Thursday, April 28, 2016

In Attacking Ted Cruz, The Sobbing Drunk John Boehner Shows Who The Establishment Candidate Is

The worst Speaker of the House, John Boehner, showed us exactly why he is deserving of such a distinction, and why he no longer holds that post (ABC News).
In a talk at Stanford University Wednesday, the plainspoken Ohio Republican called the Texas senator "Lucifer in the flesh," adding that he found Cruz difficult to work with in Congress. 
“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends," Boehner said, according to the Stanford Daily. "I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.
Cruz sparred with Boehner throughout his speakership over funding the government, most notably in 2013, when the government shut down for more than two weeks. Cruz's allies in the House helped force Boehner out of Congress last year.
Boehner, an avid golfer, said he and 2016 front-runner Trump are "texting buddies," and that they've played golf together over the years. He stopped short of endorsing his policies, but said he would vote for Trump in the general election if the New York businessman becomes the GOP nominee.
Cruz took to Twitter this morning, writing, "Tell me again who will stand up to Washington? Trump, who's Boehner's "texting and golfing buddy," or Carly & me?"
In Indiana today, Cruz dismissed Boehner's comments, and said he didn't know him well.
"I've met John Boehner two or three times in my life. If I have said 50 words in my life to John Boehner. I would be surprised and every one of them has consisted of pleasantries," Cruz said.
Cruz also came back with a good jab at the sobbing lush, saying that Boehner wasn't just mocking Cruz, he was mocking millions of Americans who had given Boehner and the GOP the majority. This is true. Boehner has repeatedly mocked and attacked real conservatives while refusing to stand up to Richard Milhous Hussein Obama, Pelosi and Reid. I remember reading Jenny Beth Martin's book on the Tea Party where she wrote about meeting Boehner after the 2010 elections brought him the Speaker's gavel. Boehner essentially laughed in her face when presented ideas about cutting the size of government, all but showing Boehner and his establishment allies had no interest in Tea Party, grassroots conservatives, they were just interested in their votes on Election Day.


And how could the Republican Party give such a power to someone who not only stood back and surrendered to Obama and the liberals, but allegedly has a drinking problem.


Look at that image on the video (screenshot below) Boehner is not wearing socks with his dress shoes in a TV interview, and wearing slacks that show him seriously flooding.


What is important is not only is the old drunk good buddies with "Ducking" Donald Trump, Trump bought Boehner like a cheap whore on a street corner. In 2012, Trump gave $100,000 to a Boehner linked PAC. But that wasn't all, as Erick Erickson noted at his new blog The Resurgent.
In 2013, Donald Trump gave $220,000.00 to organizations, many of them dedicated to stamping out the Tea Party. From Karl Rove’s American Crossroads to Mitch McConnell’s Super PAC, Trump spread out money. Rove got $50,000.00 and McConnell got $60,000.00. Trump also wrote a check to McConnell’s campaign directly for $5,200.00.
What’s more, Trump also gave $100,000.00 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican Establishment PAC that was created to crush conservatives at the behest of John Boehner.
Running as an anti-establishment Republican now and courting Sarah Palin is a distraction from two stark facts.
In 2010, with the rise of the Tea Party, Trump supported Democrats against conservatives.
In 2014, Donald Trump supported the Republican Establishment as it sought to crush the tea party and conservatives.
So, thank you, John Boehner (you too Peter King, you IRA terrorist sympathizer). In your stupor, you showed us all (except maybe the Trump Kool-Aid drinkers) just who the establishment choice for President is...none other than Donald Trump.

Now go have another martini.

Monday, April 25, 2016

McAuliffe's Democrat Voter Drive Of Felons: Either VA Legislature Fights to End It Or Needs To Impeach This Clintonoid

The scumbag governor of Virginia, Terry McAwful, pulled an Obama and became a Ruler-by-Fiat this past Friday, giving 200,000 felons the right to vote.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed an executive order Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons, a sweeping action the governor said was aimed largely at rectifying Virginia’s “long and sad history” of suppressing African-American voting power.
...The governor’s order applies to all violent and nonviolent felons who had finished their sentence and supervised release as of Friday, even those who have not applied for a restoration of rights. Previous Virginia governors have restored rights on an individual basis, but none has done it for an entire category of offenders with one pen stroke.
The order stops short of creating automatic restoration of rights for all ex-offenders, because McAuliffe will have to sign similar orders on a monthly basis moving forward. Still, the order is a historic shift away from Virginia’s policy of lifetime disenfranchisement for those convicted of serious crimes.
Of course, McAwful used race as a way of selling his unconstitutional power grab, never mind that McAwful went from being the head of Bill Clinton's Hillbilly Mafia to running the DNC in 2001, while the former Mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson, a black man, was told by the Clinton's to get in the back of the bus. McAwful came under fire for using the term "colored people" while vying for DNC chair as well.


This photo from Terry McAwful's inauguration tells the tale. He only serves the best interests of the Clinton Crime Family, NOT the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Being the partisan politicial hack McAwful is, the governor told the GOP in Virginia to "quit complaining"
"Well, I would tell the Republicans quit complaining and go out and earn these folks' right to vote for you. Go out and talk to them," the Democratic governor told George Stephanopoulos. "I find it very—and in fact, I think some of the language that has come out of the Republicans, I would tell them to be very careful at how they frame this, very careful of their rhetoric."
But that is simply a way for McAwful to distract and deflect, like the corrupt sleazeball he is, from his violation of the separation of powers in the Virginia Constitution and thus the violation of his oath. It is one thing if a piece of legislation to restore voting rights for felons was approved by both houses and then signed by the Governor, but not a restoration done in an Obama-esque, un-Constitutional power grab, which has been looked at by previous administrations recently (National Review Online).
For example, on January 15, 2010, Mark Rubin, the counselor for former Virginia governor Tim Kaine (D., now a U.S. senator), sent a letter on the governor’s behalf to the ACLU, saying that Kaine did not have the executive power “to grant a blanket restoration of voting rights,” which the ACLU had requested. Kaine supported restoration of voting rights but refused to act because his counsel’s view was that the “better argument” was that the powers in the Virginia constitutional provision on clemency (Article 5, Section 12) “are meant to apply in particular cases to named individuals.” In fact, “a blanket order restoring the voting rights of everyone would be a rewrite of the law. . . . The notion that the Constitution of the Commonwealth could be rewritten via executive order is troubling.” 
Similarly, then–attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (R.) appointed the Rights Restoration Advisory Committee to examine this issue. The committee included not only several Commonwealth Attorneys (i.e., the district attorneys of Virginia counties) and a professor from George Mason University but also Ashley Taylor Jr., a former commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Paul Goldman, the former senior adviser to Doug Wilder (D.), the first African-American governor of Virginia. 
On May 10, 2013, the committee issued a report concluding that the governor does not have constitutional authority to “institute by executive order” a complete “restoration of rights for all convicted felons in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Why? Because his clemency power in Article 5 must be harmonized with Article 2, Section 1, which provides that “no person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored.” If, instead of acting individually to consider each “person” and “his civil rights,” the governor issues a blanket restoration, such “altering [of] the public policy of the Commonwealth as regards the disenfranchisement of persons convicted of felonies clearly would be a legislative act, not an administrative act.”  It would be “difficult” for a court to “sustain a Governor’s exercise of [his] clemency power in so sweeping a manner that the Constitution’s general policy of disenfranchisement of felons is voided.”
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this violation of Virginia's constitution was done for one purpose only, and it is the sole purpose McAwful ran for Governor, to turn Virginia from purple to blue and help the Clinton Crime Family retake the White House by putting Virginia in their column, using felons, including those convicted of "murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes."

If there is still such a thing as rule of law, the Virginia legislature should stop this by any means and if they are thwarted, then they should bring impeachment proceedings against this partisan hack who is putting his own party and the Clinton Culture of Corruption ahead of the best interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Monday, March 14, 2016

Chicago Violence, Ted Cruz, Michelle Fields, and the Trumping of Andrew Breitbart's Legacy

We've all seen the images and thuggery from this past Friday night in Chicago, as a rally for Donald Trump was cancelled due to Leftist protesters, believed to be mostly from groups funded by radical George Soro$.

Ted Cruz, who is right behind Trump in the quest to get the GOP nomination, spoke to reporters after the events of Friday.

We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. To have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side. Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight, as violence broke out, the rally was canceled all together. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.
But all you've heard this weekend in the media, and especially from the Trump bootlickers in the blogosphere, is that Ted Cruz is siding with Black Lives Matter, MorOn.org, George Soro$, et al., in an effort to attack Donald Trump.

Andrew McCarthy wrote at National Review Online:
That is not an indictment of Donald Trump for what lawless protesters did in Chicago. It is an indictment of Trump for encouraging rogue behavior, which inevitably begets more rogue behavior and perversely enables thugs to portray their thuggery as justifiable retaliation
Conservatives are champions of vigorous debate within the bounds of civil discourse. As conservative commentators who have been threatened, shouted down, censored, banned from speaking, and full-time demagogued will tell you, the point is not just to get one’s message across; it is the principle that the message is entitled to be heard even if it is unpopular. That is why we do not stoop to thug tactics or urge that the Left — with its legacy of laundering one-time terrorists into “social justice” activists — deserves an eye-for-an-eye. The law of the jungle is not the rule of law that we advocate. Civil society has to be civil society.
Even as a Cruz supporter, I think maybe he could have phrased the criticism of the Trump campaign a little differently. No, Cruz was not blaming Trump for the violence, but the Trump-bootlickers have taken Cruz's statement out of context similar to the way that the Soro$ funded Media Mutters for America does when it tries to silence conservative talk show or TV hosts.

But, at the same time, Cruz (and McCarthy) has a point. When you're out encouraging violence against protesters, when media people are assaulted at your rallies, there's a certain element that is attracted to that. From what I've seen in almost 15 years of counter-protesting the Left in the streets of San Francisco and Marin County, as well as blogging, is that the Left always seeks a way to antagonize and provoke anyone on our side to get a reaction. When they do, they get their friends in the media over and scream "Look what the mean old right-winger did to me!" So I'm sure the Soro$ goons went for the sake of thinking, say, along the lines of "maybe we can get some of those rednecks at Trump's rally to hit us, maybe one of them will use the n-word, since he won't condemn David Duke." That's the way the Leftist goons operate.

Which brings me to Michelle Fields and the websites founded by the late Andrew Breitbart.

Fields, who was (until she resigned early this morning) a reporter at Breitbart News, said she was assaulted by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Stories have come out that the management ordered staff not to defend Fields. The website's Editor at Large Ben Shapiro and a few others have joined Fields in the exudus from Breitbart.
“Today I informed the management at Breitbart News of my immediate resignation,” Fields said in a statement to BuzzFeed early Monday. “I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways.”
Fields’ colleague, editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, also resigned in protest.
Breitbart, which was founded in 2007 by the late outspoken conservative Andrew Breitbart, has been accused of having a pro-Trump bias since the billionaire businessman launched his campaign.
“Andrew’s life mission has been betrayed,” Shapiro wrote. “Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of Andrew’s legacy. In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News’ Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump’s bully campaign manager."
It isn't just Breitbart News, other conservative new media sites have become nothing but propaganda outlets for Trump. I can't read their work anymore, many of them I've had the utmost respect for, because of their attacks on Fields as someone who "Fudged" the assault story, or attacking another great writer, Katie Pavlich, or the childish attacks on Cruz "eating his boogers." Really? This is what "conservative" punditry has become? Promoting personalities instead of principles?

Anyone who saw Andrew Breitbart knows he would not have stood by as one of his reporters was bullied or assaulted.

In fact, he made it clear back in 2011 what he thought about Donald Trump.


Now, his legacy is being Trumped.

Sunday, March 06, 2016

RIP Nancy Reagan (1921-2016), Reunited With Her Beloved Husband

Somewhere in Heaven right now, there is a great reunion of a great couple (NY Times).
Nancy Reagan, the influential and stylish wife of the 40th president of the United States who unabashedly put Ronald Reagan at the center of her life but became a political figure in her own right, died on Sunday at her home in Los Angeles. She was 94.
The cause was congestive heart failure, according to a statement from Joanne Drake, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Reagan.
Mrs. Reagan was a fierce guardian of her husband’s image, sometimes at the expense of her own, and during Mr. Reagan’s improbable climb from a Hollywood acting career to the governorship of California and ultimately the White House, she was a trusted adviser.
“Without Nancy, there would have been no Governor Reagan, no President Reagan,” said Michael K. Deaver, the longtime aide and close friend of the Reagans who died in 2007.
 




If you look at these photos, and done any study of the Reagans, you can easily tell that there was nothing Hollywood about their relationship. It was real.  Reagan had just been divorced from actress Jane Wyman) only a couple of years before meeting Nancy Davis, at the request of a mutual friend after her name appeared on a list of alleged communist sympathizers. As then-President of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan found out another actress with the same name was confused for his future wife, thus clearing her, but she wished to meet with him to discuss the matter.

There were two women influential to Ronald Reagan. The first was his mother, Nelle, whose faith instilled in him the belief that "all things were part of God's Plan, even the most disheartening setbacks, and in the end, everything worked out for the best." Then there was Nancy, the gift God gave him after the heartbreak of divorce, whose love, devotion and adoration helped pave the way for him to fulfill God's will in his life. Reagan wrote in his autobiography, An American Life:
If ever God gave me evidence that He had a plan for me, it was the night He brought Nancy into my life. ...Sometimes, I think my life really began when I met Nancy.
That feeling was mutual, even as she had to endure what her husband wished he could spare her of, the heartache of his decline from Alzheimer's disease and the care he required. In Craig Shirley's recent book on the last years of Ronald Reagan, Last Act, the story is told of how, two days before the 40th President passed away in 2004, Nancy broke down in the arms of her daughter Patti, saying "Nothing is ever going to be okay without him."

On a personal note, I'll always remember the day the Reagans came to the town where I grew up, Harlingen, TX (near the Texas/Mexico border), in September 1980 for a campaign stop. I was in the sixth grade at the time and my mother made her first foray into politics that summer by volunteering for the local Republican party to help elect Ronald Reagan. It was a school day, and she and a longtime family friend were discussing how they thought about standing along the route the Reagans would take to their campaign appearance. So, Mom called the school I was at, got me out for a couple of hours, and we actually saw their car stop across the street for kids at a Catholic school. Waving toward the limo, I then caught a glimpse of Mrs. Reagan on the inside waving towards us.

RIP Nancy! America misses you both, and we could sure use the leadership, class, and optimism once again that you and President Reagan brought our nation.

Friday, March 04, 2016

DOUBLE STANDARD: No One Calls Out The Clintons, Democrats, For Honoring A Former KKK Kleagle

Donald Trump (aka Sideshow Bob) has come under attacks for an appearance on CNN this past Sunday with Jake Tapper, where he would not disavov an endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan or David Duke, acting as if he didn't know who Duke was, even though he had previously denounced Duke earlier.

This whole mess is Trump's creation, by acting he never knew of Duke when evidence shows the opposite in his previous denunciations. But the damage was done, as Trump's misstep fits into the liberal Democrat/media narrative of tar and feathering any Republican, or opponent of liberalism as being a bigot.

Despite Trump's mishandling of the Duke/KKK bruhaha, what is missed by the media is how the Klan was a product of Democrat reaction to Republican legislatures after Reconstruction, the era after the Civil War.


David Duke, similarly, cannot be seen as a "conservative Republican." He has sought office as both a Democrat and a Republican, and had supporters seen at Leftist anti-war rallies due to his hatred for the State of Israel. Duke also wrote glowingly of anti-war, Bush-hating mom Cindy Sheehan.

But for the all the reaction towards Donald Trump, will anyone pay attention to Bill and Hillary Clinton praising a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan who led the filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

From the Washington Post, June 19, 2005.
In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the "Grand Dragon" for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.
As Byrd recalls now, the Klan official, Joel L. Baskin of Arlington, Va., was so impressed with the young Byrd's organizational skills that he urged him to go into politics. "The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation," Baskin said.


Here is Slick Willie Clinton eulogizing Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D-KKK) at the 2010 funeral for Byrd.

"They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Klu Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There certainly are no perfect politicians."
Here's Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democrat nominee, honoring her "friend and mentor" Byrd, with clip of the former Senator/Kleagle talking in 2001 about "white niggers."


But of course, the media is silent about this, just as they are about the history of the alleged "Civil Rights President" Lyndon "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Johnson.

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Challenge To Mitt Romney & The Anti Trump Chorus: Endorse Ted Cruz Or Shut Up!

Like a bad case of hemorrhoids, failed 2012 Republican nominee for President Mittens Romney came out the woodwork to go after leading 2016 GOP contender Sideshow Bob, aka Donald Trump.


Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants. He calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press.
This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.
Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.
He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.
His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president and his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.
Interesting that Mittens should end his speech like he started it, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan.
Back in 1964, just days before the presidential election — which, incidentally, we lost — Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America, saying that it was a time for choosing. He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles, dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all. And the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. 
Well Mr. Romney, you sir are no Ronald Reagan. Not only that, if the 40th President were still alive you wouldn't even worthy of shining his shoes. It was over 20 years ago that "Flip Romney" did everything he could in liberal Massachusetts to distance himself from The Gipper.


That's just how he earned the name "Flip Romney." He was against Reagan then for him when it was politically convenient, just like he was pro-Donald Trump when it could help him.


No wonder that the worst GOP candidate in modern history was soon followed by the second worst, John McLame.

“I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described in his speech today.”

Who's next? Bob Dole? Maybe after he takes a few Viagra.

Now tonight comes word that Romney is strategerizing how to stop Trump, even if it goes to the convention (CNN).
Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says. 
The 2012 GOP nominee's advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising. 
"It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention," said the source. 
Romney is focused on suppressing Trump's delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination. 
But implicit in Romney's request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party's banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee. Another name these sources mentioned was House Speaker Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate in 2012.
Changing rules, just like the Romneybots did in 2012 when they changed the rules to shut out any non-establishment voices.

So, my question to all those who don't want Donald Trump as the nominee, is who do you want to endorse?  Flipper Mitt didn't endorse today. Lindsey Grahamnesty went from joking about murdering Ted Cruz to saying they might have to get behind him. But Lindsey is a special case. Unless John McLame tells him what to do, Lindsey is so confused he doesn't know whether to stand up or sit down to go to the bathroom.

This past Tuesday was Super Tuesday where I live now, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. True to my endorsement back on November 24, 2015, I proudly cast my vote in the GOP primary for the most conservative candidate for President I've had the opportunity to vote for, Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Of all the remaining candidates, Ted Cruz is the closest and best opportunity to defeat Donald Trump and fundamentally restore the United States of America. I know a lot of people who have a close friendship with Marco Rubio and are supporting him. But this isn't about personalities. If it wasn't Cruz, and Rand Paul was on Trump's heels, I'd support Rand Paul (or Rick Perry).

If Marco Rubio had stayed true to how he campaigned in 2010, I'd have no problem voting for Rubio. However, Marco Rubio sided with Obama and McLame on the Libyan intervention that brought us Benghazi one year later, and joined the Brooklyn ambulance chaser UpChuck Schumer to push the Gang of Eight amnesty bill. Rubio can't even win his home state of Florida, even ticking off northern Floridians recently with comments he made. I could not support Rubio as a contender to Trump, but I would have no problem if he was Ted Cruz' running mate to create a unity ticket, a la Reagan/Bush in 1980.

So, my question to Mittens Romney, John McLame, and the rest of the anti-Trump chorus, is this. Is this opposition to Trump based on what's best for the country, or what's best for the GOP establishment? If not, then may I suggest if you're opposed to Trump, then endorse the only real outsider and conservative still in the race, Ted Cruz, or I kindly ask you to shut the hell up!

Because if you're not willing to endorse Cruz, you're just doing this for the GOP establishment to keep it's lock on power, and you're just as unpatriotic as liberal Democrats, because you don't put what is best for the country before your own designs on power.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Hey New York Times, Release The Trump Tape!

Is Donald Trump a phony on his immigration stance?

Maybe, according to The Hill.
The meeting at The New York Times took place on Jan. 5 and was partially conducted off-the-record. The meetings are conducted ahead of the newspaper endorsing a candidate.
A columnist at the newspaper wrote about Trump's immigration plans. People familiar with the off-the-record interview suggested that what the columnist wrote reflects something Trump said to them.
"The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session," columnist Gail Collins wrote.
The editorial page editor of the Times declined to comment about the off-the-record portion of the interview to Buzzfeed News. He said if Trump wants the recording released, he can ask the paper and it will then make a decision.
Ted Cruz took on Trump.
"A very disturbing story that broke today," Cruz said in a video he posted to Twitter.
He said the New York Times has a "secret tape" of Trump saying that "he doesn't believe what he's saying on immigration."
 "That all of his promises to secure the borders are not real and if he's president he doesn't intend to do what he says," Cruz said.
 "The New York Times apparently has this on tape."
 Cruz said if Trump didn't say that to the newspaper, then he deserves to have the situation "cleared up." But if it's true, voters need to know, he said.
 "The voters deserve to know if he says something different when he's talking to The New York Times then he does when he's talking to the voters," Cruz said. "And we deserve to know before Super Tuesday."
Mark Levin just mentioned this at the top of his radio show, and I agree. This tape needs to be released because it is an important issue and one that, I believe, Trump has used to ride his way to the top of the GOP Primary run.

And if he's being deceitful, it needs to be known by the voters.