Of course he did. As I have said, I will vote for Trump as well, as will many other Conservatives like Dennis Prager among others. The fact is Hillary is as unacceptable a candidate as we have ever had. No one is more diametrically opposed o our Constitution than Hillary Clinton. I believe in principles, which is why I supported Cruz. Face it without principles, we are finished as a nation. But, at some points in life, pragmatism is the only choice left. This is such a time for me. Here is what Senator Cruz said about his decision
Via Facebook:This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision.
First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly are still trying to milk their gun control crusade for all the publicity it is worth. They recently put on their shocked faces and blasted Donald Trump for demanding that Hillary Clinton ask her body guards to disarm since she is so anti-gun
Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband Mark Kelly lashed out at Donald Trump on Friday for saying that Hillary Clinton’s bodyguards should be “disarmed.”
“Tonight we have even more evidence of just how dangerously unfit Donald Trump is to be president of this great country,” Giffords and Kelly, both Clinton supporters, said in a statement.
“He is reckless, irresponsible and unworthy of the office he seeks
To be clear, Trump has suggested, and I believe rightfully so, that Hillary Clinton would do everything she could to erase the right to keep and bear arms. His suggestion at his rally was that if Hillary is so vehemently anti-gun, then she should ask her security to disarm. In other words, Trump was asking for consistency from Clinton. Imagine that! Consistency from a Leftist? Never gonna happen. Leftism is an ideology of inconsistency, consistency being highly inconvenient to the Left.
The Cult of Gun Control, of which Giffords and Kelly are prominent members, lie on a regular basis about guns, “gun violence”, and self-defense with guns. The fact is that over the last quarter century, Americans have been buying firearms. Millions of Americans carry firearms for self-defense, and during this time, violent crime, homicides, homicide by firearms, and accidental gun deaths have all steadily decreased. These facts are not up for debate. Yet the Giffords, Kellys and Clintons of the world berate us with lies about the number of mass shootings, which they grossly over inflate, and the dangers of “assault rifles” “high-capacity magazines”, and “weapons of war”. The media, of course, exploits any mass shooting, and ignores the hundreds of thousands of times Americans use firearms in self-defense every year.
It is not that they do not know the truth, they do. It is that they believe lying to get their ends, is OK. Again, the Left does not value truth. The Cult of Gun Control, is most decidedly of the Left, so telling lies, or manufacturing false statistics to panic uniformed Americans is perfectly OK with Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action mouthpieces like Shannon Watts. So, I would say bravo to Trump for actually demanding Clinton put her money where her mouth is. Hillary Clinton is guarded by armed men and women, and she should be. Nothing wrong with security. I would find no issue with Hillary herself packing heat for her own protection. But she should stop demanding steps that would make it harder for Americans to own or carry firearms for their own security. Until she does that, then she is simply another gun control hypocrite. A hypocrite who recognizes the importance of armed protection yet seeks to deny it for average Americans.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will participate in their first joint event as presidential candidates Wednesday night.
NBC News and MSNBC – along with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America – will host the the Commander-in-Chief Forum in New York City. It will be a one-hour forum where Clinton and Trump will answer questions about national security, military affairs and veterans issues in front of an audience mainly made up of 300 or so members of the military.
Matt Lauer – who is listed as a “notable past member” on the Clinton Global Initiative’s website – is moderating the forum. During an interview on MSNBC Wednesday, Lauer said he will not ask Trump and Clinton the same questions.
“I’m not going to be repeating the same questions, though some will overlap,” Lauer said. “The veterans will get a chance to ask these candidates their own questions.”
Lauer said that when he takes questions from the audience, he expects most of them to revolve around the system-wide failure of the Veterans Affairs program.
“Lack of treatment – that’s where I think they will focus their questions.”
Clinton will be asked questions first for approximately 30 minutes, then Trump will go on stage next.
Richard Nixon was a crook, we all agree on that I think. But if Nixon can be called crooked, what can Hillary Clinton be called? Seriously, if Nixon crookedness was an ant hill, Hillary’s would be Mt. Everest, sitting on top of K2 Mt. Godwin Austen sitting on top of Mt. Kangchenjunga. Via A View From the Beach
FBI Says a Laptop That Held Clinton’s E-Mails Has Gone Missing. It’s not clear from the report whether it was lost in Clinton.com hands or FBI hands, although some reports seem to suggest it was in the FBI’s possession:
A personal laptop computer used to archive Hillary Clinton’s e-mails when she was secretary of state went missing after being put in the mail, according to the FBI’s report on its investigation into her use of a private e-mail system.
How often do you lose a computer in the mail?
Clinton, aides told FBI conflicting stories about email use
Hillary Clinton told FBI investigators last month that she did not have a personal computer inside the area within her home designed for viewing classified information known as a SCIF.
But three different witnesses told the FBI Clinton did indeed use personal computers inside the SCIFs at her Washington, D.C., and Chappaqua, N.Y., homes.
The contradiction in Clinton’s statements was just one of many that was exposed in the scathing 58 pages of notes released by the FBI Friday from its investigation of Clinton.
In another, Clinton told the FBI agents who interviewed her in July that State Department employees were well aware of her private email use because she contacted them frequently from her personal address.
“However, some State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her email address,” the FBI wrote.
I wondered about that; most people don’t go to the trouble of clicking on the address to find out where it comes from unless they’re suspicious of the source.
Evidence Clinton Was Speared In Phishing Attack – FBI report details “multiple” attempts to breach accounts One is more amusing than the rest.
At one point, Clinton aide Huma Abedin wrote to an associate indicating that Clinton was concerned about someone “hacking into her email” since Clinton had received an e-mail from a “known…associate” containing “a link to a website with pornographic material.”
“Here, I think Anthony sent this to me by mistake!”
Go read it all folks, this is about as damning as it gets. But, as always with the Clinton’s there is more, like destroying cell phones with hammers
Yeah, REALLY! But please, move along, nothing to see here! Did I mention the
Clinton Foundation or should say the Lets Make the Clintons Filthy Rich Slush Fund?
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.
But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
But, again, please move along, nothing to see here. What? Pay for play? Nooooooo
Her defenders keep insisting that there was “no quid pro quo” in having Ms. Clinton, when she was secretary of state, meet privately with Clinton Foundation donors — many of them foreign donors — seeking the favors of Ms. Clinton and the American government.
The talking points were established early on by Clinton surrogate and interim Democratic Party Chair Donna Brazile on ABC, after the Associated Press broke its story about Clinton Foundation megabucks donors getting all that happy face time alone with Hillary.
Ms. Brazile said:
“So, you know, this notion that, somehow or another, someone who is a supporter, someone who is a donor, somebody who’s an activist, saying, I want access, I want to come into a room and I want to meet people, we often criminalize behavior that is normal. And it’s — I don’t — I don’t see what the smoke is.”
Only in Washington can it be considered normal, not criminal, for insiders to use our government to get rich.
And here it is boiled down to its simplest form
The corruption was in the selling of access to the highest reaches of the federal government.
Yep, but move along, just…………