to last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
The Washington Post, Sour U.S.-Russia relations threaten Obama’s foreign policy agenda: From Syria and Iran to North Korea and Afghanistan, Russian President Vladimir Putin holds cards that he can use to help or hurt Obama administration objectives.
The Los Angeles Times, California’s debt still a heavy cloud over state’s future: Gov. Jerry Brown proclaimed last week that California, which now has enough cash to pay its day-to-day bills, can no longer be described by naysayers as a “failed state.”
Newsday, Gun permit map used by burglars to target White Plains home: A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.
Righty Playbook
Merrill Matthews and Mark Litow on Obamacare’s sticker shock.
Paul Mirengoff catches Bill Clinton lying about gun control.
Eliana Johnson on Colin Powell’s bizarre defense of Chuck Hagel.
Lefty Playbook
BuzzFeed reports that the Federal Reserve killed the trillion dollar coin.
Paul Krugman attacks Jon Stewart for his trillion dollar coin coverage.
The Center for American Progress has produced a 13-item gun control wish list.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
No comments:
Post a Comment