Cruz campaign outmaneuvers Trump again in Maine

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

The Week reports on yet more bungling from the disorganized Trump campaign.

Excerpt:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) snagged at least 65 of the 94 delegates awarded Saturday, boosting his shot at winning the Republican National Convention’s hypothetical second ballot, should Donald Trump not secure the Republican Party’s nomination outright.

The senator picked up 19 of 20 delegates in Maine, 36 of 37 in Utah, nine in Minnesota, and one in South Carolina, Politico reports. Kentucky delegates did not reveal their leanings.

How did he do it? Was it witchcraft? That’s what that clown Trump says. It’s voodoo! And the media repeats everything he says, because they want the Republicans to nominate a clown.

So what really happened?

Cruz volunteer hands out signs at the Maine GOP Convention
Cruz volunteer hands out signs at the Maine GOP Convention

Bangor Daily News explains:

In a blow to Gov. Paul LePage, supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz took at least 19 of Maine’s 23 delegates to the party’s national convention on Saturday.

They outmaneuvered front-runner Donald Trump — who is endorsed by the governor — on the floor of Maine’s state convention with an eye toward a potential contested national convention in July between Trump, Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“The grass-roots here is unbelievable,” said Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, one of the leaders of Cruz’s Maine campaign. “I’ve honestly never seen anything like it in my tenure in politics.”

The Texas senator won 12 of 23 national convention delegates at Maine’s March caucuses, with Trump winning nine and Kasich two. But they’re only bound to their candidates on a first ballot at the convention in Cleveland. On subsequent ballots, they can vote for anyone.

Trump is in front, but he isn’t on track to have enough delegates to win the nomination outright before the convention. If he falls short, it would likely go to a second ballot for the first time since 1948, leaving an opening for Cruz and Kasich.

Cruz’s campaign used majority support at the Maine convention to install 19 supporters — some of whom would vote for other candidates, then switch to Cruz on a second ballot — as delegates.

It was a big loss for Trump and LePage, even though the governor was elected as a delegate from Maine on Saturday, overcoming an effort from Cruz supporters to reject his bid.

[…][Cruz’s] campaign circulated a slate of Cruz-approved delegate candidates earlier this week and during voting, Cruz activists paced the convention floor with posters showing it, with Trump and Kasich supporters aligning behind LePage’s unsuccessful ticket.

Witchcraft!

Things will be difficult for Cruz in the near term, as Donald Trump always does well in states that are more liberal, since he is a liberal. And the next few states are filled with liberals like Trump.

As the election race continues, though, more and more of Trump’s real liberal positions are coming back. Well, I mean he believed them all up until just before he decided to run, but he had to hide them to fool his gullible supporters. Last week, he came out in favor of rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life view – a position which the Republican Party does not hold. He also expressed his support for men using women’s bathrooms, if they feel that is appropriate. And he wants to raise taxes.

Cruz is even running an ad about Trump’s new position:

So how does the race look? This article on Soshable explains:

Here’s the reality. If Cruz can win Indiana and stay close or even beat Trump in California, it’s virtually impossible for Trump to get 1,237 delegates on the first ballot. If it goes to a second ballot, Cruz’s chances of getting to 1,237 are much higher than Trump’s. New York didn’t change that. Trump’s upcoming victories in the Northeast states on Tuesday won’t change that, either. Indiana will decide whether the race continues. After that, California will decide the outcome.

Cruz will win Indiana unless the media can make their false narrative stick. Polls show it to be close. In fact, they’re very similar to Iowa before Cruz came in and won. That was a caucus state, so we can’t really count on the same results, but the most demographically similar state to Indiana is Wisconsin which Cruz won handily.

California is a different story, but at this point in the race the polls are worthless. We have over a month until then. Early voting starts shortly after Indiana results are in, so a win becomes even more important for Cruz.

With all of this understood, there’s only one conclusion for Cruz supporters: keep fighting tooth and nail. Don’t listen to the mainstream media’s narrative. Don’t lose hope. Cruz has run an incredible campaign and his strength in delegates will result in the nomination as long as we can keep the pressure up, win in Indiana, and do well in California. All of the other states are pretty much set.

As Trump’s policies keep shifting to the left, Republicans are starting to realize that he’s a Democrat clothed in the singular conservative principle of building a wall (which Cruz has wanted to do since 2012). We need to persevere through the lies being told by the media and remain resolute in our convictions to make the last conservative in the race the next GOP nominee.

Well, Cruz himself is very busy running ads and doing interviews.

Here’s one of his latest ads:

Pretty slick. And here he is on the Mark Levin show:

It all comes down to Indiana and California now, and Cruz has been in there organizing for months already.

Government investigates women for letting her children play in fenced-in backyard

Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick is stunned she was investigated by CFS
Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick investigated by the government for unlicensed parenting

McKenzie tweeted this story from CTV News in Canada, and I had to blog it.

Excerpt:

A Winnipeg mother says she was investigated by Child and Family Services simply for letting her children play in her backyard.

Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mom, says a CFS worker showed up unexpectedly at her door in early April. The worker told her they were doing a “well-being check” after receiving a complaint about her children being left unsupervised.

Kendrick has three children ages two, five and 10, who love to play in the family’s backyard after school. The backyard is fully fenced in, with a wood fence covering three sides, and a portion of the front covered by a chain link fence and gate.

Kendrick told CTV Winnipeg she’s always either with her kids or looking in on them from her living room windows.

[…]Still, the worker with the CFS — the the provincial body that apprehends abused and neglected children — insisted she was obligated to investigate and ask a few more questions.

“We had to go through a whole interview asking so many questions — asking me about if we’ve ever dealt with CFS before, what my childhood was like, how I punish my children, whether we drink or do drugs… She had to look to see where my kids slept. She had to see if we had enough food in the house,” Kendrick said.

“The whole time I’m sitting there, pretty much in tears, because I couldn’t understand what was going on.”

Well, this is just one big misunderstanding, so there will be no permanent record in government files, right? Wrong:

Manitoba’s Child and Family Services says it will not erase the file of a Winnipeg mother who was investigated for letting her children play in her backyard.

The agency would not comment on the specifics of the case of Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mother of three. But regardless of the results of their investigation, the agency said it would not erase the file because all documentation and records need to be accessible in the event that another concern arises in the future.

This is the kind of thing that parents should know about when there are deciding where to live. I can guarantee you that the person who called the government is no conservative. Now imagine a nosy neighbor decided that your views on social issues, e.g. – the definition of marriage, shouldn’t be passed on to your children. Or suppose a nosy neighbor didn’t like the church that your children attended. Or the yard sign for a conservative candidate in your yard. There are government agencies out there to help them to make sure that your children believe the “right” views – the things that the secular left want them to believe.

What secular leftism teaches people on the left is that some opinions and values are so wrong that they are 100% justified in using the government to stamp them out. Something to think about when you are deciding where to live and how open to be with your neighbors about what you believe. By all means, make a big impact. But be aware of what the other side thinks about what you’re doing.

Pro-abortion students shout abuse at black pro-life speaker at Harvard University

More than 160 students attended a Harvard University forum featuring Ryan Bomberger
More than 160 students attended a Harvard University forum featuring Ryan Bomberger

Bound 4 Life reports on a recent pro-life event at Harvard University, of all places.

It says:

On Tuesday, Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation addressed a student forum at Harvard University, a 90-minute discussion on abortion in the black community that turned hostile when students began shouting and walking out during the Q & A portion.

In an event co-sponsored by Law Students for Life and Harvard Black Law Students Association, Bomberger spoke opposite Professor Diane Rosenfeld, lecturer and director of the Gender Violence Program at Harvard Law School. As students filed in, the auditorium at the historic Austin Hall neared capacity.

This is pretty cool:

A black man who recently won a lawsuit brought against him and his wife by the NAACP, Bomberger explains that abortion in the black community is a personal issue for him. “I was once considered black and unwanted. It was very hard, at the time I was born, to place black children for adoption; so few families were available, because they used same-race criteria.”

He continues, “Today, abortion has a hugely disproportionate impact on the black community. Part of addressing this is dispelling the myth that black children are less than others. Regardless of pigmentation or any other traits, injustice should be a concern to everyone.”

To be clear: being pro-abortion means being in favor of aborting children who have an unwanted race, or an unwanted sex. And don’t kid yourself, pro-abortion people – that happens a lot, according to a recent study. Every pro-abortion student who attended the event was in favor of aborting babies who are the “wrong color” or the “wrong sex”. Abortion means a woman’s right to choose to abort her offspring, through all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason, or for no reason at all. The pro-abortion position ignores the rights of the innocent baby, who did nothing wrong to be put in this position.

Ryan faced a lot of opposition from pro-abortion students:

Multiple sources confirm that, once the forum opened for questions following opening remarks, students repeatedly addressed Bomberger using profanity. The New Boston Post noted the event shifted to a “confrontational tone.”

Chrystal Benedict, who attended the event after a friend invited her, was disappointed many students refused to hear differing opinions. “I was surprised that what was meant to be a ‘safe space for students to hear different perspectives’ wasn’t that at all. If you disagreed with the pro-choice opinion, you had to prepare for a verbal attack of outrage.”

When Bomberger began to respond to a question but was continually interrupted, he asked, “Do you want to hear my answer?” The interrupting student replied, “No! No, I don’t want to hear your answer.”

Caleb Wolanek, Harvard J.D. candidate and Vice President of Law Students for Life, noted that Bomberger addressed students with respect despite not always being given the same courtesy. “Even when asked difficult questions, Ryan gave thoughtful, well-researched responses.”

And:

[…][A] visibly angry student representing Reproductive Justice confronted the guest speaker. “The language you use is so offensive—for instance, we are not pro-abortion,” she said. “So you’re not for abortion?” Bomberger asked.

The student retorted: “That’s not what pro-abortion means; it implies we want everyone to have an abortion, when in fact we are pro-choice.” Bomberger replied, “Language matters. It defines situations and brings clarity. Pro-choice doesn’t bring any clarity to what you’re talking about, while pro-abortion does because you are advocating for the legal right to abortion.”

“It’s about as ridiculous as saying, those who were pro-slavery were pro-jobs,” Bomberger continued, as his detractors responded with outrage. He raised his voice to be heard above the uproar: “I’m applying your same logic! Pro-jobs is nebulous and it doesn’t mean anything. How is it any different?” The student walked out of the forum with two other Reproductive Justice activists.

Bomberger commented later on the incident, “They couldn’t say anything. These Harvard Law School students couldn’t respond at all.”

That’s what students are taught at Harvard University, and nearly every university – the pro-abortion view, and how to scream insults and walk out if the pro-life view is presented. And where do they learn this intolerance? Why, from their pro-abortion professors, of course.

The Washington Times noted that the white feminist professor dismissed his concerns about abortion disproportionately affecting black children, and even suggested that Bomberger himself should have been aborted because he was conceived in rape:

One might think an invocation of Martin Luther King Jr. commonplace at an event titled “Abortion in Black Communities,” but not Harvard Law School professor Diane L. Rosenfeld, who is white.

The gender-violence professor mocked her debate adversary, pro-life leader Ryan Bomberger, who is black, when he showed video clips of the civil rights leader and cited statistics showing disproportionate rates of abortions in black communities.

[…]When Mr. Bomberger, who was conceived by rape, shared his personal story, he said Ms. Rosenfeld continued to harp on the rape scenario to defend abortion rights.

“What happens if one of his victims, after she got raped, got pregnant?” Ms. Rosenfeld said at the event. “First, there’s the lack of choice of who has access to your body — and then what to do about that horrible consequence.”

According to her, Bomberger should just be killed, because he is not a person, he’s just a “horrible consequence”. To say that to a person – that they should have been aborted… you would have to be some sort of sociopath, I guess. Her attitude towards the black victims of abortion seems to be very similar to what white slaver owners must have thought of their slaves. And indeed, the same arguments that were used by whites to justify slavery are now brought forth to justify abortion: “They’re not persons, they have no rights, they’re just my property”.

People need to realize that sexual autonomy has to be voluntarily controlled and restrained, because of the harm that it can potentially do to unborn children. I’m sure that people who have recreational sex have just as much fun doing it as people who get drunk and then drive, but someone has to make laws based on the rights of the victims. Not every choice is moral. We can do better than selfishness. We can do better than abortion.

You can watch a clip of Ryan making his case here.