All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:32:45
The Truth About Ted Cruz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, this is Devan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
So in what is proving to be and promising to be the richest and most divisive and most explosive presidential campaign of all time, Barring hand-to-hand combat it really couldn't get any more exciting.
This is a truth about Ted Cruz.
He is of course number two behind Donald Trump at the moment and is promising to be a tough and wily candidate for the nomination for the Republican contender.
for the US presidency.
Now, just for those overseas, we will try and translate some of the intricacies of American politics to our overseas audience, mostly with hand puppets.
So, without any further ado, let's dive in.
This is the truth about Ted Cruz.
So, Ted, Raphael Edward Cruz, was born to Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson and Raphael Benvenido Cruz, both of them owners of a seismic data processing firm for oil drilling in Calgary, Alberta, Canada!
Yes, Canada!
The frozen tundra which has produced very few, if any, American presidential candidates.
We'll get to that controversy, oh, in just a few moments.
But that's where he was born.
Both of his parents actually were mathematicians.
Now, Rafael Cruz Sr.
was a Cuban refugee who fled persecution after fighting in the resistance against the dictator Fulgencio Batista.
The Sr.
Cruz continued being active in politics, assisting with a religious group that worked to elect Ronald Reagan.
For those who want a little bit more history about this, we do have the truth about Keke Vera available on this channel.
Now, the elder Cruz and the business went bankrupt.
The mom and dad started drinking, apparently.
He abandoned Ted and his mother in 1974, moving to Texas.
Kind of been his first winter, but that might be an incentive.
In Texas, Rafael Cruz joined a Baptist Bible study and found religion, which prompted a reconciliation with the family, who eventually all relocated to Houston, Texas.
I guess Chokwan for Jesus.
That's good.
Raphael Cruz describes speaking to his four-year-old son.
Quote, You know, Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know, and God has destined you for greatness.
This perhaps confirming one of Carl Jung's insights that nothing has more effect on a child than the unlived life of a parent.
Now, Cruz is a graduate from Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
Actually, prior to that, while attending high school in Houston, he participated in a group called the Free Market Education Foundation.
I guess looked down upon by the Dungeons and Dragons Club as being somewhat uncool.
This group first exposed him to free market economic philosophers like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Friedrich Bastiat, and Ludwig Von Mises.
All people, by the way, you should absolutely read if you want to understand what's going on on the planet at the moment.
So this presidential candidate has worked at the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Department of Justice, and as a domestic policy advisor to President George W. Bush.
Cruz also served as Texas Solicitor General and as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, teaching U.S.
Supreme Court litigation.
Cruz has also previously worked for a private law firm, studied a lot of free market, didn't spend a massive amount of time in the free market.
Ted Cruz.
And we will return to this as a theme in the presentation said, quote, the single biggest difference between me and the very fine men and women running for president.
When I say I'm going to do something, I will do exactly what I say I'm going to do.
It's not an imperial presidency, but he sure makes it sound a little bit along those lines.
Senator Ted Cruz has branded himself with the label of consistent conservative in recent months.
But what is the truth about Ted Cruz and his consistency?
Let's turn the page and find out.
Immigration.
Yes, you may have heard just a little bit about immigration as a hot topic in US politics at the moment.
In 2013, Marco Rubio, another contender, joined with a group of senators called the Gang of Eight.
I think they came with eyepatches, I'm not sure, to create a comprehensive immigration reform bill which would increase border security, improve the process for employers to check their employees' immigration status, and provide a lengthy path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
So, this is sort of how it would go to work.
Illegal immigrants would have been required to register, pay a fine, and pass a background check before being granted legal, registered, provisional immigrant status.
After 10 years, they could pay another fine, prove they had learned English and apply for a green card.
Three years after receiving their green card, the immigrants could then apply for a United States citizenship, which means basically everyone over 50 would say to their children, when I die, I shall bequeath you this paperwork, by which one day your descendants may become American citizens.
Now, Senator Ted Cruz proposed various amendments to the bill, including tripling the number of Border Patrol agents, quadrupling the amount of equipment at their disposal, making illegal aliens ineligible for means-tested welfare benefits, and removing the positive citizenship option.
Just by the by, there's not a lot of people recognize this even in America.
You can be an illegal immigrant in America.
You can get health care by going to the emergency room.
You can put your kids in school.
You can often vote.
You can get welfare benefits.
It's not like you're exactly living in the shadows.
You just may be eating nachos on the couch.
Ted Cruz, May 31, 2013 The underlying bill from the Gang of Eight provides for legal status for those who are here illegally.
It provides for them getting a temporary visa initially and ultimately being able to get a green card as a legal permanent resident.
The amendment I introduced would not change any of that, which would mean the 11 million who are here illegally would all come out of the shadows and be legalized under the Gang of Eight's bill.
It would simply provide that there are consequences for having come illegally, for not having followed the legal rules, for not having waited in line, and those consequences are that those individuals are not eligible for citizenship.
So, that's what you need to know.
Citizenship versus no citizenship was his big The proposed amendment to remove citizenship while still granting legal status was not added to the bill, and Cruz would later claim that his amendments were a poison pill designed to stop the bill, but this is inconsistent with his other statements.
September 2012 Ted Cruz said, quote, I have said many times that I want to see common sense immigration reform pass.
Cruz expressly rejected the idea of self-deportation saying that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
So self-deportation is something floated by Romney.
Basically saying, okay, well, if we cut off welfare and cut off all the other kinds of benefits, then people will do what a significant proportion of immigrants to America in the 19th century did, was say, look around, find they didn't really like it so much, and head on back home.
That happened to up to a third of immigrants in some places in the 19th century in America.
Ted Cruz, May 21, 2013, quote, I don't want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
So I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle.
If the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here legally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and Compromise to come together and this amendment I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase Dramatically, right?
So he's saying that he's hoping that his amendment will cause The bill to pass, and then later he says, actually no, it was a poison pill designed to stop the bill.
It's kind of no-null hypothesis, you can't disprove this Machiavellian three-dimensional chess switcheroos, but you know, from the outside eye, that's quite a lot of flip-flopping.
So much flip-flopping, I would characterize it as making a fish in a boat look like a brick on a shelf.
Ted Cruz, May 31, 2013, quote, I believe that if my amendments were adopted, the bill would pass.
My effort in introducing them was to find solution that reflected common ground and fixed the problem.
So, my amendment will help the bill to pass.
Later on, he's like, oh, my whole amendment was designed to stop the bill from passing.
Hmm.
Things you can get away with in politics that if I tried, not that I'd want to, in my show, I would be eviscerated.
Cruz later commented that it was the inclusion of the path to citizenship which was actually the poison pill.
Even suggesting that the insistence on citizenship was a political maneuver by the Democrats to attack Republicans who are opposing the common sense immigration reform.
Basic mark of maturity.
I'm wrong.
I've changed my mind based on new information.
Can't do that?
Hmm.
I'm not sure what else you can do.
The Senator ultimately voted against the Gang Evade Bill, which passed in the Senate, but died in the House.
In 2013, Cruz never said that he would not support legalization of illegal immigrants and made many, many statements which appear to support legalization.
Even in August 2015, Cruz's campaign noted that the candidate would refuse to discuss what to do with the undocumented population until the border is secure.
Quote, I'm not playing that game.
It is a distraction from how we actually solve the problem.
Now, again, for those outside of American political circles, about a third of the population of Mexico, according to some estimates, is poured across the border.
There are estimates, fairly credible estimates, based upon remittance payments to Central and Southern American countries that About 30 million illegal immigrants have come in through the southern border.
So you have to think of a prison, so to speak, where the wall is down and prisoners keep pouring out.
And people say, well, we've got to round up and put these prisoners back in.
And people say, well, I'm not going to talk about what we do with the prisoners who've escaped the prison until we seal up the wall of the prison and then we can decide about that.
Of course, I don't know why you can't do both.
That doesn't really make much sense to me at all.
You can certainly figure out what you're going to do with them.
And of course, since 2006, a bill has been passed to build a Wall along the southern border of the United States, but it's been defunded and therefore is sort of a dead letter law, although it is definitely there.
So that, you know, you could just say, are you going to enforce the law?
The Republicans as the law and order party are in a difficult position when they say, well, people are here illegally, but we're not going to deport them.
That basically is 30 million people should then be pursuing a massive policy of civil disobedience.
And if you don't like the laws, you don't have to enforce them, which does not seem very conservative in many ways.
Additional proposed amendments to the Gang of Eight Bill from 2013, quote, I've introduced one amendment to double the cap of legal immigration from $675,000 to $1.3 million, another to take the high-tech H-1B visas that are coming in and to increase them by 500% from $65,000 to $325,000.
I think we need to remain a nation that welcomes and embraces legal immigrants and in both regards my amendments go further to improving legal immigration than does the Gang of Eight.
Now the H-1B visas, this was originally a program in the 50s to bring over one in a million extraordinary Nobel Prize winning people to maybe teach a course or two at Harvard.
And has basically turned into a flood of cheap, often Indian programmers who are displacing American middle-class programmers.
In fact, Disney forced the programmers to train their replacements.
It's kind of like a tech serfdom in that you really can't look for other jobs.
It helps grind wages down and thus big business is donating a lot to Republican candidates to keep this program going because they've got to make money and if they don't do it someone else will.
And so that is a big It's one of the things that is why the middle class wages have been stagnating for so long.
And American immigration is crazy.
The average guy, let's just say you're a man who wants to immigrate to America from India, you can wait decades to get approval.
In November 2015, Cruz switched from celebrating legal immigration, as we saw above, to supporting a suspension of the H-1B visa program for 180 days to audit the system for abuses.
And a hold on all increases in legal immigration as long as American unemployment quote remains unacceptably high.
Basic stats, natives in America, those natives to America, are on welfare at the rate of 30%.
of 30%, it is 51% for immigrants, and it is 61% for illegal immigrants.
It's not surprising that Cruz is sympathetic to immigrants like Jeb Bush with his wife, given that his father, Rafael Cruz, fled Cuba, of course, as a refugee, seeking political asylum.
The Syrian refugees, of course, a big topic in England and in Europe as a whole and of course in North America.
The senator has said, quote, U.S.
immigration law for many decades has included asylum and refugee status for those who have credible fears of persecution and oppression.
Now the degree to which this applies to Syrian refugees is somewhat unclear because a lot of them are already safe in Turkish camps and other camps around Syria.
And therefore are not fleeing immediate persecution and oppression.
Just, I don't know, the camps aren't that much fun.
There's not much of a future in the welfare state and Europe is very generous, so...
So that's what he said in the past.
On Syrian refugees on January 7th 2014, quote, it is also a serious concern that some of the Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists who have infiltrated the Syrian opposition have also apparently infiltrated the refugee population and are using them as cover to move into host nations.
See, generally if you're at war with a population it's not a very wise idea to bring in lots of young military aged men from those populations.
I don't know why this needs to be said but apparently it does.
February 12, 2014, he said about the Syrian refugees, quote, We have welcomed refugees that tired, huddled masses for centuries.
That's been the history of the United States.
We should continue to do so.
We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists.
But we can do that.
Actually, according to the FBI director, there's no way to do that.
There's no way to do that.
The number of no-documentation or fake-documentation migrants coming from North Africa and other places in the Middle East is so huge.
So the FBI said there's no way.
No way.
Can't do it.
On Syrian refugees on November 15, 2015, quote, It is nothing less than lunacy.
It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not.
Those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East in majority Muslim countries.
Now, of course, the various attacks had occurred since then, so this is new information.
I don't want to pretend that every time someone changes their mind that it's immediately a flip-flop.
Of course, as new information comes along, you have to adapt and adopt your information.
Otherwise, we'd all believe still that the sun was a giant ball of fire carried across the sky by flaming ancient Greek chariots.
It's important to note, when somebody does change their mind, if they reference their earlier beliefs, and that they've changed their mind, and here's why, that's really, really important.
So... Ted Cruz, advertisement, December 17th, 2015, quote, Securing our borders and securing illegal immigration is a matter of national security.
That's why I fought hard to defeat President Barack Obama and the Republican establishment's Gang of Eight amnesty plan.
Their misguided plan would have given Obama the authority to admit Syrian refugees, including ISIS terrorists.
That's just wrong.
And it is wrong, and he's talking to himself two years back.
So, with regards to deportation.
In September 2013, the New York Times reported that Ted Cruz, quote, noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
I don't know.
Self-deportation is, you know, it's just immigrants breaking up with America.
You don't need such a dramatic term.
They entered illegally, didn't work out for them, and they're moving back home.
Self-deportation.
Deportation is when you're kind of rounded up and forced across the border by gunpoint.
Self-deportation is just wandering back.
It just seems like it's an unnecessarily inflammatory term, which is no doubt why the New York Times uses it about someone on the right.
Oh, the other thing, too, is if you're going to have a law that says Immigrating without permission is illegal, then of course you have to use force.
That's what law is.
Force!
Law is force.
I don't know why people have such a tough time with this.
Early in his presidential campaign, Ted Cruz repeatedly refused to answer questions about what to do with illegal immigrants currently in America, calling it a distraction.
Quote, I think we should secure the border and then have a conversation at that point.
He's never explained why you can't do both at the same time, other than, of course, he's afraid of inflaming the Hispanic community, which is weird, because looking at the Hispanic community as one giant blob that all support illegal immigration The illegal immigration that's also driving down their wages and adding to their tax bills is kind of odd.
Although, to be fair, Hispanics, like Muslims, do vote overwhelmingly Democrat and leftist.
January 5th, 2016, when asked about Donald Trump supporting the deportation of all the illegal immigrants, are you willing to say the same?
He said, absolutely yes!
We should enforce the law.
And in fact, look, there's a difference.
He's advocated allowing folks to come back in and become citizens.
I oppose that!
So, um, I guess he's willing to talk about it now, again, with no rest.
So he's just wet-fingering the wind and saying, well, Donald Trump's getting great traction with this issue, so I'll follow in his wake.
January 10, 2016.
No, I don't intend to send jackboots to knock on your door and every door in America.
That's not how we enforce the law for any crime.
We don't have any system that knocks on the doors of every person in America.
We also don't have people going door to door looking for murderers.
We don't live in a police state.
We do have law enforcement.
Yes, but that's what law enforcement is.
If it's illegal to be in America, you can be rounded up and deported.
That's what the law is.
Of course, not everyone in America is illegal, despite what some of the natives say.
Of course, you don't have to go to every door, but the reality is you'll have to go to some.
Of course, if he says, well, we're going to be really good at figuring out how employers can figure out if people are illegal or not, That's easy to figure out.
Of course, they're mailing a whole bunch of welfare checks to illegal immigrants.
You can follow those checks and find some illegal immigrants there.
Not that hard to find people who are illegal.
There are 30 million of them, of which there are not 30 million murderers.
They're mostly concentrated in the Pentagon.
Natural-born citizen.
Ah, yes.
Here is the law.
Quote, no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.
Which is why we don't have a President Schwarzenegger.
Ted Cruz on his eligibility.
Quote, As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward in settled law.
People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter, it is quite straightforward.
Now, I always thought men had to be born on American soil, American embassy maybe, or an overseas military base and so on, something which was considered American soil.
Constitutional law professor Mary Bridget McManaman, quote, The concept of natural-born comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition.
On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous.
So, she agrees with Ted Cruz and then doesn't, she goes on to say.
The 18th century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are, quote, such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England.
While aliens are, quote, such as are born out of it.
So, it's like your belly button.
It's an innie or it's an outie.
It's one or the other.
The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one's country of birth.
So that's important.
The United States Supreme Court has maintained that, quote, the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents was able to be determined by Congress, quote, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Naturalization is not the same as being natural born.
You know, you can be born through the vagina, or you can be born through the C-section, as they say in Macbeth, from his mother's womb, untimely ripped, but it's sort of one or the other.
The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, making children born outside of the United States territory citizens upon birth.
Provided that they are born to at least one American parent, because this form of citizenship comes from law, which is naturalization, and not the Constitution, it means that such citizens are not natural born.
Law professor Jack Balkin from Yale, quote, Natural, in natural born, doesn't mean biological, it means naturally.
That is automatically happening without any further intervention, right?
So if you're born in America, you're American.
If you have to become American as a result of a prior act of Congress naturalizing you, that is not the same as natural born.
So Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, not part of the United States, on December 22nd, 1970.
Don't I feel young?
His mother was an American citizen and his father was born in Cuba.
In addition to Canadian citizenship, at birth he gained United States citizenship under naturalization laws, but he is not a natural-born citizen as specified in the Constitution according to a variety of legal experts.
And we'll get more into the laws behind this in a moment.
So Cruz's professor, Lawrence Tribe from Harvard, quote, It's a serious cloud.
There's question of whether he's even eligible to run for president.
It's a serious cloud.
It has to be taken seriously.
It's not just a matter of coming up with great talking points or winning some debate.
I think he does a disservice to the Constitution and the country when he thinks he can slide his way, slip-slide his way, around this serious constitutional issue.
Conservative author and lawyer, Ann Coulter.
Quote, the best argument for Cruz being a natural-born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided, quote, 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.
Except the problem is, neither that Congress nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so actually treated them like natural-born citizens.
Supreme Court, Schneider v. Rusk, 1964, quote, We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.
The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural-born citizen is eligible to be President.
Everything's the same.
The Constitution says only one thing you can't do and that's run for president.
Now, of course, this is back in the day when coming to America was sliding out of form, coughing into a bag and wandering into New York.
And so people were concerned, of course, that at a time when nationalism was a greater force than it is now, that people had to be born in the country to assume leadership of it because they'd be much more likely to have loyalty to it as opposed to somebody who came in from outside.
It is also worth noting that the Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded the previous act, and the term natural-born citizens was changed to just citizens.
So, you know, if your claim is a five-year ambiguous gap in law from 221 years ago, the latter part of which is not decided in your favor, it might be considered a tad shaky.
Ted Cruz.
Under long-standing U.S.
law, Naturalization Act of 1790, the child of a U.S.
citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.
If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen.
That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.
If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen.
I don't want to speak for his wife, but I will say that Cruz's missionary position is quite incompetent.
Of course he's not saying that... John McCain was born in a military environment and therefore that is American soil.
And so it's hard to really argue how that is going to work.
Senator John McCain on Cruz's eligibility, quote, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, McCain on Cruz's eligibility, quote, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump.
Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship as a U.S.
Senator, only when he started to run 15 months ago for President of the United States.
He could be Canadian Prime Minister.
Okay, yeah, just a reminder, 15 months ago, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Now several lawsuits have been filed questioning Cruz's eligibility to run for a POTUS but questions as if they will have standing to bring such claims remain unresolved.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the citizenship provision for presidential office holders and thus legal uncertainty remains.
Now, the Supreme Court, a little bit on the left.
I just want to give you a scenario where Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton is facing up against Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz wins.
This goes to the somewhat leftist Supreme Court.
Who do you think they're going to vote in favor of?
I mean, for heaven's sakes, they violated the Constitution by forcing Americans to buy health care insurance under Obamacare.
Do you really think that they're going to vote in a Not that ambiguous legal sense.
Are they really going to vote to keep Ted Cruz in office when, with one stroke of a pen, they could put a fellow leftist into power?
Come on, people.
This is real politics.
This is not abstract philosophy.
Financial backing.
In July 2015, a network of four related keep-the-promise political action committees reported raising $38 million to support Ted Cruz's presidential campaign.
Again, for those of our friends outside the giant...
economic gold soul-sucking whirlpool of American financial politics.
You're not allowed to donate more than, I think, $2,500 to a political candidate.
This is true of corporations as well.
However, a recent ruling, it's not that recent now, called Citizens United, said that it is a violation of your free speech to not allow you to spend your own money to support your political campaigner of choice.
You're not allowed to coordinate directly with his campaign, the degree to which people do or don't It could happen.
It might not happen.
There are trillions of dollars at stake in government power benefits to big corporations and so I'll let you figure out whether big corporations might try skirting the law or not.
I know where I stand on it.
This is sort of how you can raise so much money.
You can't donate directly, but you can donate to some group called the Political Action Committee, which is supporting his campaign.
The New York Times, July 31, 2015, quote, More than 95% of the total contributions to Super PAC supporting Ted Cruz came from donations of a million dollars or more, more than any other candidate.
Now, You know, it's like the NASCAR thing, you know, you gotta get a sticker of who's paid for your campaign on your forehead.
I guess I'd have room, but as of the latest report in October 2015, Ted Cruz's campaign had the most cash on hand of any Republican campaign at $13.8 million.
This doesn't include PAC, Political Action Committee, cash on hand as the deadline for those reports is January 31st, 2016.
Robert Mercer has worked for the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies since 1993 and now serves as co-CEO, Chief Executive Officer.
Renaissance Technologies' flagship medallion fund has earned average annual returns of 35% for 20 years, thus pushing the boundaries of mathematical possibility, including averaging 71.8% return from 1994 through to mid-2014 before fees.
from 1994 through to mid-2014 before fees.
So this is even during the last economic crash.
That is a staggeringly high return on investment.
development.
The fact that he's donating a lot to political candidates while getting extraordinarily high returns from his investments, well, I'll leave you to mull that.
Now, according to the New York Times, the Internal Revenue Service has been investigating Renaissance technologies for a minimum of six years, claiming that it used complex financial structures to underestimate its tax bill by six billion dollars.
Over 14 years.
So... I don't know.
Maybe the IRS thought they were a conservative charity and investigated from that.
Six years.
So we've got some financial wizards of the highest order of intelligence dodging mouth-breathing IRS neckbeard trolls.
I can see who's probably going to win, but there may be some concern over all of this.
The technique used by Renaissance Technologies was the subject of a United States Senate hearing in 2014.
And it remains unclear if the IRS and Renaissance have resolved their dispute.
But six billion dollars.
So this guy is being chased down by the IRS.
We don't know what's happening at the moment.
But I'm just going to say it again.
Six billion dollars.
It's the updated inflation adjusted six million dollar man.
Ted Cruz, quote, My criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism.
They give favors to Wall Street and big business and that's why I've been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism taking on leaders in both parties.
So crony capitalism is you give money to political candidates, political candidates in return give you favorable legislation or bailouts or some sort of advantage and that's called crony capitalism and it drives people crazy but it's the way that the game has to be played if you want to make money these days.
Candidate Ted Cruz has called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and supports the institution of a 10% flat tax.
Cruz differs from Republican front-runner Donald Trump, whose tax plan calls for a dramatic simplification of the tax code at a graduated scale based on income.
So, is there a conflict of interest?
Let me just hand-puppet it for you for a moment.
We have Robert Mercer, who may be liable for $6 billion in taxes, and Ted Cruz, who wants to abolish the agency that's in pursuit of Robert Mercer.
Robert Mercer donates a lot of money to political action campaigns who are supporting Ted Cruz.
Ha!
You know, one of the biggest investments that corporations can make in buying Congress people, because it's buying Congress people because it's going to give you more ROI than just about anything else.
See, Donald Trump says if you make $200 million a year, you pay 10%.
You're paying very little relatively to someone that's making $50,000 a year and has to hire H&R Block because it's so complicated.
I know people that are making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no taxes, and I think it's unfair.
The hedge fund guys won't like me as much as they like me now.
I know them all, but they'll have to pay more.
So that's...
Donald Trump, because of course Donald Trump is almost exclusively self-funding his campaign, unprecedented in American politics, for someone to gain high office, potentially, without being beholden to special interest groups whose prey is generally the middle class.
Peter Schiff, our good friend Peter, quote, I think it's a good issue for Trump because he knows his opponents can't attack it because they're trying to get money from Wall Street.
It's probably winning him some support.
Of course, Barack Obama got the most money from Wall Street of any presidential candidate in history.
And hey, there's a bailout.
Shocking.
Now, it is reported that the Breitbart Media Group is also funded by Robert Mercer.
Now, I actually like Breitbart.
I think they do some excellent, excellent reporting, so this has nothing to do with that.
Let's just get to the backing of them.
As is the political data company Cambridge Analytica, which is working with the Cruz presidential campaign.
Again, sources for all of this are below in the description.
Politico wrote, quote, Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon has worked with Mercer on political projects, including Cambridge Analytics, according to conservative finance operatives.
They describe Bannon as something of a gatekeeper for Mercer.
Politico also wrote, quote, a spokesperson for the Mercer's declined to comment on their involvement in Breitbart.com or whether they have sought to shape the outlet's coverage of Cruz.
Breitbart editors refuse to comment on the Mercer connection, saying they're a private company and we don't comment on who our investors or backers are.
are.
The popular conservative blog The Conservative Treehouse has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest.
Quote, In essence, when you participate in the Breitbart presidential preference poll, you are sending your personal information into a database controlled by the proprietary interests of Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica.
The Ted Cruz campaign then uses the data collected to fundraise on behalf of the campaign.
The pro-Ted Cruz Keep the Promise Pack umbrella is managed by Christian activist David Barton.
Barton is perhaps best known for his Mercury One charity business partnership with Glenn Beck and frequent appearances on Beck's various media programs.
David Barton has made some comments about homosexuality, which are worth checking out, but that's a little bit outside the scope of this little chat.
Now, of course, Glenn Beck does seem to have a little bit of a dog in the fight in that he recently said he would prefer Bernie Sanders, the socialist, to Donald Trump.
Ted Cruz was down at the border with Glenn Beck handing out soccer balls to illegal immigrant children.
And, um, I guess it's a bit of a salt and pepper bromance.
Undisclosed loans, fairly significant.
Now, the Federal Election Commission mandates that federal candidates disclose any loans taken out to finance their campaign operations.
The concern, of course, is that loans could be used to subvert campaign finance law and circumvent the rules on the amount of per-person contributions.
So, if I'm running for office and I borrow a million dollars, I have to declare that, because otherwise I could say, well, it was a loan, not a donation to get a million bucks.
I pay it back at some preferential rates, and that subverts the contribution limits.
So if a candidate takes a secured loan using their own assets as collateral, they put up their house or something, and it's issued at the market rate of interest, that is perfectly legal.
If a candidate takes an unsecured loan or gets a favorable interest rate, or loan terms, that is illegal.
Now, Cruz has depicted the financing of his Senate campaign as a story of loyalty and shared sacrifice for his family.
Quote, Sweetheart, I'd like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign.
What astonished me then and now was Heidi within 60 seconds said, absolutely, with no hesitation.
So he's just burning all of his bridges for Kindlewood to send up the smoke signals of upcoming conservative freedoms.
The New York Times writes, quote, a review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign.
The value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000, even as the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz's Senate campaign.
So if you say, we sold everything so I could become a senator, but during the time of running, your assets go up by $400,000, I guess you're going up the down escalator in people's minds.
In 2012, as a Senate candidate, Ted Cruz was campaigning against big banks and taxpayer-funded bank bailouts.
Now, he was a Tea Party guy, and one of the things the Tea Party hated taxed enough already, the Tea Party conservative movement attempted to take back conservatism, which generally failed, as Tea Party candidates went and stuck their heads ostrich-deep into the general trough of taxpayer innards, which is the feeding frenzy in the Washington buffet of hell.
They hated the bailouts, right?
It was completely unfair.
And so he was campaigning against big banks and the taxpayer-funded bank bailouts.
Those big banks are just terrible.
Those big financial institutions are just horrible.
Now, Ted Cruz's wife has worked at Goldman Sachs.
for 10 years is currently managing director with the very bank that extended the first undisclosed loan.
And that's going to raise some questions, right?
So he borrowed money from Goldman Sachs where his wife worked as managing director, which is like one step down from the very top.
Mrs. Cruz is currently on unpaid leave from her position during her husband's presidential run.
When previously asked about Goldman Sachs, Ted Cruz noted, quote, Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.
So they like buying politicians.
Hey, I'm going to borrow some money from them.
On January 13th, 2016, the New York Times reported that Ted Cruz failed to disclose a loan from Goldman Sachs which was used in financing his Senate campaign.
Ted Cruz, after running, railing against the corruption of big financial institutions and their corrosive effects on buying politicians, refused or failed to disclose a loan from Goldman Sachs used to fund his campaign.
He said, January 13, 2016, It's an inadvertent filing question.
The facts of the underlying matter have been disclosed for many, many years.
It's not complicated.
Our finances were not complicated.
We put in the entirety of our savings.
We did so through a combination of savings accounts and selling assets and taking a margin loan against other assets.
And that those facts are clear and transparent and a technical and inadvertent filing error doesn't change that at all.
Ted Cruz at the Republican debate January 13, 2016, quote, The entire New York Times attack is that I disclosed that loan on one filing with the United States, sorry, with the United States Senate, that it was a public filing.
But it was not on a second filing with the FEC.
So his argument, ah, you know, I put it in one document.
I didn't put it in another.
These things happen.
Although Donald Trump says that his is the most complicated filing, gone on for hundreds of pages, and there's not one error that anyone's found in it so far.
But nonetheless, that's Ted Cruz's defense.
On January 15th.
The Cruz campaign revealed that they had failed to disclose a second loan from Citibank, which was also used to finance his 2013 campaign.
Both loans had floating interest rates consistent with those available to wealthy borrowers at the time the loans were issued.
There's no question of the legality of the loans, but the filing is important.
So there's two filings that Ted Cruz is talking about.
There are personal financial disclosure reports, and those are filed annually, and they require non-specific amount information.
While the reporting requirements of the FEC are much more stringent and require very detailed information, FEC campaign finance reports are required quarterly and also pre-election and post-election.
During the final days of an election, disclosure is required within 48 hours for any new loans or contributions.
During one of those required 48-hour pre-election filings, Cruz informed the FEC that he had loaned his campaign approximately $1.4 million, but had failed and failed to disclose that it was borrowed money from Goldman Sachs and Citibank.
Former FEC lawyer Kenneth A. Gross There are two different reporting regimes.
The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan, and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.
The Texas Republican primary was held on May 29, 2012, and Cruz did not disclose taking out any personal loans until July 9.
2012.
This is essential information for voters to make an informed decision and for opposition research for whoever he was running against, which he did not disclose.
He disclosed that he'd loaned his campaign $1.4 million.
He did not disclose that he had borrowed this money from two financial institutions.
The primary election in 2012 was close and went into a runoff election to be held on July 31st 2012.
Cruz reported loaning his campaign another $400,000 between July 23rd and 25th before the runoff election.
So there was a small window between July 12th when the Senate received his personal financial disclosure report and July 31st when Cruz won the runoff election, that the Texas voters could have been aware that he'd received personal loans after the initial primary election, but there was never a disclosure until now that they were used to finance his campaign.
If Cruz was late filing his personal disclosure statement and didn't receive an extension, he would have been subject to a $200 late filing penalty.
So, not catastrophic for a guy who seems to misplace over a million dollars in his mind.
Former FEC official Kent Cooper said, quote, Cruz's letter to the FEC was still lacking critical information.
This failure to disclose to the public meant voters in Texas did not have the required information.
Senator Ted Cruz could also be prosecuted for noncompliance.
Quote, In addition to any committee action, the Ethics in Government Act authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to seek a civil penalty of up to $50,000 against an individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or fails to file or to report Any required information.
Moreover, anyone who knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals any material fact in a statement to the government may be subject to fines, criminal prosecution, and sentencing.
An FEC complaint has already been filed against Cruz for, quote, failure to disclose.
Now, an FEC complaint is the first step of an FEC investigation.
So this is how wild this election cycle is.
America could conceivably have a Clinton versus Cruz election with both candidates being prosecuted by the Justice Department.
Clinton, of course, for the security violations in her home brewed by the toilet data dump email server.
And Cruz for this failure to disclose.
Chad Sweet is the campaign chairman for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign and he was also the finance chairman to Cruz's 2012 Senate campaign.
Sweet worked at Goldman Sachs for a decade.
Wait.
Pattern?
No pattern.
I'm bad at online tests.
Eventually becoming vice president of the company until leaving in 2006 to work for the Department of Homeland Security.
All right.
American sovereignty.
No foreign entanglements, say people long dead.
In 2011, Ted Cruz called the Council on Foreign Relations.
That's a...
Globalists!
A think tank that supposedly helps bring information to bear on American politics with regards to foreign relations.
Ted Cruz called the Council on Foreign Relations, quote, a pernicious nest of snakes.
That is, quote, working to undermine our sovereignty.
Ooh!
Them's fightin' words.
Boy, he sure as hell wouldn't want to be associated with anyone in that pernicious nest of snakes.
Oh, except for his wife.
The candidate's wife, Heidi Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations for five years, until 2011, and served on the task force that wrote, quote, Building a North American Community, which included the following suggestions.
Before we dive into them, remember, it's a pernicious nest of snakes that is working to undermine our sovereignty.
They've got our balls in a jar by the bed.
So, she worked on the task force that wrote these great ideas.
EXPAND TEMPORARY MIGRANT WORKER PROGRAMS.
CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES SHOULD EXPAND PROGRAMS FOR TEMPORARY LABOR MIGRATION FROM MEXICO.
CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CONSIDER ELIMINATING RESTRICTIONS ON LABOR MOBILITY ALL TOGETHER AND WORK TOWARD SOLUTIONS THAT, IN THE LONG RUN, COULD ENABLE THE EXTENSION OF FULL LABOR MOBILITY TO MEXICO AS WELL.
And, quote, lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America.
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the government's physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America.
So this pernicious nest of snakes that's working to undermine our sovereignty apparently wants to dissolve American control over workers coming in, or other people coming in, or anyone coming in or out of America.
So...
It's a permicious nest of snakes!
Honey!
I don't know.
Is there a better way of turning America into Europe than allowing for open borders in this way?
In a statement included with the report, Heidi Cruz wrote, quote, I support the task force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America.
I'm telling you.
It's an overused phrase.
I hate to use it.
I'm going to use it.
I rarely use it.
You just can't make this stuff up.
You put this in a story and people will be like, no, no, no.
Come on.
Make it more subtle.
Ah, OK.
So, Iowa corn, ethanol, gasoline.
OK, let's move on.
I have to go a little bit more into that.
Iowa, fairly significant in the American presidential race.
Corn and ethanol subsidies, extremely relevant to Iowa farmers.
And so here we go.
In 2013, Ted Cruz sponsored the Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act, which would have immediately repealed legislation that mandates That an amount of corn ethanol has to be blended with gasoline through 2022.
The legislation failed.
So, in America, they are trying to put certain amounts of ethanol, which of course comes from corn, or this corn ethanol does, into gasoline, which drives up the demand for corn.
And has other effects which we'll get to in a moment.
And this is true to his free market principles of his distant youth.
He's like, let's repeal this legislation.
In 2014, Cruz introduced legislation that would phase out the renewable fuel standard over five years.
From whenever the legislation took effect.
That legislation also failed.
So he's like, OK, we're not going to quit cold turkey.
We're going to phase it out.
And that failed as well.
It is an uphill battle, to put it mildly, to walk into Iowa opposing ethanol in every or any conceivable way.
Ted Cruz has been hounded by pro-ethanol farm lobbyists since he announced his candidacy.
And after Iowa Campaign Trail comments discussing his proposed five-year phase-out of this renewable fuel standard, many have claimed that Cruz has flip-flopped his position to placate the ethanol lobby.
But what's the truth?
America's renewable future.
Ours!
State Director Eric Branstad said, quote, Farmers and rural communities across Iowa are going to be encouraged by Senator Cruz's remarks.
He is clearly listening to the people of Iowa and understands the importance of the renewable fuel standard to America's economy and energy independence.
As he started the caucus process calling for immediate repeal.
While not perfect, this is a big step forward by Senator Cruz.
Now of course he has been consistent against energy subsidies and in that Ted Cruz is consistent to the free market principles he learned as a teenager and also you know in 2012 for the average US family of four faced a two thousand dollar increase in food costs because of the higher corn prices that this renewable fuel standard legislation has caused.
Because of course corn is used to feed all of the livestock and so on, so it has a huge domino or ripple effect on food prices.
And this corn boom that this RFS legislation has created has impacted over five million acres of land that were once set aside for conservation have been turned over to Corn.
And the whole idea was it was going to reduce carbon emissions and so on.
And scientists at the University of Wisconsin found that the corn boom has released as much carbon dioxide as 34 coal power plants in one single given year.
It's not carbon neutral.
It actually worsens gas mileage in cars, making cars less fuel efficient and therefore worse for the environment.
Ethanol delivers 25% fewer miles per gallon than Gasoline.
Even the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has acknowledged that ethanol in gasoline can also damage internal combustion engines.
It increases exhaust temperatures and causes component failures.
Of course, the cost of replacing cars is not exactly environmentally friendly.
Purdue University found that repealing this renewable fuel standard would cause food prices to fall 13% overall in 2012.
This is the $2,000 increase.
It's shocking just how bad it is for the middle class.
And to his credit, Cruz is opposed to that.
Is he flip-flopping?
Well...
Ted Cruz, quote, although I oppose government subsidies, I am a passionate supporter of a free and fair energy marketplace.
Now I just want to pause on that because that sentence, I've read it like 19 times, it makes no sense to me.
If it makes no sense to you, then it makes no sense to both of us and everyone else watching this.
He says, although I oppose government subsidies, I am a passionate supporter of a free and fair energy marketplace.
So those would seem to be, although would not be necessary there.
He went on to say, my view on energy is simple.
We should pursue an all-of-the-above policy.
We should embrace all the energy resources with which God has blessed America.
Oil and gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, and biofuels, and ethanol.
But Washington shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
That's why my tax plan ends all energy subsidies and mandates.
Market access is critical, and my administration will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to ensure that the oil and gas industry cannot block access to the market for ethanol producers.
So, you know, normally there's a bit more of a gap between hope and despair, between the kiss and the slap.
But he's like, I want to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers.
Oh, except for antitrust legislation, which is generally arbitrarily applied and a real fascistic core to government management of industry.
Right now, the EPA, he said, through regulations on fuels, used in vehicle emissions tests, imposes a hard wall against mid-level ethanol blends, making it largely illegal to sell gasoline with higher blends of ethanol.
Iowa rescinded the EPA's blend wall, allowing ethanol to command a much larger share of the energy market.
How much difference will that make for Iowa corn farmers?
This makes no sense to me either.
If ethanol was efficient and effective, it would already be being used.
The government wouldn't force people to use it already.
So, saying that if I repeal government legislation forcing people to buy corn from Iowa, people are going to buy more corn from Iowa makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
Only seven states have mandated this ethanol and two states have ten percent.
The rest of them have a A couple of points back and forth here and there, so I don't know what to say.
Cruz has consistently been opposed to renewable fuel subsidies, but Cruz's PACs received $25 million this year from those with oil, gas, and fracking interests.
So, of course, the oil and gas industry would love for these subsidies to be, or these demands that ethanol be used to be removed so they could sell more oil and so on.
Again, they've received a lot of money.
That's the way politics work, unless you're Donald Trump.
The candidate has recently said that he would not support his original Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act if it was proposed today.
So, politics being the art of the possible, I guess he's pulling a Freddie Mercury and going any way the wind blows, but that's important to recognize.
The degree to which financial pressures erode youthful integrity is very evident.
Helen Greenspan, it's really not that hard to see in a wide variety of people.
Political cartoons featuring his daughters.
Ted Cruz's young daughters have been very visible during his campaign.
The Washington Post released a political cartoon depicting them as monkeys on a leash amid claims that the senator uses his children as political props.
Cartoonist Anne Telnaes, quote, There is an unspoken rule in editorial cartooning that a politician's children are off-limits.
I've kept that rule except when the children are adults themselves or choose to indulge in grown-up activities, as the Bush twins did during George W. Bush's presidency.
But when a politician uses his children as political props, as Ted Cruz recently did, then I figure they are fair game.
Well, you can hit the politician for doing that.
I don't know how you'd hit the kids.
Ted Cruz, when he saw the cartoon, wrote, classy, at Washington Post, makes fun of my girls.
Stick with attacking me.
Caroline and Catherine are out of your league.
So Ted Cruz is pushing back against any perception that he uses his children as political props.
The Washington Post pulled the cartoon and Cruz launched an emergency fundraising appeal seeking to raise a million dollars in 24 hours in response to the situation.
Quote, My daughters are not fair game.
I'm sickened.
I knew I'd be facing attacks from day one of my campaign, but I never expected anything like this.
This is an emergency.
All hands on deck.
Click here to make an instant emergency contribution and help me fight back.
Okay, what can I say?
They're either political props or they're not, and if they're not, don't use them as money raisers.
Ted Cruz addressing Hillary Clinton's dishonesty.
Donald Trump is a non-spanking parent.
Now, those who've known me for any period of time, I am vehemently opposed to spanking.
It's a violation of the non-aggression principle, but anyway.
Ted Cruz addressing Hillary Clinton's dishonesty, quote, You know, I'll tell you, in my house, if my daughter Catherine, the five-year-old, says something she knows to be false, she gets a spanking.
Well, in America, the voters have a way of administering a spanking.
So, political cartoon really bad, hitting your five-year-old daughter.
Excellent!
Ah, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
Stay awake, we'll keep it brisk, I promise.
April 21st, 2015.
Senator Ted Cruz and Republican, sorry, Representative Paul Ryan announced their support for Trade Promotion Authority, TPA.
Not to be confused with those reports.
From office space.
Otherwise known as FASTRAC, to be added to H.R.
2146, the Defending Public Safety Employees Retirement Act.
See, you get a nice name and stuff all these other kinds of fish innards in it.
Trade Promotion Authority, called FASTRAC, has been enacted on and off since 1974.
If passed, it has a lifespan of six years and remains in place regardless of a presidential administration change.
Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz quote, Congress needs to strengthen the country's bargaining position by establishing Trade Promotion Authority, also known as TPA, which is an arrangement between Congress and the President for negotiating and considering trade agreements.
In short, TPA is what U.S.
negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.
So it gives the President wide latitude in negotiating deals so they don't have to go back to Congress.
Congress stuffs all of their pork barrels and donor bonuses in it.
This fast-track provision would prevent the future Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, TPP, from being filibustered, amended, or given a treaty vote.
Now, any trade deal approval would only require a 51% vote instead of the two-thirds majority.
Senator Jeff Sessions, May 4th, 2015.
Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements or add new members to those agreements without congressional approval.
Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?
Now this is important.
Congress has ridiculously low approval ratings, like 6 or 7 percent.
And Congress is stuck.
I mean they haven't passed a budget in years and everything is just horrible.
It sort of conforms to Otto von Bismarck's old saying that there's two things you don't ever want to see being made.
Sausages and laws.
And so Congress is not working and so this is why a lot of the power is tending to be flowing uphill and being concentrated in an increasingly imperialistic presidency because to get anything done you have to bypass Congress and that means executive orders and things like that.
So this is another example.
Rather than fix Congress, let's just give more power to the president.
It never goes wrong.
Rome!
May 12, 2015.
The House passed the seemingly uncontroversial bill based around law enforcement and firefighter retirement benefits and it headed to the Senate.
May 22, 2015.
Ted Cruz voted nay on a specific amendment, quote, to require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
The amendment, which would require congressional approval for China to join the TPP, was ultimately rejected.
Okay, voting nay.
June 4, 2015.
The Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent, thereby avoiding a roll vote on record.
The bill included the new Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz proposed TPA.
So, unanimous consent, it's not really unanimous consent, it's just a tricky way of hiding votes on a particular bill.
June 18th, 2015, the House accepted the TPA change, but this time the bill was passed by only a few votes and was returned to the Senate.
Ted Cruz, June 23rd, 2015, quote, Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.
First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade and Services Agreement, or TISA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.
Despite the administration's public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TISA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law.
TPA would cover TISA and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast track.
So, Ted Cruz, shocked, shocked, he tells you, to discover that President Obama could be deceptive.
Apparently he was in a coma during the entire Obamacare debacle of, you can keep your doctor and your premiums will be reduced by thousands of dollars because I have Congress and a lot of policemen.
It's a bit precious.
Ted Cruz, quote, Second, TPA's progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican leadership and the Democrats.
When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
Strap on your mining helmets, folks.
We're going into the rabbit hole.
The Ex-Im, Export-Import Bank, is a classic example, he said, of corporate welfare.
It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S.
taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations.
Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30th, but powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.
Yeah, that's their job.
After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.
It's hog trading with your children's futures.
Quote, at lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, son of a Mitch, sorry, what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA.
Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever.
Rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.
Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on XM, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S.
generally benefits from free trade.
And without TPA, historically, there have been no free trade agreements.
Now, if you want to look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, apparently it's not free trade unless you decimate half the rainforest to print out the contents.
International trade expert Gary Huffbauer said, quote, inclusion of TISA under TPA was never a secret.
Right, so TPA fast track, TISA has these immigration things which weren't supposed to be there.
He continued, any immigration changes in TISA will be limited to L visas, company transfers, and possibly H-1B visas, and be quite limited in number.
So this excuse for the flip-flop has zero merit.
Cruz campaign spokesman Rick Tyler on the position change, quote, Senator Cruz remains a strong supporter of free trade and fast track.
Ted Cruz, June 24th, 2015.
The bill passed in the Senate with a 3-5th majority and was sent to President Barack Obama's desk to be signed into law.
Ted Cruz did not attempt to block or filibuster the passage of the bill, but voted against it.
June 29th, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.
October 5th, Trans-Pacific Partnership deal reached.
November 4th, U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry invited China and Russia to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.
November 5th, version of the TPP text made public.
Good!
It's a done deal.
We're going to rub salt in the wound by having you look at the deal that you can't change or vote on anymore or have any political activism about.
Ted Cruz, November 22nd.
There are a number of Republicans on that debate stage who support TPP, who support the Trade Promotion Authority.
I voted against TPA and I intend to vote against TPP.
I believe we can negotiate a much better agreement with a strong conservative president than we have with Barack Obama.
So Ryan and Cruz spearheaded the TPA.
So either... I didn't even know.
You can mull this one over yourself.
It's a Gordian knot.
Second Amendment.
Guns, guns, guns.
An old interview clip has circulated with some claiming Cruz has flip-flopped on the Second Amendment gun ownership and strengthening background checks.
Ted Cruz, January 6, 2013, and I quote, Are there things we could do?
Sure!
One of the things we could do is improve the quality of the federal database.
Right now, a lot of states, a lot of local jurisdictions are not reporting criminal convictions, are not reporting mental health barriers to gun ownership, and so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be.
That would be a common sense improvement.
Ah, the word common sense.
Doesn't it just make everything common sense?
Can you get me some common sense cereal?
It tastes like common sense.
Please put some common sense milk in it so I can fart some common sense.
Cruz has defended 31 states in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the U.S.
Supreme Court overturned a ban on firearms in the landmark decision and was awarded the National Rifle Association's 2010 Carter Knight Freedom Fund, which, quote, rewards exemplary activities in the support and protection of the right to keep and bear arms for his work on the case.
So, fairly good on our Second Amendment, to be fair, of course.
He's also authored legislation to strengthen citizens' Second Amendment rights and allow interstate firearms sales.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne Lapierre, that's a pretty French name for a gun owner, quote, Ted Cruz is one of our nation's leading defenders of the Second Amendment.
For over a decade, Ted has fought tirelessly to defend our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and his leadership was absolutely critical to our major victories before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz.
It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny for the protection of liberty.
Guns are absolutely essential to protect you against arbitrary and expansionistic government power.
Except in Oregon!
Nowhere in Oregon does that rule apply.
Ted Cruz on the Oregon Rancher standoff, which we've written, which we've done videos on, you can see below.
He said, stand down peaceably.
We don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others.
So guns are there to help protect you against the government, but you're not allowed to use them to protect yourself against the government.
Well, what are you going to say?
It's politics.
Hold your nose.
It doesn't get better from here.
So Ted Cruz's support of Chief Justice John Roberts is more of a character issue.
So going back in time, July 20th, 2005.
Quote, as an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him.
But as a jurist, Judge Roberts' approach will be that of his entire career, carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.
Judge Roberts is a lawyer's lawyer, and that matters immensely, especially for the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The Senate should confirm him swiftly.
So this is Ted Cruz's recommendation, showing his judgment of character and his ability to tell how somebody is going to act ideologically in the future.
He's known him for 20 years, Cruz has known Roberts for 20 years, and he's quote, been a friend and I liked and admired him.
They were both pallbearers at Chief Justice William Rehnquist's funeral, both clerked for Rehnquist in fact.
So he's known this guy about as long as you can know anyone and this is his judgment of his current abilities and future character.
Ted Cruz, June 25, 2015.
Today's decision in King v. Burwell, which upholds Obamacare, is judicial activism, plain and simple.
For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected judges has rewritten the text of Obamacare in order to impose this failed law on millions of Americans.
10 years.
Just under 10 years.
This is who he says is going to be the best guy for the job, and this is how he reviews him.
September 12, 2015.
Cruz criticized former President George W. Bush for nominating Roberts in the first place, saying that he, quote, didn't have a paper trail, they wouldn't have a fight, and that they took the easier option.
You can be proven wrong, but don't just attack people when you're proven wrong.
Criticism is bizarre, considering that Cruz's 2005 article was fiercely rebutting opposition to Roberts due to a lack of observable experience.
It doesn't matter that he doesn't have it.
I know his principles.
It doesn't matter what his paper trail is.
Now he's criticizing people for appointing him when there was no paper trail.
It's not that hard to understand why People find Ted Cruz somewhat unlikable, somewhat inconsistent, a bit of a backstabber.
There are patterns that, you know, these are just some, but it's not that hard to figure out.
So if Trump's praise of Hillary is some sort of deal-breaker on his judgment, even though that was a political maneuver for somebody who needed the approval of politicians to get anything done, how is this for Ted Cruz?
No particular motive here.
Ted Cruz, September 16, 2015.
It was a mistake when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
He's a good enough lawyer, but he knows in these Obamacare cases that he changed the statute.
He changed the law in order to force that failed law on millions of Americans for a political outcome.
It is true that after George W. Bush, he said, nominated John Roberts, I supported his nomination and I regret that.
We have an out-of-control court, and I give you my word, if I am elected president, every single Supreme Court justice will faithfully follow the law!
Um...
If you knew a guy for 20 years and he didn't even remotely faithfully follow the law and violated the Constitution, how on earth are you supposed to guarantee that?
Politicians say this stuff like they can just magically wish away their past judgments.
Has he learned so much in 10 years?
What has he learned about judging people now?
It's kind of ominous that the President say, you will follow the law!
Or what?
I mean, how are you going to force them to follow the law?
Crazy.
Now these, you know, interestingly enough, he's kind of insulting the chief justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, kind of talking trash to them.
Now these are the people who are going to decide if Cruz is eligible to become president.
How's that going to work out?
I'll leave you to be the judge of that.
So Cruz has called for a constitutional amendment that would require justices to stand for election every eight years.
In 2011, this is to regard federal stimulus spending, Cruz criticized President Barack Obama's job creation plan as, quote, yet another rehash of the same big government stimulus programs that have consistently failed to generate jobs.
Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs.
So this is an old, goes all the way back to Bastiat, an argument, the government spends money to create 500 jobs.
Everyone says, yay, 500 jobs!
They don't see the unseen, which is all the jobs not created that probably would have been much more sustainable because the government took all of that money out of the economy to create these jobs.
In July 2009, Cruz filed a legal brief on behalf of the Texas Retired Teachers Association, arguing in favor of the legality and constitutionality of the Texas state government using federal stimulus money to cut a one-time $500 check to some 250,000 retired teachers.
So, stimulus spending really, really bad, except in 2009, when he worked very hard and got paid very well to defend just that.
Ted Cruz, quote, these checks will directly impact the Texas economy and will directly further the greater purpose of economic recovery for America.
So government spending is really bad for the economy, except when I'm on a case representing teachers, in which case it's fantastic for the economy.
I'm so glad I'm not in politics.
Cruz spokesman, spokeswoman, sorry, Catherine Frazier quote, the stimulus legislation had already been enacted and Cruz quoted the legislative findings and argued that his client satisfied the statutory requirements for funding.
As a policy matter, Senator Cruz disagreed with the stimulus and were he then in the Senate, he would have voted against it.
But after it was passed, Cruz argued that it should be implemented pursuant to the explicit requirements of federal law, in which case she was eaten by the bag of weasels she'd released in answering the question.
Birthright citizenship.
Okay, America is one of the very, very few places in the world, Narnia, Middle Earth, and America, where if you happen to drop a baby one inch north of the border, that baby is an automatic American citizen.
The legality of that is extremely questionable.
We'll get to that in another presentation.
They're called anchor babies, so you know what the term is, right?
In other words, you drop anchor and you can stay.
Ted Cruz, August 13, 2011, quote, I've looked at the legal arguments against birthright citizenship, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good.
As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the U.S.
Constitution, and I don't like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.
I think it is a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Constitution says on birthright citizenship.
I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border because birthright citizenship wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have people coming in illegally.
Well, the reality is, of course, people are coming in illegally partly because of the principle of birthright citizenship.
You come in, you drop a baby, the baby's a legal citizen.
When the baby's 18, you can sponsor all your relatives and so that's one of the reasons why.
It's a grappling hook.
Ted Cruz 2015.
After saying that it's in the Constitution, you can't fight it, it's a bad idea to fight it, he says, we should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally.
I think that is possible, but any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve.
Look, I would note that has been my position from the very first day of my running for the Senate.
But not two years before, or a year before.
Quote, I think birthright citizenship as a policy matter doesn't make sense.
We have right now upwards of 12 million people living here illegally.
It doesn't make any sense that a law automatically grants citizenship to their children because what it does is it incentivizes additional illegal immigration.
Yes, it does.
Ted Cruz, 2015.
There are serious scholars who argue that Congress should do it through statute, defining what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction.
This is technical legalese.
What is the jurisdiction?
The language of the 14th Amendment.
There are other serious constitutional scholars who argue the only way to change it is through a constitutional amendment.
My view is we should pursue either or both, whichever is effective.
I think you could say that about anything.
He's changing his view considerably without reference to changing his view, which It's kind of weaselly no matter what.
On June 25, 2012, Ted Cruz filled out a policy position.
Survey for Numbers USA, group favoring lower immigration.
For the question, oppose birthright citizenship.
Should Congress move the U.S.
in line with most other nations and stop the policy of giving automatic citizenship at birth to children when both parents are illegal aliens, tourists, or other visitors?
Ted Cruz answered, yes, Congress should get rid of birthright citizenship of anchor babies.
However, in the same survey, Cruz also supported a reduction in total immigration and opposed unnecessary worker importation via visas, two positions which he later contradicted.
Ah, the crop insurance vote!
December 3rd, 2015.
Question for you.
Should money cut from a $3 billion crop insurance program be restored, giving an expensive boost to farmers?
Cruz, of course, according to his free market principles, initially voted no.
But minutes later, after a conversation with Senator Pat Roberts, Cruz changed his vote to support the crop insurance program.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a strong supporter of the crop insurance program, described the interaction, reportedly telling Cruz, There was a little matter that there was a state called Iowa that he might want to think about.
Nice presidential campaign you got going there.
Be a real shame if something happened to it.
So that was his report.
Cruz was asked about the changed vote in a recent interview with Chris Wallace.
Freedom!
Ted Cruz, quote, I went up initially voting one way, believing we were voting on cloture on the issue, on the import-export bank.
And when I voted that way, Senator Pat Roberts made a comment about crop insurance.
And I was puzzled, because what I had believed I was voting on concerns the import-export bank, not crop insurance.
And I went back to the team and said, what went wrong?
And the team apologized and said, they switched the vote.
Chris Wallace said, Pat Roberts says that's not the way it happened.
He came up and tried to get you to change your vote and explains and specifically said this will hurt you in Iowa.
That's what he says.
Ted Cruz, Pat said it was about crop insurance and I was completely puzzled because my staff briefing had said the order of votes and you often have a bunch of votes in the Senate and they change the votes sometimes and so my staff had gotten it wrong.
They've briefed me on the wrong reports.
So he changed his vote.
And I said the voters could do that.
Hey, didn't fulfill your promises.
Taking my vote back.
NSA spying.
When Cruz supported the updated version of the USA Freedom Act, which ended the US government's bulk collection of phone metadata, he framed his vote as a victory for civil liberties and privacy.
Currently, Cruz frames it as now enabling US authorities, quote, to search more phone records than we were under the prior program.
So we're restricting them.
Freedom.
We've expanded it.
Freedom-ish.
Ted Cruz on Edward Snowden, 2013.
He's the guy who dumped a whole bunch of data and fled to Russia.
Quote, and we've got a video on him as well.
You can check it out below.
Quote, if it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light.
There's a whistleblower.
Quote, if Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws.
That is something he has publicly stated, he understands, and I think the law needs to be enforced.
So you enforce the law, unless it comes to deporting illegal immigrants, in which case you change the subject or pretend that sealing up the, or making a wall or sealing the border is going to do something better.
So that was 2013.
2016, it is now clear that Snowden is a traitor and he should be tried for treason.
Today we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia under the Constitution giving aid to our enemies, is treason.
Really.
So let's say that Governments, for instance, let's say American governments, train and buy a whole bunch of equipment that ends up in the hands of terrorists who are attacking American troops.
I wonder where that would still stand.
Now, the public service part still stands.
And it is a challenge, of course, that you're supposed to report law-breaking, but if you do, you're breaking the law.
Yeah, good luck with that, Mobius strip of moral continuums.
Tort reform!
It's not just a slightly better dessert.
In 2012, Cruz's Senate campaign website noted that the candidate supported the Texas tort reform law, which placed a cap of $750,000 on punitive damages, limiting the ability of consumers to sue medical professionals and nursing homes.
The Texas Civil Justice League, fresh from their slightly dusty capes, a supporter of tort reform, also strongly endorsed Cruz during his Senate race.
Once becoming a senator, Cruz commented that Texas-style tort reform ought to be a national law.
This is one of the reasons why, of course, health care has become so expensive, is this endless amount of litigation that occurs, which of course raises litigation insurance, which then gets passed along to the consumer and so on.
Really, really bad to oversue.
Just wrong.
Bad as a whole to oversue.
We ought to have a law against it.
Ah, except while working as a lawyer in private practice and billing clients, $695 an hour, Cruz worked on multiple cases attempting to secure $50 million plus jury awards in tort cases prompted by corporate malfeasance.
So, $50 million, a little bit more than three quarters of a million.
The kicker is that Cruz worked on such cases while he was running for Senate as a pro-tort reform candidate.
An article on Mother Jones summed it up nicely.
Quote, In the courtroom, when he was being paid, Cruz was an articulate and forceful champion of supersized punitive awards, insisting such lawsuits and punishments were needed to protect consumers from reckless corporations that put profits ahead of people.
On the campaign trail, when he is trying to score political points that draw the support of the business community, Cruz has embraced tort reform that disempowers consumers and protects negligent companies from such penalties.
New York values.
So he said, Donald Trump comes from New York and he embodies New York values.
Everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, focused around money and the media.
I guess I can frame it another way.
Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan.
I'm just saying.
Trump responded, quote, When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely, than New York.
You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down.
I saw them come down.
Thousands of people killed.
And the cleanup started the next day.
And it was the most horrific cleanup, probably, in the history of doing this, and in construction.
I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it.
And the people in New York fought, and fought, and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death.
Nobody understood it.
And it was with us for months, the smell, the air.
And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan.
And everybody in the world watched.
And everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.
And I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.
And that, my friends, is what they call a Trump down.
What are these taxes values?
Taxes values.
In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested for stealing a calculator from a department store.
A crime which merited a maximum two-year prison term.
Guess calculators are rare.
The habitual offender law was applied in error.
Oops!
Mistake, and Haley was sentenced to 16 years instead of two.
Maybe what he should have done is loaned them the calculator so they could punch it in and get it right.
Ted Cruz was Texas Solicitor General at the time Haley appealed his sentence and took the case to the Supreme Court.
Cruz looked to keep him in prison for the full sentence.
Sixteen years for a calculator.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, quote, Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?
Guy was sent away on an error.
Haley was eventually released after six years on his maximum two-year term.
Those defending crews point out that the ultimate decision to keep appealing all the way to the Supreme Court belonged to then Attorney General Greg Abbott, and that the future presidential candidate was just following orders.
That's always a great defense.
That's what you want in the ultimate leader, is a good ability to follow orders.
Raise a stink, get the media involved, get this injustice righted.
Oh, just following orders.
Good job.
Attorney General Greg Abbott He's now the Texas governor.
Doesn't mean anything about Ted Cruz.
I just wanted to point out that's an example of Texas values.
So, here are some miscellaneous positions, I'll put these forward mostly without commentary, regarding the Federal Reserve.
Bastion of evil!
Oh wait, sorry, a little commentary.
I think the Fed, he said, I think the Fed should get out of the business of trying to juice our economy and simply be focused on sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold.
We had a gold standard under Bretton Woods.
We had it for about 170 years of our nation's history and enjoyed booming economic growth and lower inflation than we have had with the Fed now.
We need to get back to sound money.
Paid family leave.
I think maternity leave and paternity leave are wonderful things.
I support them personally, but I don't think the federal government should be in the business of mandating them.
Gay marriage.
Listen, I'm a constitutionalist.
For over 200 years, marriage has been a question for the states.
Now, personally, I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Or Ernesta Vipers.
Wait!
No commentary.
Sorry.
But if you want to change the marriage laws, the way to do it constitutionally is convince your fellow citizens.
Go to the state legislature and change it.
It shouldn't be the federal government or unelected judges imposing their own definition of marriage.
We should instead respect our constitutional system.
Climate change.
They call anyone, he says, they call anyone who questions the science, who even points to the satellite data, they call you a, quote, denier.
Denier is not the language of science.
Denier is the language of religion.
It is heretic.
You are a blasphemer.
It's treated as a theology, but it's about power and money.
At the end of the day, it's not complicated.
This is liberal politicians who want government power.
Syrian war.
In late October, Cruz opposed the idea of using ground troops to defeat ISIS.
Quote, What that would take, I believe, is not a few more American boots on the ground.
As of late November, Cruz was also opposed to American intervention in Syria, repeatedly noting, quote, In late December, that position seemed to shift just a little.
Quote, I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're gonna find out.
During a Heritage Foundation speech, Cruz noted that he was also open to, quote, using whatever ground troops are necessary.
Yeah, worked so well last time.
Why not do it again?
Peace and stability in the Middle East.
Just another government program that is currently burying Europe in refugees.
Cruz's campaign said, quote, the position is entirely consistent.
We can target ISIS without getting involved in the civil war.
By the side of the road.
Just wanted to mention this, because if we don't, people will tell us we should have, so we'll mention it.
In 2005, police found Heidi Cruz by the side of the road with her head in her hands.
The responding officer noted that she was not intoxicated, but, quote, I believed she was a danger to herself.
Cruz's campaign statement, quote, About a decade ago, when Mrs. Cruz returned from D.C.
to Texas and faced a significant professional transition, she experienced a brief bout of depression.
Like millions of Americans, she came through that struggle with prayer, Christian counseling, and the love and support of her husband and family.
You'll read about it.
Just wanted to give you a little context.
Common Core.
This is federally mandated educational standards.
Briefly.
We should repeal every word of Common Core.
We should get the federal government out of the business of curriculum.
Education is far too important for it to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats in Washington.
Education needs to be at the state level or the local level where we as parents have direct control over the standards, over the mores, over the curriculum that is being taught to our kids.
Common Core is being used by the federal government as a mechanism to force a uniform curriculum to put federal bureaucrats in charge of what is taught to our kids.
So apparently the federal government is so bad, such a violation of states' rights, so incompetent that he wants to run it.
Well, alright.
Regarding the Iran deal, while Cruz has vociferously opposed the Iran deal, he's been criticized for voting for a bill which ceded the Senate's constitutional power to ratify treaties by a two-thirds majority.
Politico quote, Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers.
Nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty.
And again, this bypassing of Congress is a continual focus the system gets.
Congress is just like that.
Dickish, deadwood, do-nothing worker that you have to keep rooting your work around because he just says he'll get stuff done and clogs up the whole system.
Rather than reform Congress to make it effective or efficient, everybody just has to work around it, which is how imperialism really grows.
Ted Cruz, quote, ultimately I voted yes on final passage because it may delay slightly President Obama's ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.
I guess after it's passed.
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning, quote, The continued evisceration of the treaty, advice and consent process by this Senate is particularly alarming, as this vote creates a clear pathway for Iran to achieve its nuclear dream.
I expected better.
Marijuana legalization Cruz opposed recreational marijuana, despite his own admitted use in his youth, but believes that legalization is a state's rights issue.
Quote, when it comes to a question of legalizing marijuana, I don't support legalizing marijuana.
If it were on the ballot in the state of Texas, I would vote no.
But I also believe that's a legitimate question for the states to make a determination.
I think it is appropriate for the federal government to recognize that the citizens of those states have made that decision.
Cruz has previously criticized the Obama administration for the non-enforcement of federal drug laws regarding marijuana legalization.
I would suggest that should concern anyone.
It should even concern libertarians who support that policy outcome because the idea that the president simply says criminal laws that are on the books, we're going to ignore them, that is a very dangerous precedent.
The state should do it, but the federal government should enforce it.
Got it.
Abortion.
Cruz is strongly pro-life and quote, would allow the procedure only when a pregnancy endangers the mother's life, including opposing abortion for rape and incest victims.
Cruz has also proposed making abortion illegal without overturning Roe v. Wade, citing the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment and applying it to the unborn.
Death penalty.
Quote, I spent a number of years in law enforcement dealing with some of the worst criminals, child rapists and murderers, people who've committed unspeakable acts.
Cruz said, I believe the death penalty is a recognition of the preciousness of human life, that for the most egregious crimes the ultimate punishment should apply.
So, those are some thoughts, some facts, some quotes about Ted Cruz and where he stands on a variety of issues.
I hope this is helpful.
Of course, we're trying to get as much information to people out as possible in this, as I repeat myself, most exciting of election cycles.
Sources and notes for all of this are below.
Please like, share and subscribe.
We look forward to seeing your comments on how we can improve these kinds of presentations.
Last but not least, of course, if you find this information in this aggregation of Facts and arguments helpful, if not downright essential.
Please, please help us out.
No government subsidies for us.
No, Donald Trump is not writing any checks to us, and neither would I accept them if he did.
Not that he would.
But you can help us out at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
If you're going to do some shopping, you can go to fdrurl.com slash amazon to use our affiliate link.
Doesn't cost you anything and does help throw a few pieces of cheddar our way.
So this is Stefan Molyneux.
Thank you so much for watching.
▲
Export Selection