Category Archives: Bryan’s Blog

cruz affair

Deep Inside the Claims of Ted Cruz Affairs

The bombshell story about Ted Cruz’s five affairs (in the National Enquirer) struck late last week and was quickly dismissed as tabloid gossip. I didn’t believe it. But, after digging deeper, what I found was a series of circumstantial realities that make the story nearly impossible to disprove.

The evidence supporting the National Enquirer’s accuracy is mounting. First, let’s look at their track record. There’s no doubt the the Enquirer is in the business of puffing. But, puffing is different than lying. Puffing is making something look worse than it is. Lying is telling something totally unfounded and untrue. Admittedly, both are wrong.

But, this is a fairly black and white issue to many Republicans. If Ted Cruz has cheated on his wife after casting the image of being a staunch, Christian-conservative, then he also can’t be trusted to be loyal to his constituents. On the other hand, who are we to judge? We’re all flawed. Many point to the fact Donald Trump’s three failed-marriages as reason enough this shouldn’t matter.

Let’s cast judgment aside and simply review the facts. The National Enquirer broke the stories (or significant bombshells) of presidential candidate John Edward’s affair, Anthony Weiner’s prostitutes, Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction, Bill Cosby’s women, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s affair and many others. Typically, they’re accurate on the root-accusation, but the remaining story has plenty of flaws. The Cruz-affair story is likely the same.

I have it on good authority that Heidi Cruz prefers to limit the number of female staffers on the campaign. Sources tell me this ‘demand’ by Heidi Cruz garnered steam after Katrina Pierson disappeared from the Cruz-camp only to reappear month’s later as the national spokeswoman for the Trump campaign. One of the women in the partially-truncated photos of the Enquirer article appears to be Pierson. Coincidence? Perhaps! But who really believed that John Edwards actually had a love-child and was cheating on his wife while she underwent chemotherapy? Until, it was proven!

To these charges, Pierson tweeted: “Of course the National Enquirer story is 100% FALSE!!! I only speak to myself, however.” For some reason, that doesn’t add any believable clarity.

Breitbart News, which has been very friendly to Trump, was pitched this story but shelved it. It has been reported that an operative with the Marco Rubio campaign was behind that pitch. Their evidence showed a video of Cruz and another woman leaving the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on multiple days. The video did not prove an affair, but brings more questions than answers.

Some say this is a ‘hit piece’ by the Enquirer on behalf of Donald Trump. David Pecker is the CEO of American Media which publishes the Enquirer and is a close friend of Trump. Trump has outright denied the campaign had any involvement. I’m not sure if I believe that, but if the story is true, does it matter?

The more I look for evidence to discredit the claims, he more I find evidence of a potential truth in them.

There’s one more concern I have. It’s Ted Cruz’s response. “This National Enquirer story is garbage, it is complete and utter lies; it is a tabloid smear, and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen.” There is zero evidence that it had anything to do with Donald Trump, so why would he start his denial with something he can’t prove?

Cruz’s response further brings into question his innocence. If such rumors were being spread about me, my first reaction would be to threaten a lawsuit if not file one. Given the fact he’s an accomplished federal lawyer, it would seem he would have at least sought an injunction to such ‘slander.’ But, instead, he blamed Donald Trump for the story, without any supporting evidence of his involvement.

If you had just been accused of cheating on your spouse, would your first reaction be to blame someone and to engage in a tirade against their allies, such as Trump ally Roger Stone? Cruz stated: “[Stone is] a man who has 50 years of dirty tricks behind him.” Cruz continued that the phrase “copulating with a rodent” is made for guys like Stone and that “this garbage doesn’t belong in politics.”

Remember, this is your first response that you’ve been cheating on your wife with multiple women. And, he’s talking about Roger Stone?

What was missing? He did not say, “I have never cheated on my wife. I would never do anything like this to hurt her.” He responded with an attack which did not fully dismiss the accusations. He said it was ‘lies’ and ‘garbage.’ It may be a somewhat inaccurate story that he believes is garbage. However, it may contain some very damaging truths. His response was a ruse.

Let’s recap. The Enquirer has accurately broke the stories of some of the biggest sex scandals of our time. One of the women (accused in the affairs) is a former advisor to Ted Cruz (Pierson). She oddly disappeared from the Cruz-camp only to later appear as the spokeswoman for the Trump campaign. And, there’s Cruz’s extensive blame-game about the source of the story, with little specific defense of the content. Even more surprising, was the absence of an overarching ‘I’ve never cheated on my wife’ narrative.

Perhaps he remembered what happens when you say, “I’ve never had sexual relations with that” – – those women. It’s likely Cruz response is not a lie. But, it’s even more likely there is some truth in that article.

By the way, wouldn’t you think Heidi Cruz would have spoken to denounce this by now?

With this much smoke there’s got to be a fire.

AUDIO FROM TODAY’S SHOW:

cruz-national-enquirer-575x359

Is National Enquirer Right on #CruzSexScandal ? Shocking proof…

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane. Remember all of these stories that National Enquirer broke? Did they get it right or not? It sure looks like they get the ‘sex’ in politics and media right, right?

Insane: NYC Sanitation Workers Destroy Crates of ‘Illegally’ Displayed Vegetables

News & Politics

In New York City it is illegal for stores to display foods more than four feet from storefront. This arcane law is now being ruthlessly enforced, as the above footage documents.

Provided by Gary Schlesinger, CEO of ParCare Health & Medical Center, the raw footage shows New York City sanitation workers taking boxes of fresh fruits and vegetables and throwing them into a waiting garbage truck.

The vegetable displays were also roped off from the public, many of whom can be seen looking on in confused shock.

The crackdown comes as New York City is ramping up construction site fines, traffic camera fines, and fines on offensive advertisements.

The city has also recently launched the Food Retail to Support Health Program (FRESH), which provides zoning incentives to encourage greater access to fresh food.

republican debate #gopdebate

If Trump Doesn’t Win, 25% of the Republican Party will Revolt and Flee

There could be a four man race in November, and it the final vote could come down to Trump, Bloomberg and Clinton. Your vote would not really count. What do you think the house will do?

FULL TOWNHAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING BELOW AUDIO ON DEMAND:

Double-digit Odds We Have Four-Way Race in November.

While leaving the station after my radio show Tuesday, the thought occurred to me that if Donald Trump is the nominee for the Republican Party and he loses the general election, it won’t be his fault. It will be all the elitist, establishment Republicans who have dismissed and assaulted him since the beginning. It will be all the nasty commentary, the statements about how unelectable he is and it will have very little to do with the Democrats’ actions or Trump himself. It will be the result of collateral damage from a nasty primary election; he’ll have some guilt in the latter. The Democrat candidates are mostly and wisely sitting on the sidelines watching the Republicans destroy each other and their party.

Trump hinted this week that he may drop his pledge to support the Republican nominee if the assaults and lies don’t stop.

Then it occurred to me what may actually happen. We’re all neglecting the nightmare scenario. It’s literally possible that through a brokered convention or a further Republican meltdown of assaults against Trump that we end up with four viable candidates for President in November’s general election.

In this scenario, I believe Marco Rubio becomes the nominee for the Republican Party. There are some states Ted Cruz just won’t win. Absent Trump, these go to Rubio. It appears certain that Hillary Clinton, unless she goes to jail where she belongs, will be the Democrat nominee for President. Scathing from the assaults and tear-downs of the establishment Republicans, Donald Trump then runs as an independent.

Where does the fourth candidate come into play? Seeing a massive opportunity and real chance for victory, enter former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Who wins in this dumpster fire? It will likely be a candidate with less than one-third of the vote.

Given how this election is going, we could probably predict the outcome just as accurately with Hillary Clinton’s Iowa Caucus coin-flip. In other words, at this point, none of them win, including the one with the most votes.

Absent jail, Hillary likely gets the most votes. But, with no majority, Hillary has to go to the House. Don’t get excited. Not the ‘big house,” The House.

If no candidate receives the majority of votes, a ‘contingent election’ is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three general-election finalists to determine a winner.

This happened in the election of 1824 between Henry Clay, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Andrew Jackson, known for his victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, John Calhoun, the Secretary of War and John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State. John Quincy Adams won the election after the contingent election by the House of Representatives. It was the first presidential election in which the candidate who received the most electoral votes, did not become President. Andrew Jackson had the most.

The single national party in power at that time had been the Democratic-Republican Party. The party effectively fell apart that election season and split four ways because they couldn’t agree on a candidate. John Quincy Adams’ followers later became the Republican Party and Andrew Jackson’s followers manifested into the Democrat Party.

Based on the political map,a vote in The House likely favors Rubio. The establishment-Republicans are so hungry for the status-quo (the same group who have been damaging this country) that they’ll risk a complete political meltdown rather than to have an outsider like Trump become their nominee.

Like I said in the beginning, even in this outlier of a scenario, the real tragedy in the Republican Party is that so many are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in attacking Donald Trump so viciously. But, to question such actions, would be to falsely assume they care about the party or its cause. They don’t. They care about maintaining the comfortable position of power they have attained, and they expect you to comply or they’ll “burn down the house.” “The house” is both the party and the cause, in favor of their power. If you corner and threaten a vicious dog, he is likely to bite.

The Trump-voters clearly don’t care either. They, too, are wiling to “burn down the house” if Trump isn’t the nominee.

If this destructive behavior continues, there will be a massive shakeup in Washington, of the likes, never seen before. But, isn’t that the ultimate goal of everyone but the parties’ establishment anyway?

trump casino

The “Dump Trump” Crowd: “Trump Tried to Steal Granny’s Home!”

Conservatives can’t fight President Obama’s many straw-man arguments, but they sure can fight their own Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump!

Where has all of this anti-Trump, visceral passion been by lawmakers and media pundits to oppose Obama policy for the past seven years?

The latest? Donald Trump tried to steal a widow’s (hereinafter “Granny”) home through Eminent Domain. These so-called conservative experts conveniently exclude the time Trump saved a widow from Foreclosure on a Georgia Farm by calling her bank, negotiating with tough language and sending them $20,000 to bring it current. But, on the latest Dump Trump narrative…

Here’s the story from National Review:

Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines.

He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000.

In the end, she never left and Trump nor the city ever acquired the property, but most people are ignoring that. Also, most people don’t realize that anytime there is a commercial district with intense development, the city normally creates a zoning oversight commercial investment district (CID). This district then becomes slated for high-density commercial development as mater-planning function for the city. Without it, you end up with massive infrastructure and service failures that can make Flint, Michigan look attractive.

Since writing this article, I’ve learned that “granny” sold her house for half what Trump offered a few years later to a blind bidder. The Supreme Court later ruled cases such as these are legal for the city and this home has a celebrity history with many ties, including indirectly to Jeb Bush.

I’ve taken major flack on social media for calling Granny “stupid” for not taking the original offer which was about four times the property’s value. In receiving this flack, it occurred to me that most people also don’t understand that Eminent Domain is established in the Bill of Rights.

Many people tell me that they applaud granny for not being a “sellout.” We should not define ourselves by our home, but our contribution to society. Many people associate their home through ego as an image of themselves. It may reflect who you are, but it should not define who you are. I’m not a “sellout” if I choose to profit from a property I own and enhance my living standards or change them.

If there is apiece of land sitting vacant and a developer wants to buy it and get the city to approve a development, that greatly enhances the tax base. Usually it would take hundreds of homes to provide the tax base of just one such building. However, a single commercial development takes a fraction of the public resources (trash, fire, police, etc), per capita, as does a home. Let me give you just one example. In order to serve a casino, the city trash collector has to make just one stop. In order to serve the equivalent housing tax-base, it has to make hundreds of stops. The labor, man-power and time is exponential while the tax revenue (base) is significantly lower per home.

So when “poor” Granny wants to keep her $2 million beachfront home (that could be used for a much higher tax base through commercial zoning), then she is going to be subject to the potential risks of having a commercial facility next to a large commercial facility inside a developing commercial district. While she may have the right to stay, even if she is offered 4 times her value and refuses, it does not make good business sense. Still, the municipality can ultimately determine that it’s not being used for its highest and best use. We may not like it, but when we buy a property, we buy it subject to the county and state rights of “highest and best use.” And, over time, that does change as society evolves. Why do you think the family farms are typically in the middle of nowhere? And, even those farmers will sell when the city reaches them and go buy something further out of the growth, for less money, pocketing the profit.

Even if I remove all aspects of business sensory to Granny’s beachfront plight, we usually find that these situations get worse for all of the taxpayers because of Granny. Because of the rapidly increasing values in the immediate area, the value of Granny’s property usually goes substantially higher than just a typical beachfront home. As such, Granny starts complaining that she can’t afford to live there due to taxes. But wait? We took the “business” out of it right? We can’t do that. Because Granny usually has no mortgage, and is retired, so what is she to do? Usually, the request (strike that…..DEMAND) is to pay taxes commensurate with an average home off the beach. The argument is that they are taxing her out of her home. Is that fair to you and me? No! See, Granny usually wants it both ways (with some exceptions I admit).

So, let’s say Granny gets to stay in her home and we close the project and go home. Now, you and me just lost an opportunity to decrease our taxes or at least limit future increases. Big commercial projects typically pay a huge surplus to cities and communities that support roads, schools and services we depend on as homeowners. Most homes don’t even come close to supporting the services they consume from the city. But developers don’t just move on, they adapt which usually means less tax-base for everyone else.

So, one homeowner decides not to sell her home at a price four times what it’s worth and then you get to subsidize Granny so she can live on the beach for half the taxes you’d pay, because she can’t afford them nor make a good business decision.

I’m sorry if it’s callous that I think Granny should sell her home to the developer and/or city, buy a nice house she can maintain and afford and put the rest of the cash in the bank and enjoy her life. And, if she’s already surrounded by commercial buildings, the city should use eminent domain to bring her into reality.

I’ve seen way too many people who simply want to block growth and expansion (which helps everyone) for their own selfish-benefit while at the same time using the argument, “this is my land” when it comes to their own property.

What ends up happening is that the same people who support Granny’s right to stay, support Granny’s right not to be taxed off their land and then have no idea that a few years later (as they are complaining about high taxes) that their own ignorance of the former two is to blame.

We elect our politicians and zoning people. If we don’t like how they apply or use the law, we can make changes. That said, we need to understand that living in America is not about you or me. It’s about us. And, no one person should be able to stop an entire development’s advancement that helps us, because of “me” complex.

That is Eminent domain. If you don’t like it, then we must repeal the 5th Amendment and create a new one stopping the Government from taking private land for the advancement of public interests.

#veracoking

1000509261001_1813392965001_BIO-Paul-Ryan-Random-Facts-SF

Don’t manipulate me! “Speaker Ryan” I see through it.

A lot of Republicans are complaining about Paul Ryan as the potential choice for Speaker of The House. Paul Ryan represents one of those guys that’s truly a good guy. But, the question is “will he be a great leader?”

Over my years in business I’ve met the people who would sit before me and tell me that their family comes first. It’s hard to argue with that statement. But, then, over the course of months or years, you’d notice the hypocrisy of that statement. If there’s a party or an event that’s fun, exciting or personally advantageous, they’re always there; family aside. But, when there was a meeting or (boring) training session, their family comes first. In other words, when you have to state, as a condition (as Paul Ryan did) that your family comes first, I’ve learned to assume you plan to manipulate me with that condition, because you assume no one will ever argue with that reasoning. Wrong! I’m not asserting that Paul Ryan doesn’t simply put his family first. But, I am asserting, that he plans to pick and choose what he likes or doesn’t like to do through that lens of manipulation.

He basically gave the Republicans three conditions for which he would be Speaker of The House. The first, was that he wanted to see the party unify behind him, and unify within itself. This loosely translates to “I will be speaker if you’ll do what I say and follow my lead.” You could also loosely translate this into “I don’t want individualism; I want collectivism.” This is one of the biggest issues with the modern-day republican Party. Individualism is seen as divisiveness and radicalism instead of simply what it is: an individual reflecting a different opinion than consensus.

I’ll remind you that most of what society believes (consensus) is usually found to be at least partially wrong by the time the history books are written.

He did have a brilliant point, in that, Republicans need to become the party of proposition not opposition. Simply put, Republicans must bring solutions to the problems they are discussing; Not just opposition to the Democrats. Being proactive in business or politics is almost always a winner!

Paul Ryan is a great man. Paul Ryan is a good leader. The question is will he be a great leader for the Republican Party in The House? What’s really sad and yet enlightening is that there is no clear choice in the Republican Party for the “great” leadership needed in the House. This should be a wake up call for conservatives.