Tuesday, December 22, 2015



 Considering the large "band wagon effect" we are witnessing as it pertains to the Trump campaign, it is hard not to look at other possibilities, that could be, negative factors in the outcome of the G.O.P. nomination. In what looks like an all out alignment with Trump, we could be witnessing a deliberate facade to suddenly, at the last minute, swing the vote in favor of private interests. It must be known that whoever has the vote from the delegates (often party activists, local political leaders, or early supporters of a given candidate) wins the nomination for their respective party.

  In an attempt to shed light on this particular conflict of interest, let us now take a little trip down memory lane. In 1924 at the Democratic National Convention (the "Klanbake") there was a division on prohibition (Wets and Drys) and other issues, which led to 102 ballots of deadlock between front runners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo. A compromise candidate, "dark horse" John W. Davis, was chosen for the 103rd ballot. In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt won the election, being the last candidate to actually win after being nominated by brokered convention. In 1948 there was a Republican Thomas E. Dewey who sparked the headline "Dewey defeats Truman", and in 1952, (1960 on the CFR site)  we had Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson who went up against John F. Kennedy. In 1976 the Republican nominee was in question when they chose Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan.

  Although most would agree the possibility for a nomination by brokered convention in either party resulting in a presidency is scant, I for one do not see the harm in regular people understanding what a "brokered convention" is, and how it could possibly be the game plan, for certain private interests within the fake two party paradigm. Just because Trump is the front runner now, does not mean the delegate votes will not change the outcome in favor of, god forbid, Jeb Bush. The question is...who is lining who's pockets??

  A brokered convention is when no single candidate has a "majority" of delegates before the first official vote, in either partys convention for nomination, of their respective presidential candidate. Exactly how the delegates are selected is quite confusing, and either party has it's own rules. The Democratic party has "superdelegates" who are not obligated to commit to any particular candidate, while the Republican partys delegates will vary from state to state. If in fact no majority is reached, the delegates will have to continue voting until a majority is reached. This scenario seems to leave the "people" out of the equation.

  To add to the confusion we will throw in the "independents", voters who are unaffiliated with any party. Some states will allow independents to vote regardless of party affiliation, others will allow them to change their party affiliation up to the day before an election, and there are 18 states in the U.S. that do not allow independents to vote in the primaries at all. Seems convenient for the two party paradigm, but that's my opinion.

  According to an infowars.com interview with Jesse Ventura, if Trump stays in the Republican party all the way through, it will be too late to switch to the Libertarian party , as the Libertarian party holds their primaries in may. Trump will have to switch now, or risk having the nomination stolen by Jeb bush, through bought and paid for delegates. He will lose and have no where to go. Quite a pickle.


Tuesday, December 8, 2015


  I was recently turned on to a video about Senator Ted Cruz which spurred me to do some research. The video from  "The Next News Network" (which I can only assume is credible:(...) explains how Cruz (a Canadian) has ties to Goldman Sachs through his wife, and may be a champion for "The North American Union". Obviously if this is true, it has serious implications for the Cruz campaign. I would assume everyone knows you must be a "Natural Born" citizen to be eligible for the presidency.
  I do find it awkward and a bit disconcerting that another "birther" (as Obama birth certificate challengers have been so cleverly dubbed) scenario is being thrown around, in what seems like an attempt from the left to divert attention from more important topics of discussion. When we should be concerned with securing our borders, protecting our constitutional rights, and basically keeping America from becoming a third world country, here we are focused on some trivial matter as the Obama administration uses our air force to back ISIS in attacks on Syria. That's why I decided to document the facts in this blog post.
  I have come to discover, that Cruz claims to have no problem renouncing his Canadian citizenship, considering he has lived in the U.S. since he was 4 yrs. old. Father Raphael Bienvenido Cruz of Mantazas, Cuba who worked as a geophysical consultant, and American mother Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson of Wilmington, Delaware. By 1970, the Cruz's had moved to the Canadian oil patch, where they started a business dealing with seismic-data. Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) according to the birth certificate he produced, is indeed a citizen of both America and Canada.

  Obviously a dual citizenship would grant at least the "eligibility" to run for office in both countries. Although the odds for this becoming a reality are up in the air. What turns me off from Senator Cruz beyond the usual mistrust of politicians and their empty promises, is the connection to "The North American Union". With his Goldman Sachs wife Heidi Cruz (whom he met while working on the bush campaign in 2000) at his side, are his interests really aligned with the wishes of the American people? Unless Senator Cruz Publicly denounces his Canadian citizenship, (and not just says he "will") denounces any interest in pursuing a N.A.U., I don't see how he can be taken seriously as a candidate for president.
  Mrs. Cruz's connections and affiliations are numerous and ambiguously misaligned with the ideals of a true conservative candidate. Considering her membership in the C.F.R., (Council On Foreign relations) one can only wonder how much influence she has on her husband. I like many others actually like Ted Cruz. But as the infamous George W. once asserted..."fool me once can't get fooled again"

Sunday, November 29, 2015


  What gets me the most, is how many people actually bought into this nonsense. Wouldn't "carbon emissions" send up a red flag? As in, we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon? How would we "reduce our carbon footprint"? Hold our breath? Is it that most people just can't believe that other people could be completely diabolical and manipulative? Take one trivial set of facts and twist them to appropriately fit their money making agenda? Seriously dude, the cat is out of the bag.
  So now that the "global warming" data manipulation has been exposed, how long will it take for people to realize "climate change" was only referring to the political climate? I have been amazed at how pissed off supporters of this madness get when you challenge the narrative. I guess it just goes to show if the big bad criminal government says it, it might as well have come from god. 
 While the emissions from cars and manufacturing companies may be nasty, may in fact be something we need to change, honest investigation into the facts is not only encouraged but required. Bottom line, global warming is not the cause of the ice melting, nor is global cooling the cause for the ice increasing. Climate Change is a natural occurrence which we have absolutely no control over. Although our hearts go out to the polar bears.Who are actually doing just fine by the way.