Save Western Civilization > Save America

Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques

<< < (4/4)

Cruz is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States.  FACT.
Along with 61 other Senators, he seeks to give a "we must pass it and then still not see what is in it"
National Communist-Socialist  "Enabling Act" of powers to Obama and to Corporations who wrote the legislation that is so above top secret that only 3 senators, Cruz NOT being one of them, even dared to read the bill, even though these were prohibited from taking pictures, notes, copies of, or discussing it in specifics outside the reading room they were allowed to read a copy of it before voting on it. 

A foreign born and illegal candidate to the Presidency that JTF has pushed along with the other illegal to run for President (Rubio) have really done no better in defending the Constitution than the others, except for Rand Paul, which even if he messes up in not siding with Israel and being sympathetic, at least got this one right.   

The federal office of the President is the only one (supported by the Vice-President, mind you) where a person gives a solemn obligation to PRESERVE the Constitution, not just defend it against enemies foreign and domestic, as the Constitutional oath for a POTUS so states:

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, PRESERVE  protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."   

Yet, you guys want someone (like Cruz, who will be unConstititutional and a usurper as is Obama) who is a destroyer of the Constitution from the very moment of taking such an oath to actually live up to "PRESERVING" that which by nature he has already destroyed  by the mere fact of usurpation?  This is beyond something to merely be called irrational on the part of those promoting Cruz.  I'll leave it at that.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1314 As Amended )
Vote Number:   193   Vote Date:   May 22, 2015, 08:51 PM
Required For Majority:   1/2   Vote Result:   Bill Passed
Measure Number:   H.R. 1314 (Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act )
Measure Title:   A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
Vote Counts:   YEAs   62
NAYs   37
Not Voting   1
Vote Summary   By Senator Name   By Vote Position   By Home State

 Grouped by Home State
Alabama:     Sessions (R-AL), Nay     Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:     Murkowski (R-AK), Yea      Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:     Flake (R-AZ), Yea     McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:     Boozman (R-AR), Yea     Cotton (R-AR), Yea
California:     Boxer (D-CA), Nay      Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:     Bennet (D-CO), Yea     Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut:     Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay      Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Delaware:     Carper (D-DE), Yea     Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida:     Nelson (D-FL), Yea           Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Georgia:     Isakson (R-GA), Yea     Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii:     Hirono (D-HI), Nay      Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Idaho:   Crapo (R-ID), Yea     Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois:   Durbin (D-IL), Nay     Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana:   Coats (R-IN), Yea     Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
Iowa:   Ernst (R-IA), Yea     Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Kansas:   Moran (R-KS), Yea     Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:   McConnell (R-KY),   Yea       Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:   Cassidy (R-LA),   Yea   Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine:   Collins (R-ME), Nay   King (I-ME), Nay
Maryland:   Cardin (D-MD), Yea   Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts:   Markey (D-MA), Nay   Warren (D-MA), Nay
Michigan:   Peters (D-MI), Nay   Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota:   Franken (D-MN), Nay   Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi:   Cochran (R-MS), Yea   Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Missouri:   Blunt (R-MO), Yea     McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:   Daines (R-MT), Yea     Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska:   Fischer (R-NE), Yea      Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Nevada:   Heller (R-NV), Yea     Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire:   Ayotte (R-NH),   Yea    Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:   Booker (D-NJ), Nay      Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico:   Heinrich (D-NM), Nay   Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York:   Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay     Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina:   Burr (R-NC), Yea     Tillis (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota:   Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea     Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Ohio:   Brown (D-OH), Nay     Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:   Inhofe (R-OK), Yea        Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Oregon:   Merkley (D-OR), Nay   Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:   Casey (D-PA), Nay   Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:   Reed (D-RI), Nay   Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina:   Graham (R-SC), Yea   Scott (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota:   Rounds (R-SD), Yea   Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee:   Alexander (R-TN), Yea   Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas:   Cornyn (R-TX), Yea         Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Utah:   Hatch (R-UT), Yea     Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:   Leahy (D-VT), Nay     Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia:   Kaine (D-VA), Yea     Warner (D-VA), Yea
Washington:   Cantwell (D-WA), Yea     Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:   Capito (R-WV), Yea      Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin:   Baldwin (D-WI), Nay    Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Wyoming:   Barrasso (R-WY), Yea   Enzi (R-WY), Not Voting

Ask yourselves.  Why should you support ANYONE who insists on saying the Citizens of the United States have NO RIGHTS and CONGRESS is authorized to sign away the Constitution and all powers of Governance to unknown Corporations and foreign entities that can tax and pass regulations on them from more than a dozen alien lands, or to give absolute dictatorship into the power of the Executive by Treaty and subversion of the Constitution?  Doesn't ANYONE ever demand the Constitution be adhered to anymore? 

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) @ 25
“Congress and the President, like the courts, possess
no power not derived from the Constitution.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
"... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution,
have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
 supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
 there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An offence created by it is not a crime.
A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void,
and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”

Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322,
"The single question for consideration is whether the act consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?"

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160
The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810)  @ 87
“The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy to the Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy...   The Court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes.  … The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.”

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528-29
@ 495  “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”
@528    “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.      [Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121; Home Building &; Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 426.  ]
 The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." “
…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. “
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
 “But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)  @ 290
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "   

Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws;
and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)

“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws
or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

[[[ This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying any Treaty, including this Trans pacific Partnership scheme  in the making since 2002.   Regarding Treaties signed and two-thirds of the Senate ratified, and signed by a United States Natural Born Citizen President (which Obama is NOT) so again, Treaties  too MUST NOT VIOLATE the Constitution of the United States and especially the Bill of Rights Amendments.  To that effect, I enclose these cases to cite in resistance.  -- Brian ]]]

Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."

The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." [Case citations omitted]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution."

State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
@ 433 . Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."

Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
"A treaty made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..." [Case citations omitted]

United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

The Washington Post bears out that Cruz in engaged in psychological manipulation in his campaigning.

"Cruz has largely built his program out of his Houston headquarters, where a team of statisticians and behavioral psychologists who subscribe to the -burgeoning practice of “psycho¬graphic targeting” built their own version of a Myers-Briggs personality test. The test data is supplemented by recent issue surveys, and together they are used to categorize supporters, who then receive specially tailored messages, phone calls and visits. Micro-targeting of voters has been around for well over a decade, but the Cruz operation has deepened the intensity of the effort and the use of psychological data.

...The personality and political scores applied by the campaign are used to tightly tailor outreach to individuals. For example, personalities that have received high scores for “neuroticism” are believed to be generally fearful, so a pro-gun pitch to them would emphasize the use of firearms for personal safety and might include a picture of a burglar breaking in to a home.
But those who score high for “openness” or traditional values are more likely to receive a message that promotes hunting as a family activity, perhaps accompanied by an image of a father taking his son duck hunting.

...The Cruz campaign modified the Cambridge template, renaming some psychological categories and adding subcategories to the list, such as “stoic traditionalist” and “true believer.” The campaign then did its own field surveys in battleground states to develop a more precise predictive model based on issues preferences.
The Cruz algorithm was then applied to what the campaign calls an “enhanced voter file,” which can contain as many as 50,000 data points gathered from voting records, popular websites and consumer information such as magazine subscriptions, car ownership and preferences for food and clothing.

Cambridge, which has staffers embedded in the Cruz for President headquarters in Houston, makes behavioral psychologists available for consultation as ads and scripts are drafted."

Obama used hypnosis techniques in order to help win the 2008 election. At the first, I had believed that this was to commit a mass hypnosis targeted primarily upon voters. Instead, it became a means of a targeted mass hypnosis on news junkies and especially upon the Media. By psychologically re-engineering the Mainstream Media, they would softball questions to Obama, refuse to bring up his lack of “natural Born” US credentials (because his father was a Kenyan citizen, disqualifying Barack from nbc status); and the Mainstream Media would be engineered to attack anyone who questioned Obama at almost any level of skepticism as if they were crazy or dangerous.

The first word one should time Obama on, is aaaannnndd or "and". It is a precise and timed extension that is meant to set off a suggestive "trigger" in those who have been pre-conditioned elsewhere or are more naturally compliant. The Janus right and left facial profiles from a mannequin stance, also can be construed as if the teleprompter encourages suggestive body language and associative speech rhythym patterns to reach the collective sub-conscious. The points are then driven home to the lightly tranced masses by suggestive reinforcement via the leftist Television Media, whether they realize it or not themselves.

Reading material:


Is Obama Using Hypnosis in His Speech?
     "Conversational hypnosis gives you the power to make hidden commands to others and make them obey your wishes, like Obama did. You can learn the exact covert conversational hypnosis secrets by studying the home study course, The Power Of Conversational Hypnosis by Igor Ledochowski."
Cruz is doing the exact same techniques, and making fools out of the gullible because only the gullible, regardless of their Intelligence Quotient demand he is the next Messiah, kinda like a peaceful Canadian Birth Citizen emigrated from that political system and immigrated into the United States updated Gentile version of a Bar Kosiba perhaps? 

Hypnotic Inductions and How To Use Them Properly
   "There are several kinds of hypnotic inductions varying in approach length of time and tone. This article will explore the main induction styles and how they are used.
Rapid Induction induces a trance state very quickly in about 3 to 7 minutes. It is mainly used in stage hypnosis shows and clinical hypnosis and has been popular in last 10 years.
Rapid induction consists of rapid, short, instructional commands and helps to put the subject into a trance state with fewer words rather than traditional induction techniques.

Instant Induction is new induction method which produces a trance state in seconds. It is especially useful for hypnosis shows. Unlike other induction methods it doesn’t make your audience feel boring during the show. Instant induction techniques are simple to master with a practice.

Fixation Induction. This is a traditional induction method. It draws subject’s attention to the fixation object such as pendulum, a dot on the wall etc. As concentration focuses on fixation object, subject’s attention is drawn away from external sights and sounds.

Indirect Induction. As supposed, you don’t use any directives in this type of induction, instead you use analogies or metaphors. Indirect induction is used for subjects who resist any direct suggestions. When you use indirect induction, the subject doesn’t resist the suggestion, because he doesn’t know he is receiving it.

Muscle Relaxation Induction is another traditional method which relaxes every muscle in your body. Relaxation induction may begin from the top of the head and work down or begin with toes and work upwards. It is easy to learn and use relaxation induction while doing self-hypnosis or hypnotizing others.

Progressive Muscle Relaxation Induction is designed for those who find it difficult to relax. It takes more time than relaxation induction. It is widely used for people who need to relax specific areas of the body to relieve chronic tension on shoulders, chest etc.
There are also some other hypnotic induction techniques used in hypnosis like Dave Elman method, Arm-Drop method, Confusion method, Drop Object method etc."

Olavo de Carvalho on 20 August 2008, warned that the psychological engineering conducted by the Obama Campaign in 2007-2008 was first experimented and carried out in Brazil. [Link no longer active]

"… not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept every loss, every humiliation, every defeat, just in order not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise.”

Expressions of a successful hypnosis of Mainstream Media Members will include such as that of May 3, 2009, where CNN's John King, blubbered that morning, on how "Obama blocks out the sun". We could go through a whole litany of names, but the point is: when they blubber this nonsense, they are become the enemy of the Republic, enslaved to an idea subliminally implanted into them.   Those who watch the psychologically engineered Ted Cruz campaign videos using the hypnosis techniques in the wording - pictures - music, will also likely blubber on this forum words to that same effect: "Ted Cruz block out the sun!  Ted! Ted! Ted!" 

Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

[ Government Control ]... IS PEACE



But the face of Big Brother [e.g., Obama for Dems, Cruz for you guys] seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone's eyeballs was too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her. With a tremulous murmur that sounded like ‘My Saviour!’ she extended her arms towards the screen. Then she buried her face in her hands. It was apparent that she was uttering a prayer.
At this moment the entire group of people broke into a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!... B-B!...’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second-a heavy, murmurous sound, somehow curiously savage, in the background of which one seemed to hear the stamp of naked feet and the throbbing of tom-toms. For perhaps as much as thirty seconds they kept it up. It was a refrain that was often heard in moments of overwhelming emotion. Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise. Winston's entrails seemed to grow cold. In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium, but this sub-human chanting of ‘B-B!... B-B!’ always filled him with horror. Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction.
George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’

Suggested complimentary reads:
The Making of a Fuehrer

Psychological Study of Hussein Obama

Compare the material and the techniques of Obama and then that of Cruz. You "Jews for Cruz for 2016" are being suckered by a Council On Foreign Relations anti-United States right to exist as an independent sovereignty New World Order globalist
who subscribes to Carbon Taxation in which we pay mega-taxes in the thousands of dollars a year to pay third world nations as like a form of Islamic penalty tax or as graft for Global Government participation while destroying our jobs and economy until other nations are forced to dispossess whole states and resources of the United States for "reparations", and place under a Region 1 governance where there is no longer a United States or Canada or Mexico, and the only government heads are in Europe dictating how bad we all are, etc.   Do the research.  Wake up or hop that train to the next Hillary Fun Camp where a picture of a smiling Ted Cruz is captioned  "Work shall make you free, and our showers will give you the breath of Peace."    Uh huh...R.I.P. (Rest In Peace), if you and all the other groupies who go mindless for Cruz don't snap out of it.. 


I don't know about you guys but I'm looking forward to the Sanders and Trump faceoff. I actually want them in a bareknuckle cage match, to tell you the truth. That's as good as a decider as any in my most humble opinion.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version