Ted Cruz booed lustily as he refuses to endorse Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

ca.news.yahoo.com

CLEVELAND - Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tried to link arms with Republicans at the party's national convention on Wednesday, but was booed lustily by delegates when he ended his speech without offering Donald Trump his endorsement — or even saying he would vote for the New York billionaire.

As he appeared on stage, Cruz basked in a minute-long standing ovation. Cruz finished second to Trump in the crowded Republican primary campaign and congratulated the GOP nominee on his victory.

But as close as Cruz came to saying he wanted Trump to win the White House came when he said, "I want to see the principles that our party believes in prevail in November."

Cruz didn't tell the convention crowd that he plans to vote for Trump. Nor did he ask his supporters, hundreds of whom encouraged him to run for president in four years at an event on Wednesday afternoon, to vote for the newly minted Republican nominee.

Interrupted by chants of "Trump, Trump, Trump," Cruz paused and said with a smile, "I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation."

But as Cruz closed his remarks, and as the crowd of more than 2,000 delegates at the Quicken Loans Arena waited for Cruz to say something — anything — kind about Trump, he demurred.

"And to those listening, please, don't stay home in November," Cruz said. "Stand and speak, and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution."

The delegates responded with angry boos, and Cruz backer and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli escorted Heidi Cruz off the convention floor as she was heckled by Trump delegates.

"He's a chicken," said Eugene Delgaudio, a delegate from Sterling, Virginia, who clucked like a chicken when asked about Cruz's decision. "He needed to toughen up like every other Republican loser of any nomination battle in the last 100 years since Abraham Lincoln and just suck it up, be a man and back the nominee that he was beaten by, fair and square."

The crowd's boos quickly switched to cheers when Trump entered the arena at that moment. His daughter Ivanka and other members of the Trump party turned their backs on Cruz to stand and applaud Trump, who sat down in the front row of his VIP box to watch his son Eric deliver the next speech.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Cruz's decision "totally selfish." The outspoken Trump backer, like Cruz bested by the real estate mogul in the GOP primaries, said the voters made clear that Trump is their choice.

"If we're not going to do that, why do we have elections? Because Ted Cruz has decided that he knows better? Than all of the people who voted in the elections?" he said.

The booing was so intense the Trump campaign encouraged its many staffers on the convention floor to try to calm the delegates down, said a Trump aide speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal campaign discussions.

Cruz halted his campaign two months ago, having outlasted all but Trump in a field that once numbered 17 candidates. He finished a distant second in the delegate accumulation during the Republican nominating campaign.

The reaction to Cruz's refusal to endorse Trump, who branded the Texas senator "Lyin' Ted" during the GOP primaries, stood in stark contrast to his reception earlier Wednesday among a crowd of the convention's most conservative delegates.

Many of Cruz's supporters from around the country came to thank him, shake his hand and pose for photographs. They crowded around him 10 people deep in the sun on an outdoor restaurant deck after his 20-minute speech, chanting "2020, 2020, 2020!"

Donna Metz, Cruz's 2016 Kansas state co-chairwoman, wore a sparkling red, white and blue hat and was jostled in the crowd as she made her way toward Cruz. "Oh, my gosh, I hope he runs again," said Metz, of Eudora, Kansas. "He's by far the best candidate."

As he would during his convention speech, the freshman lawmaker with a Texas-sized political ambition steered clear of a recommendation to back Trump at the afternoon event. Instead, Cruz talked about conservative ideals that could form the backbone of a future campaign.

"There is a better vision for our future: A return to freedom," he said.

Cruz is eager to be seen as the face of the modern conservative movement should there be an open GOP field in four years, and he said Wednesday afternoon he was unsure what the future would bring.

But he urged the group to "follow our conscience," ''unite behind liberty" and "empower the grassroots," all signals to the deep organization Cruz assembled in finishing second to Trump to be ready to jump back into action in four years.

And for all the boos Cruz got later from the Trump backers inside the convention hall, supporters of the Texas senator said his refusal to back the billionaire was "true leadership."

"I support it 100 per cent," said Dalton Glasscock, a Cruz delegate from Wichita. "If someone feels they can vote for Trump, great. If they can't, vote for someone they can believe in. He left the door open to more."

___

Follow Thomas Beaumont and Steve Peoples on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/tombeaumont and http://twitter.com/sppeoples

COMMENTS

Sickest Liberal Bias of the Year

YAHOO READERS ARE BEING DUPED. Please read this in full to see:The propaganda wing of the Obama Campaign, Politifact, just released one of the most egregious, inciting, and blatantly and outrageously dishonest articles today.  Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo News wrote an article about it that is currently plastered all over the front of Yahoo.com. It talks about the claim and of the possibility that it led to Romney's defeat in the 2012 election.What it doesn't tell you is how dishonest this article is. The article is based on another article written by a far left political blog called Politifact.com. Apparently Romney's statement that Fiat (the company that bought Chrysler from Barack Obama for peanuts) planned on building Jeeps in China was deemed "Lie of the Year" by Angie Drobnic Holan. What's even MORE important is that the neither the Yahoo article OR the Politifact article explains where this "Lie of the Year" came from. What were the other candidates for lie of the year? If you look at another article that asks its readers what THEY think the lie of the year should be, you'll see that they got a choice of 11 options - 11 of which were supposed Romney lies, ZERO of which were Obama lies.The truth is that the Romney campaign assertion that Fiat planned on producing Jeeps overseas has never been refuted. The truth that these overseas productions were going to come at the expense of American jobs was a figment of liberal imagination. They literally needed to IMAGINE facts in order to spin lies out of Romney statements. Nevermind that Obama has yet to answer for the 4 brave American diplomats who were left for dead by Barack Obama. The gut-wrenching incident was blamed, BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION on a ridiculous Youtube video that hardly anyone saw. So it turns out that the real big fat lie of the year is that Obama got re-elected by a well informed electorate.

Many of you are no doubt wondering why Liberals are campaigning after the election is over. It is not because they want to get a 4 year head start. Its not even to finish off the wounded Republicans after such a stinging loss. The real reason is because they know that Obama's communist agenda is going to ruin the economy and possibly the country, and that by continuing a campaign style assault against conservatives they have the ability to continue to blame them for whatever goes wrong. It makes what they say slightly believable to the mob that otherwise doesn't know any better. We here at Sickbias.com are dedicating our lives to educating young Americans about truth and facts to make them more informed voters. We will fight hard against the dishonest Propaganda used to manipulate you the reader into voting the way THEY want you to and against what is best for you and your family, and freedom and prosperity for America.

Does America Need Her Bullies Back?

I read an inspirational but otherwise seemingly benign article today, accompanied by some comments that called into question the very society we live in. 

ABCNews Blogs did a puff piece about a 9 year old girl named Breanna Bond who lost 66 pounds to go from a very obese little girl to one that looks very normal and healthy. The article HERE, also included a video showing a very overweight younger toddler, presumably Breanna, playing on a jungle-gym while the audio in the background was Breanna talking of herself getting "bullied." 

Hidden between the lines of this article are some of the root causes of obesity in millions of American kids. 

The anchor starts off with the usual liberal plays of branding her a victim:

"Struggling with obesity," is what he called it. The article also points out that she was overweight since the day she was born, and so it constantly hints at her "struggle" also known to liberals as a "condition." They want you to think its a disease that she was so unlucky to catch, or be born with. 

The problem arises when the article goes on to contradict this stealthy premise by pointing out that the girl had no medical problems and was able to shed the weight by eating less and exercising more.

The victimization is just starting. Next the article talks about the bullying:

"The California girl soon became a target for bullies. "Everybody at school would call me names," she said. "They would call me fatty, they would call me fat head."
Ok, ok. We get it. We get that this kind of bullying is wrong. It's mean. It doesn't subscribe to the old saying, "Treat other as you would want them to treat you (assuming you don't want to be treated that way)." Nor does it subscribe to, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

But there is a major problem with this Political Correctness. This falls under the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Their family pediatrician told them their 100 pound kindergartener will "grow into her body." The parents eventually "fired" this doctor by getting a second opinion, but the REAL true irony of this is that the commenters representing the public at large piled on! 

A commenter named Michelle wrote, "The pediatrician said a 100 pound kindergartner would "grow into" her body? What kind of crazy doctor is that?"

Her comment got 1354 thumbs up to only 23 thumbs down at the time of this writing. Out of 84 replies to her comment, a majority of them echoed her sentiments. They called him a quack, and irresponsible jerk, and said he should have been the first one to go. Some of them envisioned that the doctor must also be overweight to have said something like that.

I believe that our society of political correctness is to blame, and this doctor was too weak minded to overcome it. Why are we blaming the doctor for what ended up being a diagnosis of "parents need to step up?" Our PC society demands that everyone embrace many bad things including obesity. Isn't it a very fine line between a doctor saying that an otherwise healthy girl needs to lose weight and a "bully" making fun of her for being fat? 

Even Breanna's dad said, "Don't be afraid to do the tough love." I'm willing to bet the Doctor, fearing for his job and possible public scrutiny just said she'll just grow into her body, knowing full well that the truth is that her parents needed to make her lose weight, but was too afraid to say it. The doctor didn't want to be branded a "Bully."

A big problem with liberalism is that you can't ever hurt anyone's feelings or else you are a bully. The truth hurts sometimes. In a liberal America, you need to either lie, keep your mouth shut, or just embrace your title as "Bully." The problem is that nobody wants to fall victim of the PC police and get branded the Bully. The big question is whether or not an America without her Bullies is a better America or not. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe America needs a healthy dose of HONEST "tough love" or not  ...

New Jobs Numbers, AP/Yahoo! Show Liberal Bias

The new jobs numbers came out today, so liberal spin doctor, Christopher Rugaber at the AP launched a headline that the liberals at Yahoo.com were glad to prominently showcase on their front page"

"US economy adds 146K jobs, rate falls to 7.7 pct."

And for their sub heading:

"US economy adds 146K jobs; jobless rate falls to 4-year low of 7.7 percent; Sandy minor factor"

Well isn't that awesome? Well it WOULD be if these headlines really meant what they said. The truth is all over the body of the article and for at least that little bit of honesty, I give Rugaber a little bit of credit. 

He points out:

1.) "the unemployment rate fell to a four-year low in November from 7.9 percent in October mostly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed."

OUCH.

2.) "The government noted that as long as employees worked at least one day during a pay period — two weeks for most people — its survey would have counted them as employed."

This is ridiculous. So an employer told me to come in twice last month to sweep up the floor and I am counted as employed?

3.) "Still, there were signs that the storm [Sandy] disrupted economic activity. Construction employment dropped 20,000. And weather prevented 369,000 people from getting to work — the most for any month in nearly two years. These workers were still counted as employed."

Besides the fact that this is more cooking of the books, am I the only one that finds it odd that a storm that destroys property would cause construction employment to drop? I digress...

4.) "In November, retailers added 53,000 positions. Temporary help companies added 18,000." 

So of the 146K jobs added, HALF of them are seasonal or temporary. This happens every year, so this cannot be unexpected. Yet the over-hyped headline seems to beg you to believe that these numbers are somehow great news.

5.) "...overall manufacturing jobs fell 7,000. That was pushed down by a loss of 12,000 jobs in food manufacturing that likely reflects the layoff of workers at Hostess."

Thank you, Organized Labor Unions.

So you can see that the FACTS in the article end up contradicting the tone of the headline, which is exactly what the propagandists on the left want you to believe. But on the outside chance the Kool-Aid drinkers actually read and understood the facts of the article, the author made sure to end it with not one but TWO excuses for Obama:

Excuse #1: Sandy - "The storm held back consumer spending and income, which drive economic growth. Consumer spending declined in October and work interruptions caused by Sandy reduced wages and salaries that month by about $18 billion at an annual rate, the government said." 

Excuse #2: Republicans not caving on Democrat demands to raise taxes, leading to what Obama propagandists call, The Fiscal Cliff - "Still, many say economic growth could accelerate next year if the fiscal cliff is avoided."

The Norquist Tax Pledge vs Fiscal Cliff

For those of you that don't know, Grover Norquist is a conservative activist who created an "Anti-Tax Pledge" for politicians to sign who are against any and all tax increases in order to let voters know where they stand. All over the news lately (or at least since immediately after the election) is what is called "The Fiscal Cliff." In a nutshell, the Fiscal Cliff is what we are told the country will fall over in January 2013 because of an automatic rise in taxes coupled with a mandatory sequestration on government spending which expert say will be devastating to the economy. What doesn't make sense is that liberals are fear-mongering the public into pressuring the Norquist Pledge Signers into caving in to raising taxes. It doesn't make sense because if nothing is done, taxes are set to raise automatically because the Bush Tax cuts expire. Tom Cohen of CNN says,

"With the U.S. economy showing more signs of improvement in its long recovery from recession, economists point to fears about higher taxes in 2013 as a potential threat to rising consumer confidence."

It seems to me that what I am seeing is very well executed plan by Democrats to put Republicans in a no-win situation: Either they violate their pledge and agree on a compromise which includes raising taxes which can be used against them when the higher taxes are blamed for stunting the growth of the economy even further, OR they can blame Republicans for sending us over the fiscal cliff by doing nothing, OR they can blame Republicans for the national deficit spiraling out of control if they keep their Norquist Pledge and pass legislation to not allow a raise in taxes.

What everyone should keep in mind is that taxes are the dollars earned by the hard work of people like you and I and redistributed to politicians to do with it what they want to. Money is power, so this effectively gives even more power to the Socialists in control of Washington.

Please do not fall for this fear mongering and focus on what's real. We don't have a TAX problem. While it might not be true for the bottom 47% of wage earners, the government gets plenty of our money, in terms of percentage of our income. We have a REVENUE problem. The BEST way to increase revenue is by ADDING more taxpayers by way of increasing the number of jobs (decreasing unemployment) and by increasing average wages (by fixing the economy). And honestly, the only reason we have a revenue problem is because the amount of revenue is nowhere near what the government spends, hence the national deficit. So we also have a major SPENDING problem. The biggest consequence of the current spending problem under the Socialists in control is that they are using a big chunk of the taxpayers money to pay able-bodied people to live comfortable enough to NOT work. This creates an unstable situation of reducing the need to work for people who would otherwise be able to earn enough to pay the taxes to increase the revenue that the government so desperately needs. The end result is a collapse, plain and simple. So Democrats are doing this free-stuff-givaway of taxpayer money in order to earn votes necessary to make such a giveaway possible all at the expense of the entire society, and possibly our beloved country as we have known it. What happens to the United States and her Constitution when the government that runs it and protects it dissolves? And are Democrats doing this knowingly or are they just ignorant of these consequences?