Thursday, February 11, 2016

Debunking Establishment smears against Cruz as South Carolina primary nears

Unable to cope with a conservative victory for Ted in Iowa, as well as ranking third in liberal New Hampshire, the Branstad-Establishment Machine is still going after Cruz in South Carolina (with mostly old debunked Rubio attacks):
America’s Future Fund, a political action committee that opposed Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa, has purchased $1.5 million in negative advertising against Cruz that will run on television in the weeks leading up to the Feb. 20th South Carolina primary.

The ad, “Weak,” attempts to discredit Cruz’s national security bona fides in a state with a heavy military and veteran population.



America’s Future Fund is run by GOP establishment operative Nick Ryan. As CR’s Rob Eno wrote in “Why The Establishment Fears Cruz More Than Trump”:
“Ryan is a longstanding force in Iowa politics, allied with the moderate Governor Branstad. On his website, Ryan describes himself as having investments in renewable energy—i.e. ethanol—in Iowa. Ted Cruz is very much against ethanol mandates.”
After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of Senator Cruz in Iowa, it seems Branstad and the ethanol lobby want to strike back at conservatives.

Can Sen. Cruz overcome the opposition once again for another win in South Carolina?
Well, if I can easily disprove these smears with a little detective work, I believe Cruz can undoubtedly overcome the opposition for another WIN in South Carolina!

So let's debunk these claim by claim, shall we...

Claim 1: Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders against defense spending in 2013.

Fact: This is an establishment falsehood tagged by Branstad and Rubio alike over opposition to Rand Paul's budget proposal.

"The fact is, in supporting the Paul budget, Cruz did not support a cut in defense spending, but a more responsible rate of increase." ~ Cruz spokesman Brian Phillips



PolitiFact: Rubio said that the only budget Cruz "ever voted for in his time in the Senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than Barack Obama proposes we cut it." Rubio was referring to Cruz’s vote in favor of Paul’s budget proposal in 2013. But Rubio mischaracterized Paul’s plan when he called it a "cut." That proposal included an increase in defense spending each year from 2014 going forward a decade, although it did not keep pace with estimated projections in growth... [even if] Paul’s proposal for defense was below Obama’s request.


Claim 2: Cruz sided with Obama to weaken our ability to track terrorist.

Fact: This is about those who want to preserve the Fourth Amendment (Cruz) and those who would trade liberty for perceived security (Rubio).
TheFederalist: In June, Cruz voted in favor of the USA Freedom Act, a bill intended to limit government agencies’ ability to collect and store citizens’ private data. President Obama signed the bill into law just hours after Congress passed it, reigning in some of the surveillance programs established by Bush-era national security measures.

In the aftermath of 9/11, then-President Bush signed the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to collect massive amounts of data on citizens, including cell phone records, to monitor potential terror activity. In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked classified information revealing the National Security Agency’s surveillance program to journalists. The revelations spurred congressional debate over the scope of the programs authorized under the Bush administration.

On Sunday, some aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA) data collection program came to an end because of the Freedom Act, which passed the House with 388 votes and the Senate with 67 votes. Now government agencies no longer have an open invitation to look at citizens’ phone data whenever they want. Instead, agencies must submit a request to a phone company for the information that belongs to a specific phone number they already suspect as being connected to terror activity. ...

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects American citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. In other words, it provides that one’s possessions or correspondence won’t be collected and examined without probable cause. In May, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of data was unconstitutional.

Claim 3: Cruz proposed mass legalization of illegal immigrants.

Fact: This has been exhaustively disproven time and time again that Sen. Cruz employed a legislative ploy in the form of an amendment to expose the motivations behind his opponents' Gang of 8 amnesty bill. Simply stated, he called their bluff!



Claim 4: Cruz praised Edward Snowden.

Fact: Cruz wasn't reactionary like so many and reserved final judgment while weighing out all the evidence.

In 2013, Cruz presented the qualifiers, declining to label him a 'patriot' or a 'traitor':
“I don’t know if what Mr. Snowden has said is true or false. We need to determine that. We need to determine what his motives were, whether he was telling the truth.

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.

If Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws and that is something he has publicly stated he understands and I think the law needs to be enforced.”
Then in January of this year, Cruz cast final judgment:
"​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."
So, there you have it. To the AmericanFutureFund, Branstad, Rubio and any others who'd take this route: It's one thing to label a candidate's national security record 'weak', but it's quite another to make one's case with dishonest smears, particularly when the ones casting stones have their own credibility problems...that can't be debunked.





Related links: WATCH: Debunking anti-Cruz myths (video)
RINO Iowa Governor Terry Branstad: Stop Ted Cruz Before He Stops Cronyism In My State!

No comments:

Post a Comment