All B-Cruz: married into the TPP/NAU establishment

Not a US citizen? No problem, it doesn't matter anymore! ¿No un ciudadano estadounidense? ¡No hay problema, no importa más!

If you consider yourself a Cruzer supporter watch where you step. If you think the "tea party" is your safe haven, you'll be disappointed when you find out it's just another appendage for GOP neocon leadership propaganda. 

The mouse trap is baited, don't lunge for the cheese. Promise us all you'll jump off a bridge after you support whom you thought was the 'lesser of two evils', when in fact there is no lesser! The Cruzer and an opponent  worship at other alters than you or me.

---

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Mar 10, 2014

 

Good Fellas Blankfein, Goldman CEO and
Head Abortion Meister Buffett

During his CPAC speech this weekend, Senator Ted Cruz took shots at previous Republican presidential candidates Dole, McCain, and Romney, for lacking a “clear distinction” from big-government democrats. Well, I think Mr. Cruz has got some ‘splaining to do. It seems he’s just as married—literally—to the establishment as any of them.

A report from the ever-busy infowars.com reveals that Cruz’s wife, Heidi, has some rather behemoth credentials:

Cruz’s insider connection is a family affair. His wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs vice president in Houston, Texas, according to her LinkedIn profile. She also served as an economic advisor for the Bush administration. In 2011, a Cruz campaign spokesman portrayed Heidi as “an expert on North American trade,” in other words she is savvy when it comes to globalist transnational trade deals like NAFTA, the single most destructive government move against the American worker in history.

She was also a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations (see her bio at Claremont McKenna College), a position that expired prior to her husband’s attack on the globalist organization.

The details come from a page listing Clermont-McKenna College’s Board of Advisors, on which Mrs. Cruz apparently served. In addition to being one of only three of W’s economic advisors,

She also served in the Administration as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council at the White House, advising the President and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. She also is a former director at the U.S. Treasury Department and was special policy assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then Chief U.S. international trade negotiator.

It also reveals that before Goldman Sachs, she worked for another tentacle of the vampire squid, JPMorgan, “focusing on international structured finance.”

None of this says “Tea Party,” “small government,” “sound money,” and contrary to Cruz’s latest pitch, it also does not much support “standing on principle”—unless that “principle” is fiat money, TARP bailouts, financing wars, revolving doors, etc.

Now perhaps Mrs. Cruz’s career is not representative of the Senator’s views. Or, if it is, perhaps the Senator has changed views in recent years. He did later blast the CFR, but that seems to have come only after his wife’s Term ended, and only when trying to present himself as a Tea Party candidate.

But Cruz has wasted no time showing us to his views. Only a day after falling a distant second behind Ran Paul (Paul 31%, Cruz only 11%) in the CPAC straw poll, Cruz took a swipe, albeit a weak one, at Paul. Breitbart.com reports that despite being a “big fan” of Rand Paul, Cruz stated, “I don’t agree with him on foreign policy.”

There’s no doubt Paul is not an imperialist or a warmonger, but he has certainly deviated from his father’s uncompromising non-interventionism. When Fox News Sunday asked about his foreign policy, Paul answered,

I see my foreign policy in the same line as what came out of, probably, the first George Bush. Henry Kissinger wrote something in the Washington Post two days ago [here] which I agree with. I see it coming out of the mainstream of the Republican position.

I opposed with real fervor the involvement of us in Syria, and that became the dominant position in the country—both Republican and Democrat. There’s not one Republican who’s saying we should put military troops in Crimea, in the Ukraine. So I think I’m right in the middle of that position.

And I think that those who would try to argue that somehow I’m different than the mainstream Republican opinion are people who want to take advantage for their own personal political gain. I’m a great believer in Ronald Reagan. I’m a great believer in a strong national defense. . . .

It’s perhaps not surprising then that in his sideswipe at Paul, Cruz didn’t really give any real specifics, just vague sentimental references:

U.S. leadership is critical in the world. I agree we should be reluctant to deploy military force aboard, but there’s a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, when he stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and said ‘Tear down this wall.’ Those words changed the course of history. The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.

Of course, Paul seems to share all of these platitudes: who doesn’t believe in “defending our values”? Who doesn’t believe in “U.S. leadership”? So as criticisms these fall flat.

The real questions are things like, “Do we need 800 international military bases to accomplish this?” “Do we need to maintain military bases in 63 countries?” “Do we need standing armies of 255,000 soldiers in foreign countries?” “Can anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility and small government seriously maintain $680+ billions each year in ‘defense’ spending?” And this is all not even considering the biblical doctrines regard the military and war (Paul has hinted at some. Cruz has not, as far as I know).

Since Paul shares the views Cruz mentioned, it seems that Cruz is either uniformed (unlikely), dishonest (harsh), or is engaging in careless political volleys.

Consider the results of CPAC, the latter seems most likely.

In fairness, Cruz was asked about Paul by an interviewer, so he had no choice but answer. But his answer is vague grandstanding on things Paul agrees with.

So, if we are to believe that Cruz’s answer distinguishes him from Paul somehow, then he must have very different definitions of “U.S. leadership” and “defending our values” than those articulated by Paul. For Cruz, these must be euphemisms for “imperialism” and “interventionism.”

If Cruz’s familial associations—Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, W, CFR— are any indication, then I think we know the answer. I suspect there is, therefore, some truth in Infowar.com’s conclusion:

Like the domestication of the Tea Party and the expulsion of its more purist liberty-minded activists, the Cruz the warrior pitted against the establishment motif is another slick subversion directed at the political elite’s most puissant opposition – the real Tea Party and a threatening number of patriot activists gnawing at the edges of the political establishment.

If Cruz gets more prominent for the 2016 primary, I suspect there will be an attempt to scrub these associations.

UPDATE: Paul fires back:

Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines, realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.

Without a clearly defined mission, exit strategy or acceptable rationale for risking soldiers lives, Reagan possessed the leadership to reassess and readjust.

Today, we forget that some of the Republican hawks of his time criticized Reagan harshly for this too, again, calling him an appeaser. . . .

How many leaders were as great as Reagan, willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them and put their country before their own reputation and legacy?

Today’s Republicans should concentrate on establishing their own identities and agendas, as opposed to simply latching onto Ronald Reagan’s legacy—or worse, misrepresenting it.

Source AmericanVision

Senator Ted Cruz “Honored” to Hang Out with War Criminal Henry Kissinger

Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
February 2nd, 2015

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, (then the person in the picture needlessly adds a few more words as if the point wasn’t already hammered home by the picture merely existing in the first place).

Senator Ted Cruz uploaded this image to his official Facebook page on January 29th of himself having coffee with Henry Kissinger with the tagline, “Honored to share a few moments with Dr. Kissinger and hear his thoughts on the challenges facing our nation.”

 

Honored, huh? I’m sure he was.

It has been widely reported in the alternative media just how phony Senator Cruz is. The man was a Bush lawyer and advisor with a Goldman Sachs/Council on Foreign Relations/Bush advisor wife (who just so happened to co-write the CFR’s blueprint for the North American Union). Cruz has even argued in his own amicus brief to the Supreme Court that assault weapons bans in certain states are “reasonable regulations”.

When you straight up admit your wife belongs to a “pit of vipers” who are “working to undermine our national sovereignty” and then tell everyone you are “honored” to hang out with cold-blooded war criminal scumbag murderers…

Here was my reply:

And, as if all that weren’t bad enough, the guy acts about as fake as a three-dollar bill on the 32nd day of February:

The presidential election might as well be a kiddie pool. The turds float to the top. Your choices are those turds. That’s the nature of modern American politics at the federal level.

Until more people realize this, nothing is ever going to change.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

CV readers aren’t shocked at this resurrection of establishing the NAU. CNN just moves it forward on the shelf positioning it for a closer reach, now imminent, for CNN’s corporatist slavemasters. 

And… Heidi of Goldman Sachs, and coincidentally the wife of Ted Cruz, might just be the foundress chosen to shackle our ankles into the advancing NWO!

You can now begin to see why it's vital to our survival as sovereign nations (Mexico, US, Canada) to nullify un-Constitutional elements within the US states before this NAU wave sweeps in, adding another layer of distant government and buttressing the Treason in DC. Be brave - dare call it a Conspiracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

January 27, 2015

Why we need a North American Passport ... The future success of North America depends partly on how the U.S., Canada and Mexico work together ... The future of the United States lies in North America. This is not a geographic truism, but a strategic imperative. Generations of Americans, distracted by far-flung crises, have long taken our own region for granted. This must change if the 21st century is to be an American century. – CNN

Dominant Social Theme: It is very important for everyone to get together everywhere all the time.

Free-Market Analysis: Is the campaign for a North American Union officially underway with this editorial appearing in CNN?

Certainly conspiracy theorists might be justified in thinking so.

For years, more than a decade, some have suspected that powerful bureaucracies in North America – especially in Washington – might seek to combine Mexico, the US and Canada into a single super-state.

This was always greeted with howls of contempt by those in the mainstream media, especially in the liberal congregation, who knew better. There was no need, no possibility, that Canada, Mexico and the US would ever form a single trading – and perhaps political – union in the manner of the EU.

But here we go. Those derisive hoots are now drowned out by the reality of what this editorial proposes.

More:

The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny. How we move forward together is key to our success.

In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America.

Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states. In the North American context, much like within the European Union, our economies and societies are far more integrated than our immigration system recognizes – and a North American passport, much like the EU passport, would align our laws with reality.

Such a move would provide a dramatic break from Washington's historical negligence of its "near abroad," which stems from a rare luxury. In contrast to other major continental powers through the centuries, the United States has not had to worry much about its neighbors and devote the bulk of its military resources to protecting its borders.

... A North American passport would reflect the unique relationship and shared interests among our nations. In the face of growing competition from rising powers elsewhere in the world, simply taking our geography for granted and focusing our attention elsewhere is no longer a viable option.

One can see many dominant social themes in this editorial – and these are evident from the beginning: "The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny."

Wait a minute. The United States, Canada and Mexico are lines on a map. These geographical regions are not bound by anything, let alone cultural destiny. Having stated this fallacious assumption, the editorial proclaims, "How we move forward is key to our success."

Why should lines on a map move "forward"? And why is moving forward the key to success for arbitrary geographical regions? This is simply language jumbled together to sound like a logical argument.

The editorial gets even worse, building on this nonsensical rhetoric to rewrite history in order to make a closing argument that the three governments in question ought to offer a single passport.

In making this argument, the editorial cites NAFTA, which it claims has been "a boon to our growth and competitiveness ..."

It continues: "But the promise of NAFTA has fallen short in a critical respect; while trade and investment have grown, the barriers to movement have remained too high for the people who help drive and stand to benefit from that growth.

Now we begin to understand the importance of NAFTA. Those who wanted a North American Union understood they would need a treaty, a series of treaties, to rationalize industrialization between Mexico and the US. Once this evening-out had been accomplished, the next argument could be made, which is that regulation must follow growth.

This is a tremendously cynical way of utilizing treaties and government. One creates the conditions one wants and then moves to regulate the new reality. 

US workers have remained angry over NAFTA and CAFTA, but these treaties were intended to provide the necessary justification to proclaim a larger NAU.

There are other manipulations that have taken place recently. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have attempted to undermine US border security and to allow in as many Mexicans as possible.

US intel agencies have seemingly fueled an already violent drug war in Mexico, thus increasing pressure on Mexicans to seek employment in the US. Guns have been shipped to Mexico with US governmental complicity, apparently to heighten the violence. 

The "conspiracy" lies not with those (ourselves included) who have continually pointed out the surreptitious groundwork that has been laid to build the NAU. The conspiracy lies with those internationalists that continually push to expand and unite whole continents and more.

All around the world, "unions" are being proclaimed, often with the potential for new currencies. Surely, those who have as their goal a kind of hyper-globalism are the real conspirators here.

Conclusion: 

Directed history, anyone?

via thedailybell

The U.S. Dollar, the Amero and Gold

It's been awhile since our jailers have brought up the Amero. Somewhat more commentary on the SPP. But, anyway, it's not dead just comatose until needed while some more global housecleaning is ongoing by the NWO. 

With Heidi, wife of Ted Cruz heading the NAU group for Goldman Sachs  it's is a good bet, they're planning Ted Cruz (US citizen or not) to become our next president for a smoother transition to a globalist one world order.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

January 2015

The latest concern about proposed new North American Union currency (the "amero") was prompted by a major worldwide U.S. dollar sell-off which will soon accelerate as the U.S. prints trillions for bank bailouts.

Recently the dollar fell below the Canada's dollar, what's next?
Will the Mexican peso surpass the dollar too? Read on to find out...
The idea of a North American Union connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political/economic entity has already sparked a firestorm of public concern.

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership is not just unconstitutional, but an act of treason committed at the highest levels, one that must be stopped before the U.S.A., as a free and sovereign nation fades into history," says Dr. Jerome Corsi.

While the mass media has ignored, laughed-off, or even ridiculed the negative impact of the dollar’s slide over the last five years, Americans are now growing concerned about the dollar's future. Especially when a prominent London investment banker urges CNBC viewers to move away from the dollar toward a new North American currency such as the "Amero".

"New World Financial Order" summit
The United States hosted a summit of the G-20 leaders to discuss the underlying causes of the credit crisis and start developing principles of global reform for financial regulators and institutions.

"France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy is trying to organize a New World Financial Order... based on something other than the dollar. Perhaps the biggest delusion of the financial world now is that the dollar... and dollar-based Treasury obligations... are a safe refuge. In an emergency, the government can always just print up the money. But that’s the problem. An emergency is coming," reports Daily Reckoning.

"Asian and European countries should banish the U.S. dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies, said a front-page commentary in the People's Daily. A meeting between Asian and European leaders in Beijing presents the perfect opportunity to begin building a new international financial order," reports Reuters.

"This crisis is global in reach -- and addressing it will require agreeing on common principles to reform regulators which is essential to preventing another disaster," President Bush recently announced. Question: How can the nations of the world agree on "common principles to reform" given the wide diversity of worldviews each nation represents? This global credit meltdown is pushing the U.S. toward an "New Financial World Order" which seeks to replace free market principles with socialistic principles.

Americans fear supra-national government, as did our Founders
What might a national currency debasement do to your net worth, already shrinking due to declining home prices, a stock market meltdown and a rising cost of living?

According to a recent Merrill Lynch note to clients:
“We’re in the beginnings of a global readjustment that will end the dollar’s dominance as the “gold standard” currency for the world’s economies. The dollar is likely entering a long, slow decline - followed by a crash," reports Financial Times.

Forbes magazine reports: "Strong Dollar, Strong Currency" is more than a mantra... economic history indicates that no country has ever achieved greatness nor maintained it by debasing its currency."

The problem with modern money is that it does not constitute a store of value. The only two assets that are money, and cannot fail during a credit crisis, are silver and gold. All fiat currencies eventually collapse because they do not constitute a store of value.

According to Swiss America CEO Craig R. Smith: "One major reason for the dollars systematic decline is our snowballing debts and deficits. Today the U.S. borrows $2.5b a day from other nations! Devaluing the dollar is one of the ways the financial markets correct our rising U.S. debt and deficits."

The truth is, government at all levels (as well as individuals) must begin to get debt under control before we can ever expect the value of the dollar to strengthen substantially. In the meantime, Mr. Smith advises converting some dollars into "anti-dollars" -- gold -- while prices are still reasonable. Smart investors are diversifying out of dollars and into gold -- a trend experts expect to continue for many years.

FREE OFFER: Get a FREE copy of Mr. Smith's "2010 ECONOMIC REALITIES" newsletter PLUS a new 2010 "Rare Opportunity" DVD (Watch this 3:00 trailer). Together these resources will give you everything you need to know about the falling dollar, the amero and gold. Not sure Watch This!
[Image: Commemorative amero coin design created by Daniel Carr]

Settling the Issue of Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) Loyalty to His Country or Himself: He's a NEOCON & ZIONIST!

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Stand with Israel Act of 2014 - May 1, 2014 

There is no greater evidence of the subversion of our political system from within than the corruption of our own elected bodies. As the son of America’s most honorable and moral political figure, Ron Paul, Rand is certainly to prove a traitor to his sworn oath, and a greater disappointment to his father. No, Americans have not "won" back the Senate with a Republican majority, they've surrendered even more of their honor, national security and freedom to an immoral class.

We can only conclude Doctor Rand has the same contempt for his Hippocratic Oath as he's shown towards his sworn oath to the US Constitution.

Ted Cruz Enrages Jews and Christians by his support for the Israel Zionist State

Ted Cruz: Christians must support Israel

Within one month after the election, new Senator Ted Cruz twice traveled to Israel. Here he meets with his new boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Thursday, Canadian-born American Senator Ted (Refael) Cruz with Cuban Jewish family roots, was booed offstage during a dinner for the Middle East's Christian conference in Washington DC. "Christians have no greater ally than Israel. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews," Ted Cruz said. Ted Cruz, who is one of many Israel's lackeys in the US Senate angered Christian audience including Lebanon's ambassador in Washington, Antoine Chedid, when he started ranting Israeli hasbara lies about Jewish love for the Christians. In 2012 former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren tried to stop Bob Simon's report on Christians' plight in Israel scheduled to be aired by the CBS. In addition to pleasing the Jewish Lobby, Cruz also evoked some of pastor John Hagee's "religious" lies. He showed his "American Christian patriotism" by saying: "Those who hate Israel hate America. Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room don't recognize that, then my heart weeps." "If you hate the Jewish people, you're not reflecting the teachings of Jesus," Cruz added. According to Jewish scholar, Benjamin Freedman, Jesus was not Jewish. Then Ted Cruz turned his wrath over to the supporters of Palestinian people, Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria. To add some spices to his "Zionist curry", Cruz included Zionist-created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS terrorists among Israel's Muslim enemies. "Religious bigotry is a cancer with many manifestations," he said. "ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, state sponsors like Syria and Iran, are all engaged in a vicious genocidal campaign to destroy religious minorities in the Middle East," Cruz said. Cruz's comments on the region were too extreme for the audience, and provoked a round of cries that firmly asked him to leave. "Stop it, stop it, enough," and "Out, out, leave the stage!" were some of the shouts aimed at the senator, which prompted the In Defense of Christians (the sponsor of the said conference) president, Toufic Baaklini, to join Cruz on stage and ask the crowd to listen. After failing in attempts to be heard, the senator announced "if you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and God bless," before walking off the stage, with some carrying on the shouts and others applauding his departure. Lebanese Christian MPs Jean Ogassapian, Atef Majdalani and former MP  Ghattas Khoury all left the conference in protest to Cruz' Israeli propaganda. Patriarch Gregory III Laham also intended to leave but was persuaded by the Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai, a Zionist poodle, to stay.

View article...

Why Christians Are Criticizing Cruz-and Israel

By Scott McConnell • September 17, 2014

What is there to add to the extremely rich vein of commentary elicited by Ted Cruz’s  shameless Israel lobby pandering at a Washington forum intended to call attention to the plight of Mideast Christians in the age of ISIS? The pieces by Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and the several posts by Rod Dreher say a great deal of what needs to be said, making many points I would likely never have thought of.

One takeaway from the controversy, which continues to reverberate around the conservative blogosphere, is how many socially conservative/Christian/Republican-leaning thinkers have sensed, perhaps for the first time in their relatively young careers, how morally flawed is the entire Christian Zionist/McCainist/Commentary/Washington Free Beacon/Likudnik group, whose views have long driven “mainstream” conservative foreign-policy opinion in Congress and the GOP presidential primaries. 

I think this may grow into an important schism on the right, one that weakens neoconservatism, to the Republican Party’s long-term benefit. I don’t want to ascribe views to people who don’t necessarily have them, but when I see young conservatives reacting viscerally against the tweets from the Breitbart site and other movement conservatives, tweets putting scare quotes around the word “Christian” in order to denigrate the Mideast patriarchs and bishops and other figures who attended the gathering, attacking them because they failed some sort of “stand with Israel” litmus test, it feels like a kind of Kronstadt moment. This sentiment also comes when I see the disgust felt when Weekly Standard editor Lee Smith implies that Mideast Christians are simply a kind of ISIS lite. 

I witnessed personally a comparable repulsion a year or so ago, when an old friend, long a prudently neocon-friendly author and Wall Street Journal writer, reacted to the smearing of Chuck Hagel by the same group. It’s as if the Israel lobby has grown so accustomed to the deference accorded it by everyone else in the American political system, it has lost any sense of its own limits.

Still there are other points to be made. Several of Cruz’s critics responded as if the Mideast Christians who came to the gathering deserved a sort of indulgent understanding for their lack of enthusiasm for Cruz’s admonition that Israel is their greatest friend. 

It was sometimes noted as historical fact that most Palestinian Christians live under Israeli occupation, and that others were ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948; that the Lebanese Christians had once been Israel’s allies, which had not worked out well for them: in other words, all these groups had understandable excuses for their chilliness towards Israel. These Christians are, according to this discourse, genuinely vulnerable—they can be forgiven for not loving Israel. But this argument—and there are elements of it in most of the conservative pieces which chastized Cruz—scants the fact that Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine is also opposed, often quite publicly and with increasing energy, by ever growing numbers of non-Mideast Christians.

I wonder if Cruz would similarly walk out and denounce Pope Francis as an anti-Semite, considering the new Pope visited the Holy Land and expressed his wishes for dignity and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians and said a prayer outside the Israeli wall that severs Bethlehem from neighboring Jerusalem and has largely rendered the town of Jesus’s birth a walled off ghetto. (The Israeli right went into conniptions about the Pope’s visit, with the incomparable Caroline Glick accusing the Pope of licensing “Holocaust denial” by his prayer at the Bethlehem separation wall.) If there is an argument that the Pope, with his stand in support of peace and dignity for both peoples in the Holy Land, is some kind of outlier among Catholics, I have not yet heard it.

Finish reading

▶ Tea Party Darling Ted Cruz And His Inside Connection To Goldman Sachs

While it may be that Cruz's Canadian birth country exempts him for US presidency eligibility, what if the Conspiracy has us merged into the NAU by 2016? Hmmm...

Published on Oct 20, 2013

Heidi & Ted take Texas US Senate seat

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news to Republican Tea Party supporters, but, it seems Senator Ted Cruz is "literally" in bed with Goldman Sachs. Don't fall for the same ole banker puppet politician like the left did with Obama. We need candidates that are independent from the same ole same ole. Wake up! [Heidi was also an investment banker with JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch...CV]

Heidi's LinkedIn Profile

Cruz's Wife, Heidi, CFR/North American Union Task Force Member!

Submitted by yogmama on Sat, 09/28/2013

• Daily Paul Liberty Forum

"Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
 
...a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
 
...The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it." http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/...
 
The article goes on to list the CFR/NAU Task Force members and she's on it w/a short bio that will enlighten you to her background, as well.
 
Thanks to rosevelyn who found it first and posted it to the comments section @ http://www.dailypaul.com/300667/found-it-ted-cruz#comment-32...

Similar Subjects (Sometimes)

• Ted Cruz: CFR plant. Wife co-author on North America Union ...
• Found it! Ted Cruz, Goldman Sachs, Bush Relationship 9/28/13