Immigration watchdog: Too many 'establishment ghosts' haunt cruz

[EE_]

IMMIGRATION WATCHDOG: TOO MANY 'ESTABLISHMENT GHOSTS' HAUNT CRUZ
Wife's CFR connection cited by PAC in endorsing Trump
Published: 6 days ago

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/03/heidi_cruz.jpg

William Gheen and ALIPAC announce the unprecedented endorsement of Donald Trump.
One of the nation’s largest activist groups against illegal immigration and amnesty announced Monday it is endorsing Donald Trump for president.

While that might not come as a huge surprise, given that Trump has built his campaign around a pledge to deport illegals and build a wall on the southern border, the leader of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, or ALIPAC, says it’s a historic first for the organization.

“This endorsement breaks for the first time with the national organization’s 11-year policy of not endorsing presidential candidates,” said William Gheen, president of ALIPAC.

Gheen said the decision was driven partly by the need to “consolidate support” behind one candidate at this stage of the primary season.

“One thing I know with all my heart, is that the people supporting Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are America’s best hope for survival,” he said. “I sincerely believe we must now work to consolidate support behind Trump because he is the strongest anti-establishment candidate and has the best chance of overcoming the devious plans of the biased media and D.C. insiders that are desperate to stop this populist political revolt.”

While the Republican establishment is coalescing around Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Gheen said his organization became spooked by the establishment ghosts they found in Ted Cruz’s closet.

Those ghosts have been, in fact, hiding in the closet of Cruz’s wife, Heidi, Gheen said.

He said Heidi Cruz, as an executive for Goldman Sachs and former member of the Council on Foreign Relations, “works in the command center of the establishment elites.”

And these elites believe strongly in open borders and secret trade deals that will eventually lead to the creation of a “North American Union” similar to the European Union, he said.

One issue that turned ALIPAC sour on Cruz was his wife’s participation in the authorship of a CFR report titled “Building a North American Community.” Cruz has said his wife’s contribution to the report was meant to throw cold water on the idea of a North American Union but others disagree.

“While ALIPAC appreciates Cruz’s promises to also enforce immigration laws and campaign focus on illegal immigration, revelations that his wife Heidi Cruz is a signatory to the Council on Foreign Relations document ‘Building a North American Community’ disqualifies anyone in the Cruz family from occupying the White House,” Gheen said. “Heidi Cruz’s employment with Goldman Sachs and role as a signer of the Open Borders Manifesto from the CFR is too much of a risk for America during this unstable and chaotic time.”

He said the stakes are simply too high in ALIPAC’s eyes.

“America cannot allow any of the main architects of the illegal-alien invasion like Heidi Cruz and her CFR co-conspirators, which included Dr. Robert Pastor (professor and founding director of the Center for North American Studies at American University), to enter the White House as president or first lady,” he continued. “The CFR and the document Heidi helped write is the elitist blueprint for merging America’s economy with Canada and Mexico and to use illegal immigrants to force us all into that new superstate.”

He said ALIPAC has been fighting against the CFR’s utopian goal of global governance since 2005 “and as such we must reject the candidacy of Ted Cruz.”

While Trump has alienated some on the right with recent comments about Planned Parenthood and his perceived lukewarm support for Israel, ALIPAC has one concern and one concern only – that Trump’s talk might be tougher than his actions on immigration.

“We will fight tooth and nail for Donald Trump until the last day of his second term as long as he stays true to his GOP primary supporters and his promises to deport illegals, build a substantial wall, decrease legal immigration levels to help American workers, and end dangerous Muslim refugee resettlement programs,” said Gheen. “However, we do plan to oppose any touch-back amnesty plans for deported illegal immigrants. ALIPAC stands behind our current laws that say any illegal immigrants deported from the United States are prohibited from legal entry for a minimum of 10 years and we hope Mr. Trump will honor that law when our members of Congress refuse to change it.”

Gheen said he is willing to accept that Trump has had a “recent conversion or evolution” on immigration issues after reading Ann Coulter’s book, “Adios America,” because many Americans have also experienced such an awakening on the issue.

“Often, new readers perusing the archives at www.ALIPAC.us are shocked to discover just how planned and intentional mass illegal immigration is and how many Americans are losing life, limb, property, and livelihoods to illegal aliens,” Gheen said. “ALIPAC activists have referred to such political transformations as ‘Lifting the Rock.'”

While most ALIPAC supporters back either Trump or Cruz, almost everyone opposes Rubio for his role in the Gang of Eight bill, which passed the Senate in 2013. But groups like ALIPAC and NumbersUSA worked with anti-amnesty members of the House to block the bill from reaching President Obama’s desk.

Gheen said he hopes the endorsement will help Trump fulfill his campaign promise to deport all illegal aliens as current U.S. laws and the Constitution require.

It is also hoped that endorsing Trump will bring more attention and energy to the down-ballot candidates facing off against the 178 Republicans who support “the same kind of amnesty for illegals that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support,” Gheen said. His organization has placed these Republicans, deemed weak on immigration, on its “Cantor List,” named after former House majority leader Eric Cantor who was brought down by a shocking primary defeat in 2014 by Dave Brat, an underfunded candidate who few in the establishment circles had taken seriously.

William Gheen and ALIPAC’s endorsement of Donald Trump follows other endorsements from prominent illegal immigration fighters such as legendary Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/immigration-watchdog-too-many-establishment-ghosts-haunt-cruz/#3xtyefmlIUCjKAA5.99


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJyPu7v7-lU

[EE_]

Ted Cruz Is the Ultimate Insider
75 DEC 1, 2015 3:55 PM EST
By Jonathan Bernstein

This National Review story about Ted Cruz includes my favorite paragraph from the 2016 Republican presidential nomination cycle so far:

[Congressman Tim] Huelskamp, whose office had not responded as of press time, could be a valuable ally for Cruz as he works to consolidate support from the conservative flank of the Republican party. Part of Cruz’s pitch to voters is that while he works in Washington, D.C., he remains an outsider. Support from Huelskamp and other members of the Freedom Caucus, a group that has publicly butted heads with Republican leadership and claims some credit for Speaker John Boehner’s resignation earlier this year, would bolster that portrayal.

Got that? To strengthen the case that he’s a Washington “outsider,” Cruz needs to win support from members of Congress -- members who were (supposedly) able to boot a sitting speaker of the House.

In the real world, Cruz is a Republican factional leader whose career has been firmly within the Republican party network. He clerked for two Republican judges. He practiced law in Washington for a law firm well-connected to Republicans on Capitol Hill. He worked for George W. Bush's presidential campaign, then had two jobs in Washington in the Bush administration. He was then appointed solicitor general of Texas by Rick Perry, who succeeded Bush as the state's governor. And Cruz has been a U.S. senator since January 2013. In Washington. At least when he isn't on the campaign trail.

Yes, Cruz has been hostile to other Republicans, most notably when he called the Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, a liar. And he has paid the price in the Senate: Some members of Congress are reportedly moving to endorse Marco Rubio in large part because they don't like the Texas senator and because they think he would be a poor general-election candidate. But the fact that people dislike him personally inside the Beltway is evidence that he’s well connected among insider Republicans. They couldn’t personally dislike him if they didn’t know him, could they?

Part of the confusion is that Cruz’s faction doesn’t have a name. They aren't quite “Tea Party” Republicans. And these days, they wouldn't call themselves that anyway. They do, however, call themselves “conservatives,” but that doesn’t help because (almost) all Republican party actors call themselves conservatives. We can call them “insurgents” or “radicals” or any number of things, but none of these terms works perfectly. Perhaps “Outsiders” -- capitalized, as if it was a name of a group calling itself that -- would work as well as anything else.

But pretending that Ted Cruz is a Washington outsider or party outsider is nonsense.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a true outsider. People within the Republican Party oppose him because, as a lower-case outsider, he would be entirely unpredictable if he became president.

Cruz would name reliable conservatives to judicial openings. For all we know, Trump would try to put Omarosa on the Supreme Court. OK, that wouldn’t work, but he certainly couldn’t be trusted to stick with the five youngest lawyers vetted by the Federalist Society. Nor could he be trusted to name safe conservatives to important administration posts, or to follow the Republican agenda when it comes to policies.

Cruz, whatever his conflicts with some Republicans, wouldn’t be a total wild card in the Oval Office. He may be an Outsider, but he's a Republican insider.

In the other chamber, the formation of the House Freedom Caucus made it easier to talk about this group. But Cruz doesn’t call himself a Freedom Conservative. Besides, outside of the institutional structure (where the name is appropriate), it isn't as if other conservatives oppose freedom.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-01/ted-cruz-is-the-ultimate-washington-insider


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rh93Zirc9g

[EE_]

Good must watch!

Rafael Cruz was picked, groomed and the first to jump into the race. Do you still think he's an outsider and the Washington elite hate him?...think again! It all fits together.

This is a war between the elite's and things are spinning out of control because of Trump and the mass immigration of refugees in Europe.

I think if Trump becomes the nominee, the elite will do everything in their power to get Hillary elected, or perhaps bring in a candidate who's yet to come forward...or worse, they will dispose of Trump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9K9Xedk5eM

[EE_]

American Way: the struggle to stop Donald Trump is going to be mean and dirty
Many Republicans desperately hope that Trump can somehow be deprived of the nomination at the convention itself
By Matt K Lewis4:33PM GMT 05 Mar 2016

We haven’t quite reached the stage of acceptance in the GOP. Right now, conventional wisdom holds that it will be impossible for anyone to overtake Donald Trump in the Republican primaries, but it might still be possible to deprive him of the 1,237 delegates he would need to avoid a contested convention.

Should Donald Trump win a plurality of votes, yet be denied the nomination, one can assume there would be cries of a rigged game.

There would be much gnashing of teeth. This sense of unfairness, and the chaos that would ensue, might well cast a pall over the proceedings, making it impossible for a Republican to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

But rules are rules, and if Trump loses a contested convention it would mean that the majority of Republican delegates want someone else. A plurality is not a majority. It’s hard to predict how Trump might lose a convention. Nothing about the GOP establishment leads me to believe they could pull off a convention victory. Why should we believe they would suddenly become competent in Cleveland, Ohio, when they have largely been emasculated and outmanoeuvered by Trump, heretofore?

We haven’t seen a real contested convention in most of our lifetimes. The closest we’ve come was in 1976 when Ronald Reagan tried to wrest the nomination from incumbent president Gerald Ford. A great story to illustrate how divisive these things can be was told by Lyn Nofziger, a Reagan aide, in his eponymous autobiography. When “an old-line Reaganite from San Mateo", called out, "What should our demeanour be?" Nofziger quipped: "Da meaner da better." The point is that these things can get ugly.

It’s possible that a deal could yet be struck. Maybe some power broker could conceivably convince Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich to come together, with the expectation that Rubio would be president, Kasich would be vice president, and Cruz would be attorney general or a Supreme Court appointment? It’s probably illegal to make such promises, but it could be stressed, for example, that Cruz would be given every consideration for this spot. Then again, it could also be that once the delegates are no longer bound, they could vote for someone who isn’t even running for president—say, Mitt Romney or Speaker Paul Ryan.

Regardless, this is the nuclear option. It would be ugly. Trump’s fans would see this as a corrupt bargain. Allegations of a “stolen election” would surely be made. There are no good strategies at this point, just less bad ones. Many mainstream conservatives and establishment Republicans are betting that Hillary Clinton’s presidency might actually be better than Donald Trump’s. That’s not to say they would vote for her, but they might instead stay at home (or vote third party). The rationale is as follows: Hillary Clinton would be a bad president, but we have survived bad liberal presidents in the past. Donald Trump, instead, poses an existential threat: He would redefine what it means to be a Republican and a conservative—and this redefinition (as a European-style, nationalistic, white identity politics party) would be unacceptable to many of us.

So if Trump wins, you’ll have a lot of conservative opinion leaders refusing to back him. Some might even start a new party. And if Trump loses, many of his populist, working class white supporters might bolt the Republican party forever. It’s really a nasty situation — especially when you consider how strong the GOP bench might have been, absent Trump, and how vulnerable Hillary Clinton appears.

It would be a shame for the GOP to come unglued and split apart, but it seems like that might be what we are on the cusp of. Parties don’t last forever. The Whigs, after all, died. Other times, political parties survive, while their coalitions come apart. Southern Democrats, for example, are essentially now extinct. The GOP has, for a long time now, been a movement of strange bedfellows. The whole fusionist movement of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives coming together to form the “three-legged “ stool of the conservative movement was always a marriage of convenience, primarily brokered in order to thwart the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But that war ended decades ago, and this marriage of convenience seems to have run its course.

It’s easy to simplistically portray the split as being between the establishment and the grassroots, but that’s really not accurate. The split is instead between a brand of optimistic conservatism that believes in free markets and lifting people up (members of this wing include Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan et al), and Donald Trump’s brand of populist protectionism (which includes men like Senator Jeff Sessions).
These people all fit under the umbrella of conservatism, but their worldviews are wildly different. One group sees people are a resource, the other sees them as a cost. One side believes that free trade makes us more prosperous, the other side believes that it takes jobs away from working Americans. One side believes that defending the rights of the unborn is a great moral crusade; the other side believes that stopping Mexicans from immigrating is the great cause of our time.

If there is a convention fight, it’s going to be ugly. There’s no getting around that. But it might be better to have chaos ensue, even if it means losing the election, than to allow Donald Trump to engage in this hostile takeover of the party. My only advice to Republicans trying to stop him is not to bring a knife to what will surely turn out to be a political gunfight. When it comes to stopping The Donald, remember the words of Lyn Nofziger: "Da meaner, da better."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12184607/American-Way-the-struggle-to-stop-Donald-Trump-is-going-to-be-mean-and-dirty.html