BUSTED EXPOSED TED CRUZ WAS A SOCIALIST IN COLLEGE

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Ted Cruz’s College Political Past EXPOSED, He Doesn’t Want YOU To Know THIS

Of course Rabid Cruz Bots ..... will call into question whether the information is true... all they really have to do is use their own resources and check it out for themselves. The INTERNET IS A HUGE RESOURCE!! USE IT..

Here is page one of google on this matter

BREAKING: We Just Discovered DIRTY Secret About Ted ...
://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/.../discovered-dirty.../
Apr 14, 2016 - Perhaps Cruz wanted extra reading time so he could proof read his political advertisements considering he wrote “three(sic) should be a ... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus saw an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Ted Cruz College Anti-Rape Activist - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-college-anti-rape-acti...
Business Insider
Dec 8, 2014 - Ted Cruz Was 25 Years Ahead Of His Time On Fighting Campus Rape ... Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the issue of sexual assault on college ... After leaving Princeton in 1992, Cruz said, he continued his efforts to fight sexual assault. ... "I'd like to see an increase in lighting and rape prevention education," he said in ...
April | 2016 | Traditional Catholic Crusader
tridentinecatholic.com/ctp/?m=201604
After spending weeks attacking anyone who critiques candidate Ted Cruz, the motives of Mark Levin ... IndyStar attempted to survey all 57 delegates. ..... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus had seen an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Traditional Catholic Crusader | Nam in Ecclesia, et in Gente ...
tridentinecatholic.com/ctp/
IndyStar attempted to survey all 57 delegates. ... Ted Cruz, the third candidate on the GOP side, is also campaigning hard in Indiana, where his .... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus had seen an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Ted Cruz was a bizarre politician in college. He hopes you forget that he lobbied for liberal causes while the school was facing a $1 million dollar deficit, that he opposed spending when it came to campus safety and dorm intrusion, that he was a proponent of spending when it came to social events and parties, and that if he was ever a maverick, it was in his forerunner status as a ‘rape culture’ fear monger.  Ted wants you to forget that the closest person in his life–whether it was his best friend in college, or his wife today–has always been inexorably linked to the financial institutions on Wall Street.
Most of all, Ted wants you to forget how badly he let his school down after a series of violent rapes took place, how he was preoccupied with parties, and how he tried to derail the implementation of a dormitory lock program every step of the way because he was afraid it would draw money away from social programs.

We have already unraveled his past as a liberal globalist lawyer, its high time we examine the younger Cruz.

Spend Liberal, Think Little

 

“Officials expect challenges in university’s fiscal future” Daily Princetonian, Nov 15, 1990

The truth is often stranger than fiction. PoliticalWave and America’s Freedom Fighters are able to report that Ted Cruz, while running for numerous positions within student government at Princeton (and failing miserably multiple times), proposed a bizarre platform of big spending for social services including meal forgiveness, the building of an excessive public facility, and extended study periods.  Perhaps Cruz wanted extra reading time so he could proof read his political advertisements considering he wrote 

“three(sic) should be a three-day reading period before mid-terms.” (see above) This isn’t to say that Cruz was actually a socialist in the reddest sense of the word. In fact, he also heavily lobbied to reduce spending on multiple occasions. 

Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus saw an incredible increase in sexual assaults.  That’s right. Cruz was a big liberal spender on parties and a conservative on security.  But don’t worry folks, he will totally build us The Wall that he ripped off from Trump–but if you actually believe that I’m not sure its worth reading the rest of this article.  If you are not as naive as some of the most ardent Cruz supporters, have a look at this later advert from when Cruz was running for re-election. He could be applying for Greenpeace!

His Words, Not Mine

While commenting for the Daily Princetonian in 1990, Cruz was skeptical about how practical campus security measures were. “I personally don’t think it’s the best way of improving safety,” Cruz said. “I think the effect (locked entryways will have) in keeping people out of dorms is negligible. I do think it serves to be an inconvenience of being restrictive.” While Cruz said he believed locks would improve safety to a certain degree, he added, “perhaps the money could be better spent elsewhere.” Cruz was clearly okay with spending money on more social activities–he told his classmates just what they wanted to hear while running for class president. He just didn’t want to increase campus security.  This is all somewhat surprising considering he has often bragged about how important sexual assault has been to him “since” college, when Cruz was arguably one of the biggest enablers of it on Princeton–fighting the security staff the whole way through the process of security implementation.  Writing for Business Insider, Hunter Walker tried to claim that Cruz was “Ted Cruz Was 25 Years Ahead Of His Time On Fighting Campus Rape” and–forgive me Hunter–this is nothing more than complete bull.  Maybe Hunter just did a poor job researching for his piece and maybe it had to do with the fact that Cruz offered him an exclusive interview, but whatever the case Cruz was no advocate for women back in 90s and he isn’t one today either.  Based off of his promises to create more social opportunities, its hard to not wonder whether Cruz had difficulty getting his priorities straight. With the rising deficit looming in the background of administrators’ minds, its possible that Cruz felt security and parties were an either or decision and lobbied for what was most momentarily important to him.
It should probably be noted that Cruz opposed all of these minor security measures while serving on the Campus Safety Committee–a committee that he was a founding member of and a committee that was created for the purpose of implementing these very same measures.  The Daily Princetonian had this to say about the Safety Committee’s formation: “The ad hoc group was created in response to two incidents which took place within a week of each other — a rape in Prospect Gardens in January 1989 and a stabbing in Wilson College library.”  Keep the event in the Prospect Gardens in mind for a moment and we’ll come back to that in just a tick.  With a bit of speculation, its not hard to imagine that Cruz joined this Committee under the auspices of protecting the vulnerable all while fully intending to use it as leverage against a door locking program that he felt was too expensive.  This speculation is supported by a bit of evidence from another founding member who specifically cited “leaving doors unlocked” as one of the primary concerns of the group when it was formed. This concern seemed to quickly dissipate once Cruz got involved–which one former member would later point out.

Ted Cruz’s Bizarre Goal Develops

A year after the formation, Cruz was using the delegation as a means to push a radical low-budget agenda on security–an agenda that was not viewed well by his peers that almost unanimously ran on platforms of “campus safety, locked entryways and the addition of a second fulltime counselor for the Sexual Harassment/Assault, Advising, Resources and Education program.” Regardless of the will of the Princeton people, Cruz and his tight-knit crew converted cohorts began to aggressively demand a debate with faculty on the matter.

Interestingly enough, one of Cruz’s biggest allies in his ‘fight against safety’ was David Panton. Panton was Cruz’s debate partner and roommate during his later years of college.
[As an aside, it’s been rumored that Cruz, despite being almost universally disliked on campus, was stomached because of the universal popularity of Panton–the former of the debating duo would go on to work for the Bush campaign where he would meet his wife Heidi, a future Goldman Sachs executive, and the latter would begin working at Navigational Capital Partners–a private equity firm with close working ties to Goldman Sachs and would heavily contribute to Cruz’s Senatorial campaign and be one of the leading voices encouraging him to make a 2016 election bid. The best friend and wife of the would-be “outsider” are just at the periphery of the most universally distrusted Wall Street behemoth in America. A coincidence, I am sure.]
Back on topic. Panton, was also coincidentally a member on the Safety Committee (because Cruz wouldn’t try to jury pack a committee he was interested in influencing, of course) and had an alarming vision of what the goal of a safety committee should be: “The goal of the safety committee will be to restrain the university and keep them from splurging.” Odd, I thought the primary concern would be to encourage the university to take proactive and commonsense measures (like, I dunno, locks?) to prevent crime on campus.  The group was formed in response to a violent rape and stabbing, after all.
At the debate Cruz demanded take place (and hosted by the debate club Cruz played a leadership role in), Dick Spies, the vice president at the time, made sure to reference the 64 uninvited intruders that entered into the dormitories in the Fall semester of 1989 alone. Despite this inconvenient truth, Cruz put on his best show of feminism arguing that “the greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.”  That’s right, Cruz was a ‘Rape Culture’ pioneer–but only to prevent people from locking the doors on dorm halls, because Cruz didn’t want other measures to be implemented outside of the dorms either.  Do you remember that vicious rape mentioned above that took place in the campus Prospect Gardens?  It was suggested that those gardens should be locked at night to prevent assailants from taking advantage of their seclusion–Cruz was an opponent of that measure too. The only measure that he was in favor of was better campus lighting. But why did he oppose locking off the campus gardens? Because Cruz didn’t “like the statement it makes!”   Walls don’t make great statements either.  Just like locks their presence is a giant “Do Not Enter” sign.

The Tale Of Two Teds: His And Reality’s

 

Now, all of this is very strange because Cruz won over support (if 50 students finding his argument valid isn’t substantial, it is still 50 students more than one should expect) among the student body. He was able to manipulate the agenda of the committee he had gained a seat on within one year, so that the group which was founded with the intention of locking the dorms, now opposed the security measure entirely.

Barry Langman,  former member of the committee, was understandably confused by the swift transition from support to opposition.  Eventually, Ted’s cabal accepted a pilot program in a select number of dorms–but only after there was a special button added to the door systems so that students could complain if any issues cropped up.  Jerrold Witsil, was the Director of Public Safety during this debacle and his final words to Ted on the matter were as follows: “Ted! Ted! Give it up, Ted! We’re not looking at the locks on entryway doors in a sense of ‘that’s the answer,’ It’s a package. There are more lights and more phones coming.”
Still, Ted did not “give it up.”  A year later, using campus funds, the wannabe fiscal conservative was still going at it and hosted an event to further assess the program.  This was Ted’s final stand, and The Daily Princetonian seemed to have had enough of Cruz’s shenanigans, running an article titled “Forum on dormitory locks draws extremely sparse student turnout,” this time it was Dick Spies and student government ally, Sharon Simpson, that got the last word. “It is the university’s responsibility — and my responsibility to decide on behalf of the university —to create a safe environment on campus,” said Spies.  And, Simpson with an obvious quip at Cruz agreed “No system is going to work,” she said, “if the students don’t care and don’t cooperate.”

Ted’s war on safety, his encouragement of fiscal irresponsibility for the sake of parties, his distaste for sensible expenses for the sake of security, and his incessant need to argue and be proven right in the eyes of his peers thankfully all failed. But Cruz’s campaign against campus security would be warped and woven into a narrative about being a personal champion of “protecting” women’s rights.  How he thought he was protecting them by encouraging an “another year of vulnerability,” as Spies would describe it, I don’t know.  Maybe he wanted to have the money spent “elsewhere,” maybe he wanted to power trip over administrators. One thing is sure from this example: just like Cruz’s fake filibuster and just like the time he assisted in shutting down the government–Cruz has never been one to make deals, never one to compromise. He has always been an obstinate instigator and he cannot be trusted with the Oval Office for that reason alone.

SHARE THE FACTS!

Ted Cruz ( Like Obama) did not file for Selective Service which is required by Law!

Revealed: U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s Selective Service Registration Released Under FOIA

 

 

Exclusive:

Ted Cruz’s Selective Service Registration

“AUTOMATED RECORD” RELEASED

 

Via the Selective Service:

[The law requires virtually all male U.S. citizens (regardless of where they live), and male immigrants residing in the U.S. (permanent resident aliens), to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Therefore, to be in full compliance with the law, a man turning 18 is required to register during the period of time beginning 30 days before, until 30 days after his 18th birthday...a 60-day window.

Late registrations are accepted, but not once a man reaches age 26. Men who do not register within the 60-day window are technically in violation of the law and should register as soon as possible.]

It appears that Ted Cruz decided not to register for Selective Service as he was require to by law until he wanted to get a Pell grant for college. He learned he could not get a grant, so, more than a year late, he was forced to register.

The Military Selective Service Act
Section 462. Offenses and penalties

(f) Student Financial Aid and the Registration Requirement

(1) Except as provided in subsection (g), any person who is required under section 3 (section 453 of this Appendix) to present himself for and submit to registration under such section and fails to do so in accordance with any proclamation issued under such section, or in accordance with any rule or regulation issued under such section, shall be ineligible for any form of assistance or benefit provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).

(2) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. (and 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.)), a person who is required under section 3 (section 453 of this Appendix) to present himself for and submit to registration under such section shall file with the institution of higher education which the person intends to attend, or is attending, a statement of compliance with section 3 and regulations issued there under.

— Through a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we have obtained a copy of presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz’s Selective Service registration with an explanatory letter from Richard S. Flavahan, Associate Director of Public & Intergovernmental Affairs.

Did Sen. Ted Cruz possess U.S. citizenship from birth?
Can he be considered a “natural born Citizen” as
required by the Constitution for the presidency?

Flavahan’s signature also appeared on letters accompanying the release of Barack Hussein Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form and “DLN” printout requested by at least several individuals early in Obama’s first term in the White House.

Registration with the Selective Service System is required for all males in order to secure employment with the federal government.

On March 23, 2015, Cruz announced that he was seeking the presidency in 2016.  Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father and American mother, Cruz’s constitutional eligibility in regard to the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution has been questioned by many.

The “natural born Citizen” requirement is believed by numerous constitutional scholars to indicate a higher level of citizenship and allegiance than simply “a Citizen.”

Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise on citizenship and international relations, “The Law of Nations,” which was used as a reference by the Framers of the Constitution, states in Section 212 that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.”

Columnist JB Williams has suggested that both of Cruz’s parents obtained Canadian citizenship while they were working in the oil industry in Canada in the late 1960s.  Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has affirmed that he became a Canadian citizen during that time.

On August 19, 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz was born a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen, although no documentary evidence has been presented.  Cruz’s birth certificate released to the publication at the time confirms his Canadian birthplace.  In response, Canadian immigration attorneys and government officials reportedly told the newspaper that anyone born in Canada, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, is automatically granted Canadian citizenship.

Cruz claimed not to have been aware that he was a Canadian citizen for his entire life until renouncing that citizenship in May of last year in apparent preparation to launch a presidential campaign.

The News additionally reported that Cruz’s mother “registered his birth with the U.S. consulate” and that Cruz traveled on a U.S. passport in 1986 while on a high school trip.  However, no documentation supporting the claims was presented.

The week before announcing his bid for the U.S. presidency, two former Solicitors General wrote an opinion piece published in the Harvard Law Review asserting that Cruz is a “natural born Citizen” because he has one U.S.-citizen parent.

Obama’s eligibility has been in doubt since late 2007 when commentator Chris Matthews stated that Obama was “born in Indonesia” while speculating whether or not Hillary Clinton would raise the issue as she vied with Obama for the Democrat Party nomination.

Obama’s life narrative now states that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, but his literary agent reported his birthplace as Kenya between 1991 and April 2007, two months after he announced his presidential candidacy.

Obama supporters have contended that he is eligible by virtue of having been born to a U.S.-citizen mother on U.S. soil.  Obama’s claimed father was never a U.S. citizen.

Blogger Debbie Schlussel had first suggested, after receiving documents obtained by a FOIA requester, that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was falsified resulting from two requesters having received different DLN printouts associated with Obama’s record.  The registration form bears a two-digit date, while The Sonoran News reported that more than a dozen others received through a FOIA request in 2009 bear a four-digit year.

Through a criminal investigation, the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse reported in March 2012 that Obama’s Selective Service registration form is a “computer-generated forgery” along with his long-form birth certificate, which has been posted on the White House website since April 27, 2011.

Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, an Obama appointee, refused lead investigator Mike Zullo and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio an opportunity to inspect Obama’s original Selective Service registration form presumed to be in the possession of the agency, advising them to contact the FBI if they believed a crime had been committed.

Registration with the Selective Service is mandatory for all U.S.-citizen males, permanent residents, “undocumented immigrants,” and “refugees” are also required to register before they turn 26.

U.S. citizens possessing dual citizenship with another country are also required to register unless certain conditions are present.

Today, the U.S. State Department recommends that American parents whose child is born outside of the United States file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. consulate in their country of residence so as to render the obtaining of a U.S. passport or other proof of citizenship uncomplicated.

In speaking with an attorney experienced in U.S. immigration law approximately one month ago, we were told that it is not mandatory that a CRBA be filed to prove U.S. citizenship for a child born outside the U.S.

FOIA requests filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) resulted in the release of 116 pages of memos and letters Cruz signed while he served as Policy Director between 2001 and early 2003.  We additionally asked for any application forms Cruz might have completed to obtain the position as well as performance reviews but was told that those are protected from disclosure through exemption 6(b).

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the request for Cruz’s naturalization documents if, in fact, they exist, based on privacy exemptions despite his declared presidential candidate status.

Our request to the Selective Service System asked for a copy of Cruz’s “Selective Service registration form and accompanying DNS record.”

Cruz SSS FOIA 03-24-15

On April 23, we received the following explanatory letter and form from the Selective Service System.

If Cruz and fellow Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban-citizen parents, are considered as meeting the “natural born Citizen” requirement, then the apparent contemporary definition has changed from “born on U.S. soil to a U.S.-citizen mother” in Obama’s case to “born to a U.S.-citizen mother in a foreign country” to “born on U.S. soil to foreign-citizen parents.”

Children in the latter category are often referred to as “anchor babies” because they are granted U.S. citizenship without consideration of the parents’ allegiance.  Some recent movement has taken place in the Congress to repeal “birthright citizenship,” which became standard after the passage of the 14th Amendment.  Many consider that interpretation of the amendment defective.

In April 2008, a U.S. Senate resolution declared Sen. John McCain a “natural born Citizen” despite his birth in Panama based on his parents’ having been U.S. citizens and his father an admiral in the U.S. Navy at the time.

SO DID TED CRUZ REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT??