1. Thursday, May 7, 2015
All B-Cruz: married into
the TPP/NAU establishment
Posted by Charleston Voice
Not a US citizen? No problem, it doesn't matter anymore! ¿No un
ciudadano estadounidense? ¡No hay problema, no importa más!
image: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3S7Q_dM1eVQ/VCmwU65GD-
I/AAAAAAAAI9Y/J7Ztn4znaP4/s1600/Ted_Cruz_El_Cubano_De_Canada%CC%81_LA
RGE%5B1%5D.jpg
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
image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YADA4AXbPpk/VCmjzBZ4r-
I/AAAAAAAAI9I/3atu3Wo_p04/s1600/warren%20buffett%20lloyd%20blankfein%5B1%5D.JPG

2. 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,

3. 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.”
image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-
1a5sanaPQBc/VCmiv30vRHI/AAAAAAAAI9A/Lazw_GWrH_M/s1600/fh4eca65e4%5B1
%5D.png
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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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
Related Posts
 Mystery of the Knights Templars
 BUT, can the Govt Really Steal our personal savings fom our bank, 401K, homes, safe
deposit boxes - See Executive Order 6102
 US CORPORATE DESTROYERS URGING NEXT FASCIST FAST TRACK
ATTACK 0N AMERICA
 Cancer and other Cures Frustrated by Rockefellers and the FDA *vid*
 Inside “Gamechanger Salon,” The Left’s Action Network

7. Labels: Abortion , banksters , CFR , Conspiracy , CorporatistCabals , Neocons , Pres.
Politics , Republican , Ted Cruz
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2014/09/ted-cruz-married-to-establishment.html