Something stinks: Ted Cruz's Super PAC donated $½ million to Carly Fiorina's campaign

Rate this post

political action committee (PAC) is an organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation by, for example, making and buying campaign ads. 
A super PAC, officially known as an “independent-expenditure only committee,” may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.
ted_cruz
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has four super PACs to raise money for his presidential campaign, which raked in a total of $37.8 million as of July 31, 2015 — a significant haul that puts Cruz in the top fundraising tier. The bulk of the money comes from just seven individual donors. Cruz’s four super PACs are:

  1. Keep The Promise I: $11 million; funded almost entirely by New York hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer.
  2. Keep the Promise II: a single $10 million donation from Toby Neugebauer, a Puerto Rico-based investor who is the son of Texas GOP Rep. Randy Neugebauer.
  3. Keep the Promise III: $15 million — all from Texas billionaire brothers, Farris and Dan Wilks, who made their fortunes in fracking, and their wives, JoAnn and Staci.
  4. Keep the Promise PAC: $1.8 million, nearly all from Texas-based donors, including Robert McNair, Sr., the chairman and CEO of the Houston Texans football franchise.

Politico reports that, as of July 31, 2015, super PAC Keep the Promise I had spent the most, shelling out $536,000. But what is most curious is that $500,000 of that was spent not for Ted Cruz, but to promote his fellow Republican and supposed rival Carly Fiorina’s presidential ambitions.
SM Gibson reports for Anti-Media, Sept. 28, 2015, a super PAC associated with Fiorina, CARLY for America Super PAC, has raised almost $3.5 million to date. 

Note: The super PAC was originally named Carly for America. In June 2015, the FEC forced it to change its name because the original name was in violation of its rules, which state that super PACs cannot use a candidate’s name because they are supposed to be “independent.” So Carly for America changed its name to CARLY (an acronym for Conservative Authentic Responsive Leadership for You) for America Super PAC.

What is curious is that among the hundreds of contributions pledged to CARLY for America, one is for $500,000, made on June 18, by the Cruz-affiliated Keep The Promise I super PAC, as shown in the latter’s itemized disbursements (see below).
Ted Cruz Super PAC disimbursements
Why would anyone seeking the presidential nomination for the Republican party donate such a large sum to a competitor? 
Even stranger, the large sum was donated to Fiorina on June 18 — when she was still a relatively unknown candidate and polling at 0%, according to a Washington Post–ABC News poll. It wasn’t until August 6 — when Fiorina performed well in the first GOP lower candidate debate — that she was on anyone’s political radar nationally.
The only explanation given by Keep The Promise I for its $500,000 “disbursement” or donation to CARLY for America is “other disbursement,” which of course is not an explanation.
That has prompted the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to send a letter to Keep The Promise I treasurer Jacquelyn James, dated Sept. 16, 2015, asking for “a brief statement or description of why” the $500,000 disbursement was made.  The letter warns that “Failure to adequately respond by (October 21) could result in an audit or enforcement action.”
So when you see TV ads touting Fiorina, they really should carry this inscription:
Carly Fiorina
See also “Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?” and “Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?“.

Update (Sept. 30):

I just received this email from Ted Cruz asking for my donation:

I know I’ve asked a lot of you over the last 14 days…and I didn’t want to have to do this, but I must ask one more time for your support of $35 or whatever you can afford. We are only 329 donors short of the toughest goal we’ve ever set. This is HUGE. Right now, I’m asking you to make any donation — as little as $5 or as much as you can afford — to make sure we surpass the looming Federal Election Commission deadline before midnight tonight.

This is the response I sent back:

Since your Keep Your Promise I super PAC is so flush with money that they donated half a million dollars to Carly Fiorina’s super PAC, you really should stop crying poverty.

Update (March 28, 2016):

The $½ million may be “hush money” to “hush” Ted Cruz’s alleged extramarital affair with a Fiorina deputy campaign manager named Sarah Isgur Flores. According to Karl Denninger of Market Ticker, if it was “hush money,” it may be a criminal offense and “the FEC is already looking into it.” See:

~Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Something stinks: Ted Cruz's Super PAC donated $½ million to Carly Fiorina's campaign

  1. Somthing stinks is right, Cruz claims to be such a Constitutionalist, but doesn’t understand that HE, LIKE OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE TO BE PREZ OR V-PREZ? So why is he funding the business destroyer? A woman who funded a website for abortion, a woman who thinks common core is fine? What’s up with that…I’ll repost this for this afternoon

     
  2. Politics makes strange bedfellows , doesn’t it ? This is probably an attempt to chop into Trump’s lead in the polls .

     
  3. ted cruz = “canadian anchor baby”.

     
  4. I read where Cruzs wife was /is a V.P. at Goldman Sachs. Anyone verify?

     
    • I have read that , can’t provide follow up info tho . He is just another tool in the toolbox . Along with his wife .

       
      • The Lil’ Teddy was born a “TRI-citizen at birth” in a foreign country to a Cuban anti-Batista revolutionary refugee father and an expatriate U.S. Citizen mother who may or may not have secured Lil’ Teddy’s U.S. Citizenship when she re-entered the U.S.
        So under the current iteration of understandings of the status of a U.S. natural born Citizen anyone born to even one U.S. Citizen parent anywhere in the world conforms to the Constitutional usage and intent of the term of words, in spite of the 1795 Act repealing the “foreign born” natural born Citizen provision and the passage of the 1922 Cable Act which then requires that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens independent of each other in order to conform with the attendant circumstances” expressed in the 1790 Act as reconciled.
        How far WE have fallen from the Rule of Law.

         
        • Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.
          While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth, having been born in Cuba and became a naturalized U.S. citizen only in 2005. It was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.
          https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/03/23/republican-sen-ted-cruz-announces-presidential-campaign-but-is-he-eligible/

           
        • To answer your q , Barack Insane Obama

           
          • I’m not sure what you mean with the response, but it is a comparison, with the distinction that one IS a usurper and the other is a wannabe usurper.
            If you are suggesting that the fact that the “0” has successfully usurped the Office of POTUS so the Law of A2S1C5 no longer applies, I would suggest that there is NO Statutes of Limitation on the Civil & Political Offense of the Usurpation of the Executive Offices of POTUS / V-POTUS of the United States.

             
    • https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/04/04/is-ted-cruz-an-advocate-of-a-north-american-union/
      Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Cruz as an “investment banker” and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
      Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.

       
  5. I am with you japoa. Just an effort to take down Trump. When Fiorina jumped fast-forward in the campiagn I knew there was a huge surge of money paid out on her behalf.
    carly; not sure if Cruz’s wife is still at Goldman Sachs but she was at one time and she was also a high-ranking member of the CFR. In fact she helped write the trade agreement that the prez was so hell-bent on getting passed.
    One of my best friends is a Cruz supporter all the way but I just can’t get on board with him. Not sure I would vote for him if he became the GOP candidate. He says all the right things, but we have all been down that road before.

     
  6. Well, this sucks. Politics is a funny game, isn’t it…

     
  7. Cruz is eligible as every single serious scholar has already observed.
    That said, SuperPACs can’t legally coordinate with the candidate… by definition, Cruz has no oversight over these entities.
    I’m guessing that one of the SuperPACs that donated to Fiorina has some level of GOPe involvement.

     
    • You say: ” Cruz is eligible as every single serious scholar has already observed.”
      I say; … Please provide the U.S. Law(s) that supports their positions and or opinions.
      Oh, you can not because there is none, ….. but try anyway….

       
    • How many of us really believe that a candidate’s superpac does not coordinate with the candidate? One place I worked, the clerical staff called this kinda stuff a dog-n-pony show — on the one hand we do this, on the other hand we do that and so it goes back-n-forth, back-n-forth!

       
    • Cruz is eligible as every single serious scholar has already observed.
      Really? Name one, after you’ve defined what “serious scholar” means.

       
    • I contend that your “every single serious scholar” are just contemporary liberal agenda driven liars. It is their intent to attempt to cover for the fraud obama and open the door for even more frauds.There are just to many who accept the word of these frauds, who are relying on their positions and fake credibility, rather than research the facts for themselves.
      Common sense itself should dictate that dual citizenship is contrary to the whole purpose of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause being a part of our Constitution. That purpose being to insure non-conflicted loyalties, uncontested allegiance, and to insure against foreign influence in the office of our President. A dual citizen by simple definition can not be a “Natural Born” citizen as they are mutually exclusive. One can not be both.
      The fact that cruz renounced his “canadian anchor baby”, birth right citizenship, (for those who believe in the “anchor baby” fallacy) only made him unwelcome in canada. It does nothing to change his circumstance of birth, which instilled dual citizenship, and not “Natural Born”.
      obama, also has dual citizenship, and in fact he is a bastard child as his father could not have legally married his mother. He already had a wife in kenya.
      Only the ignorant, liars, or cowards, will refer to obama as president, and the same would go for cruz, rubio, or jindal.

       
      • Sorry, the US code controls. If he had dual citizenship, that means he was, at birth, a legal citizen of two countries. That is the definition of dual citizenship. The definition of “natural-born citizen” is “citizen at birth”.
        Further, it is not liberal talking heads who are advocating for Cruz. They are not that intelligent to do that. They would more likely spread birthright rumors, false in this case, like Hillary did about Obama. (Obama most likely is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, which is why he has obscured his birth cert in any way possible. Being an illegal is nothing compared to the shame of being an out-of-wedlock baby of a communist. Obama is probably barely holding it together, and all the drugs and gay sex don’t help quite enough).

         
      • Kevin your indignation IS justified, given that the LAW is actually very unambiguous when interpreted in light of the times that they were written.
        The term of words, “natural born citizen” is an observable natural occurrence that has been cited as a ‘political concept’ throughout history, a child born of citizen parents.
        When used in the COTUS for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of excluding persons who were NOT a child of citizen parents it became LAW, STATUTORY Constitutional LAW, which can be expressed in the terms of statutory construction and interpretation as an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” which then REQUIRES their existence within the body politic of the U.S.
        The 1st Congress was tasked with implementing their plenary power of A1S8C4 ; … ” … The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States;” and fulfilled both that obligation and the obligation to insure that the existence of U.S. natural born Citizen were provided for.
        Once the “attendant circumstances” provided for U.S. natural born Citizens within the 1790 Act was expressed under the established uniform Rule of; … ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise …” (slc), then the specifics of the “attendant circumstances” must be preserved under the Rule of Law, respecting separation of powers and subject only to an Article V Amendment.
        There are reconciliations due to conflicting Laws from various Acts but without an Amendment requiring a change those Acts and Laws must be reconciled in favor of the established “attendant circumstances”, i.e., a child born to citizen parentS.

         
  8. “Here comes the new boss, just like the old boss” – The Who

     
  9. Stop with the conspiracy nonsense.
    1. The Super-PAC, by law, cannot coordinate with the candidate. Contrast and compare to Ben Carson’s Super-PAC, which has given him no end of headaches. Furthermore, why just one contribution? Why not more? And what good does Super PAC funding do, when it’s hard money that really drives the campaigns (see: Walker and Perry).
    2. The CFR calls on all kinds of people to generate its white papers. To smear Heidi as a CFR shill is an old, old smear used by Dewhurst in the TX Senate run. See this and get educated.
    3. According to the US title code, Cruz is eligible to be president. He was a citizen at birth, due to the natural-born citizen status of his mother. The US title code controls who and whom isn’t a citizen, not Vattel (which is not part of the US code).

     
    • You say:
      ” 3. According to the US title code, Cruz is eligible to be president. He was a citizen at birth, due to the natural-born citizen status of his mother. The US title code controls who and whom isn’t a citizen, not Vattel (which is not part of the US code).”
      I say that you are assuming facts that is NOT in the U.S. Code…….
      SHOW ME WHERE the term of words “natural born Citizen” or “U.S. natural born Citizen” is at in the 8 U.S. Code ANYWHERE …. !!!!
      Look, the 14th Amendment and any and all SCOTUS Opinions to the contrary, does NOT a “natural born Citizen make, the words do not say so and the words do NOT require it.
      By their STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION within the Clause of the Constitution makes them as if set in stone.
      “Born Citizen” is NOT synonymous with “natural born Citizen”
      Nowhere in the 14th does it suggest that it Amends a Clause of the Executive Articles.
      As for the “Right of Citizenship”, that was ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act, was ONLY given to a U.S. Citizen FATHER and the 1922 Cable Act that gave women Independent Citizenship and Citizenship Retention rights is MOOT on the subject of women possessing the Right of Citizenship Independently.
      So if you want to read into the Law things that are not there I can ask you to show me where the Law says women give birth to U.S. Citizens absent a U.S. Citizen father.

       
  10. Mark Levin, Andrew C. McCarthy, and Ed Meese have noted that Cruz is clearly eligible. I’ll stick with them. Even the ludicrous, left-wing nutjobs at Politifact agree that “Most legal scholars maintain that Cruz is in the clear despite his Canadian birthplace.”

     
    • So you are really not interested in supporting, protecting and defending the Constitution on your own…???
      You let the talking heads tell you what you need to know and the hell with TRUTH & Fidelity….????
      That’s OK …. not everyone cares who their elected representatives actually are.

       
  11. What a mess indeed. I feel if Cruz was ineligible the left would be screaming it from the rafters. But instead, they are as quiet as a mouse, why? The doubt behind whether BO is eligible might be keeping them quiet. His father was a British subject, does that give him a bye?
    Who is eligible seems to go with who is making the decision.
    Something stinks, of course, it has been that way since 2007 and has only gotten worse.
    It makes little difference who gets in it seems. Are they going to be the one to keep us safe, or is their next position and bank account going to rule once again?

     
    • The doubt behind whether BO is eligible might be keeping them quiet.
      That’s also the reason why Republican elites are also keeping quiet — because they all let Obama’s ineligibility slip, which makes all of them complicit.

       
      • Or maybe everyone is keeping quiet about Cruz’s eligibility and if he is the candidate for GOP they will start coming out of the woodwork yelling from the roof tops that he is not eligibile. If the leftist, elites, democRATS, those in power can deny the Planned Parenthood videos and not miss a beat in supporting the organization that is killing babies, they will do anything to get their way.

         
        • TO MA IN MO , Dr. Eowyn, et al;
          Well, I;ve expressed several FACTS regarding ACTUAL U.S. Law and have not been challenged on any specific statutory interpretation that I have offered up.
          I’m going to post what I call an “Apologetic” on the subject that touches on the pertinent points of LAW and look forward to responses and or rebuttals;
          ________________________________________________________
          An “Apologetic” on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen as FOUND under the Laws of the COTUS
          The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”. (U.S. {implicit}), natural born Citizen”, is ASSUMED to be “ambiguous”, and that ambiguity creates a “legal-loop-hole” that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.
          The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the “attendant circumstances” required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth in the Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization.
          Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of “citizenship” requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified.
          ALL “citizens” are “made” in the 1st instant, without which there can be no “natural” perpetuation. (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II).
          In order for “natural perpetuation” to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society.
          The “attendant circumstances” of acquisition of citizenship are identifiable and notable for various purposes.
          Now, let’s see how this plays out under the Constitution in regard to the acknowledgement of U.S. natural born Citizens.
          The Preamble to the Constitution says, in parts pertinent to the subject, ;
          ” … We the people of the United States, in order to … secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” …
          … which implies that those persons, being existing citizens of the various States, then considered themselves as being the “Citizens” referred to within the document establishing this new nation among the nations of the world, ergo, the Ratification served to “collectively naturalize” those Founding U.S. Citizens.
          (Or it could be said that the Preamble was an “oath” given at a “self-naturalizing” ceremony called the Ratification”)
          Within the COTUS, at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS sections, it says; … ” …. The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States; ”
          As noted above the 1st instant U.S. Citizens were made upon Ratification, (aka, ourselves), so this provision is meant to deal with the perpetuation of citizenship, at birth or otherwise,( aka, our posterity).
          Before looking into the 1st Act of Congress under this Clause it is necessary to consider the additional requirement placed on the Congress by the Article II Section I Clause V “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” which REQUIRES the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens be identifiable within the body politic of the newly formed U.S.A.
          By this Constitutional provision such a form of Citizenship MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied, ergo, the Congress is obligated to provide for their existence.
          In March of 1790 the Congress established the uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship and applied it within the process of naturalizing persons, at birth and otherwise.
          That “uniform Rule” can be expressed as; ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” (slc) as construed from the three (3) pertinent parts of the 276 word Act, numbered here for ease of analysis;
          (1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
          (2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
          (3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
          The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third (3rd) which ESTABLISHES the “right of Citizenship” being attached to any and all persons who ARE U.S. Citizens.
          The 1st provision makes the Right of Citizenship” effective at the moment that a person becomes a U.S. Citizenship and affects the minor children of that new U.S. Citizen.
          The “Right of Citizenship” is ALSO acknowledged to be in effect upon those who were made U.S. Citizens at the Ratification of the COTUS and to be operative anywhere in the world.
          Now that “Citizenship” and its acquisition under the Constitution is defined the requirement of A2S1C5 must be distinguished from any and all other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.
          As noted above that can only be done by identifying the “attendant circumstances” of acquisition of that U.S. Citizenship.
          In the 1st provision above the “minor children present” are “naturalized” with the parent (father).
          In the 2nd provision a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father is born as a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world.
          Although many will say that the provision ONLY addresses those children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. I suggest that it takes a specious interpretation to say that while children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. that the children born within the limits of the U.S. are not also born as U.S. natural born Citizens.
          Consider a moment the newly naturalized person takes his wife’s hand, who is now also “considered as” a U.S. Citizen under the matrimonial doctrine of coverture, and walks directly to the midwife’s house where the wife immediately gives birth to a child. That child is born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S.. Is THAT child NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen.
          So the 2nd provision needs to be looked at a bit closer in order for clarity to see if clarity can be found in it s language.
          The words “considered as” are, in that combination, known as a “comparative adjective”, under the rules of grammatical syntax, which requires that a counter part to the subject must exist in order for the subject to be compared to it.
          The subject of the provision is the “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen, therefore the only possible “counterpart” would be the children born to U.S. Citizen parents “within the limits” of the U.S..
          This interpretation of the statutory construction of the 1790 Act is vindicated by the 1795 Act which repealed and replaced the 1790 “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen Provision and thereafter LIMITING where a U.S. natural born Citizen may be born, i.e., within the limits of the U.S.
          Therefore, those “foreign born” “considered as” were in FACT the “counterparts” to those who were being born “within the limits of the U.S.” as unambiguous U.S. natural born Citizens.
          The perpetuation of U.S. natural born Citizens continued uninterrupted under the attendant circumstances of being born to the legal wife of a U.S. Citizen father within the limits of the U.S. until the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship Retention Act.
          This Act abrogated the ancient matrimonial doctrine of coverture” completely under U.S. Law, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned. (Any residual effects of the doctrine of coverture are confined to the concerns of probate and or “parental rights”)
          The effect of the Act was to establish a new form of U.S. Citizenship that could not previously exist, that is, “dual-citizenship at birth”.
          Prior to the Act a woman was considered as the SAME Citizenship as the husband from the moment that the marriage became “legal”, regardless of her previous citizenship status.
          After the Act the woman RETAINS her own Citizenship regardless of what her new husbands Citizenship is,
          Under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation AND Judicial reconciliation of conflicting laws, it is required to preserve the desired effects of each law and to impose the least destructive reconciliation in the process.
          In this instant, where the Constitution REQUIRES the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied and where U.S. natural born Citizens are acknowledged as being the result of a specific set of attendant circumstances the lest destructive reconciliation to impose in light of the intents of the 1922 Cable Act is to require that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens INDEPENDENT of each other’s citizenship in order to produce the effect of giving birth to a U.S. natural born Citizen within the limits of the U.S.
          This then IS all that needs be known, insofar as the LAW is concerned, on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen and all other considerations only adds to the AMBIGUITY which this proposition of Constitutional Law seeks to undo.

           
  12. A horse walks into a bar. Bartender goes, “Why the long face?”
    (I just had to get that joke out).
    Follow the money—or the connections. Cruz’s wife is on the Board of Goldman-Sachs. What is Carly’s connection to Goldman-Sachs? Is that connection even indirect, say, through Hewlett-Packard?
    OR, the explanation may be simpler: In order to prevent Jeb Bush or Rand Paul from winning the nomination, Cruz is leveraging Carly Fiorina against them; She can function to siphon votes away from those two and funnel them over to Ted?

     
  13. Unbelievable.
    Want to hear. “why” US Senator Cruz did that –
    especially now that it is coming out Carly Fiorina shares a friendship w Obama’s close associates Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic TERRORIST and Khalid al-Mansour – (the front man for Hamas, the Terrorist organization) – who paved the way for Obama’s “entry” and “education” at Harvard university – as a Foreign student – to be financed by a Saudi Prince.

     
    • “it is coming out Carly Fiorina shares a friendship w Obama’s close associates Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic TERRORIST and Khalid al-Mansour”
      Do you have an URL for that alarming info, Fina?

       
  14. I just received this email from Ted Cruz asking for my donation:
    “I know I’ve asked a lot of you over the last 14 days…and I didn’t want to have to do this, but I must ask one more time for your support of $35 or whatever you can afford. We are only 329 donors short of the toughest goal we’ve ever set. This is HUGE. Right now, I’m asking you to make any donation — as little as $5 or as much as you can afford — to make sure we surpass the looming Federal Election Commission deadline before midnight tonight.”
    This is the response I sent back:
    Since your Keep Your Promise I super PAC is so flush with money that they donated half a million dollars to Carly Fiorina’s super PAC, you really should stop crying poverty.

     
    • I’ve gotten those requests also . I think I might respond to the next one , along your lines , but with a little bit more bite . I’m sure after my response , they’ll leave me alone .

       
  15. Pingback: Shadows of Ted Cruz | Icliks Incoming

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *