The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense

“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

How Much Smoke Does It Take To Know There's Probably A Fire?

Here's the Nonsense:  When a candidate says they're religious and stand on integrity, that's a good reason to follow and support them blindly.

Here's the Horse Sense:  It doesn't matter who the candidate is, if there are continued signs popping up that show a lack of integrity, deception, and unwillingness to bring facts out in the open, then it's time to be concerned about who they really are.  

The old idiom that where there's smoke, there's fire is an important one for us when we're supporting political candidates.  Sometimes the smoke turns out to be from a smoke bomb thrown by a political opponent that should be ignored.  But sometimes there really is fire there that needs to be dealt with.  It is up to voters to determine the truth and act accordingly.  

If we're honest with ourselves, we should be noticing a lot of smoke around Ted Cruz.  At this point, even a diehard supporter should be concerned enough to ask some serious questions. 

You probably think I'm going to write about what Washington insiders have been referring to as "The Thing" in recent months.  "The Thing" has gained the title #CruzSexScandal on Twitter and is being referred to by many as the Cuban Mistress Crisis.  It is the scandal that claims the media has evidence that Ted Cruz has been involved with at least 5 mistresses.  As much as there is a lot of smoke there, and I will write about that story when the time is right, that is not what this is about.

But just as troubling as it would be if that scandal proves to be true, this is another issue raising serious concern for those who believe in integrity.

While it may not be as interesting to gossips as a sex scandal, we should be concerned and demand answers when we see things that could expose violations of the law or dishonesty before the public.  We are nearing the time to nominate the Republican candidate for the general election and it is important that these things be cleared up to avoid getting the wrong person as the nominee.

Before I go on, let me say that I've lost readers and invitations to be on talk radio shows that I was on regularly because I've had the audacity to question Ted Cruz and support him no longer.  

Many months ago, when I was a Cruz supporter, I found too many inconsistencies and problems to continue my support. Because there were so many problems I didn't just stop supporting him, but have continued to watch and research to determine how accurate my views were.  As I kept digging I came across more and more information of concern. Unfortunately it is very hard to penetrate the protections put up around candidates so I have not been able to substantiate much of it to a level that I would write about it.  I believe these things should only be raised when there is enough information available to support your point.  If not, keep it to yourself unless or until you can come up with more information.

So, while I will remain silent about some things for now, the issue I bring forward today is clear and important to talk about if we want to be sure Ted Cruz is who he claims to be.

One of the things that needs to be looked at has come out recently with Ted Cruz refusing to give the Federal Election Commission the information about loans he received from Goldman Sachs. Yahoo is reporting:

"Ted Cruz has rebuffed a request by the Federal Election Commission to disclose more information about some $1 million in loans he received from two major Wall Street banks during his 2012 Senate campaign.

"In a letter to the FEC this week, the treasurer of Cruz's 2012 campaign turned down a request by agency auditors to reveal in writing "the complete terms" of two personal loans Cruz received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank - the proceeds of which, he has since acknowledged, he us used to finance his upstart race for the Senate."

Ted Cruz has decided to avoid going through the FEC's compliance section, which would make this information available to the public right away.  Instead, they are going through the FEC's enforcement section, which will delay the information from becoming public for over a year.  Which, of course, means that the public will not be able to see what happened before the presidential election.

That seems a little odd since Ted claimed it was just an oversight.  Why wouldn't he get it straightened out right away?

What originally happened was that Ted's campaign failed to disclose the $1,300,000 in campaign loans that he and his wife, Heidi, were said to have received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank for his 2012 Senate campaign.  

The FEC requires these to be listed in financial reports.  Ted says it was an oversight.  But that does seem a bit hard to believe since Ted is known to have an amazing memory.  He showed us how good it is at one of the presidential debates where he repeated back to the debate moderators all the questions they'd asked the participants up to that point in the debate.  It would be valid to question his "oversight" when he seems to remember everything else. 

Two watchdog groups, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, filed a complaint with the FEC about the failure to disclose the information.  The Cruz campaign does not appear to want to disclose to the FEC the information they requested.

Remember when Ted tried to make a big deal out of taxes to get Donald Trump to release his?  Yet Ted won't release the details regarding these loans.  What could he have to hide?

As I mentioned earlier, by taking the path they've chosen, the Cruz campaign knows that it will take over a year for this information to become public.  By then the general election will be over and it will be too late for the information to impact voters. 

The problem for Ted is that if his amended reports show the same reasons he gave to the public about financing his Senate campaign, then he could face a violation of campaign finance laws.

It is illegal to use an unsecured signature loan to finance a campaign. 

Plus, the spouse of a candidate is subject to the same limitations on donations as any other contributor.  So, if Hedi co-signed the loans, or if there were loans collateralized by assets owned in whole or in part by her, they may have exceeded the legal financial limit that she could provide to the campaign.

Just to make clear the type of danger signature loans or unsecured loans create, let's understand what can happen if a candidate's loan exceeded the normal amount he would qualify for, then the lender (or some power behind the lender) could have influence over the candidate.  For example, if a candidate could only qualify for a $1 million loan but is given a $3 million loan, there would be leverage over the candidate.

Another question this raises is could this be a way for Wall Street bankers to get a senator elected that would help them be supportive of their interests?

Ted has tried to sell himself to voters as being funded by grassroots donations with no ties to big money donors.  But he's got a large list of big money donors as shown below (originally shared by Sarah Palin in one of her Facebook posts):

cruz donors 2

All of this raises concern that Ted Cruz is not the man he puts himself out to be.  We must be willing to ask the tough questions about his inconsistencies and deceptions.  This is just one more example of "smoke" around Cruz's campaign. With so much smoke, we need to find out if there's truly fire there.  Putting your head in the sand won't do any good if you're wrong.