Thread: Facts Vs. Fiction and Heidi Cruz wife of Presidential Candidate Senator Ted Cruz

Originally Posted by MW

No she is no longer a member of CFR. Her position at Goldman Sachs has nothing to do with CFR. She did serve five years on CFR under George Bush.



I think William asked us to leave our opinions out of it!

That is a fact, not an opinion.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's been our normal practice for the now 11 years I've been a member of ALIPAC to judge candidates by their donors, their associations, their professional relationships, their financial relationships, their spousal relationships if those include donors, professions and finances. Any time the spouse would be First Lady or First Man, living in our White House, engaged with domestic and foreign agendas, privvy to confidential and classified information, present a state dinners and involved in meetings with foreign leaders, touring foreign nations and meeting with foreign leaders on their own with or without the President ..... you bet it matters.

Thank you for your response, but my question was for William.

When it involves a candidate's spouse being involved with Goldman Sucks, NAFTA, and CFR... hell yes we do!

Remember all those CFR resources all over the Romney campaign and we used to scratch our heads wondering if that could be a really bad sign? We were right and should have listened to our gut instincts on that.

Bill Clinton working for the Chinese Communists while Hillary was acting Sec State... yes that's important.

Many of these husband and wife teams are power teams like Bill and Hillary.

Let's be real.

You know it would be impossible for anyone's spouse to work for one of these kinds of power groups and for you to be opposed to them or their agenda in any way. What? You think the nation builders responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans each year would allow that and be like...

"Oh well, Heidi's husband Ted is talking crap about our plans... oh well?"

If Heidi Cruz is truly in bed with the Open Borders Syndicate like so many others, we need to know and so does everyone else.

If Heidi Cruz has been working for ALIPAC's enemies and the enemies of every American trying to stop illegal immigration, that needs to be on the table and analyzed fairly and clearly.

It's not like we are questioning her on any personal matter like an infidelity, alcohol problem, or abortion back in college etc...

These are matters of public discourse.

W

3. Has Ted Cruz supported TPP?

Yes, he's not only supported the TPP, he wrote an article with Paul Ryan for the Wall Street Journal promoting it as well as went with Paul Ryan on a media tour promoting TPA for the TPP.

Putting Congress in Charge on Trade
‘Fast track’ authority will give lawmakers more say over agreements that are vital for economic growth.
By Paul Ryan And
Ted Cruz
April 21, 2015 7:36 p.m. ET

The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.

But before the U.S. can complete the agreements, Congress needs to strengthen the country’s bargaining position by establishing trade-promotion authority, also known as TPA, which is an arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.

There is a lot at stake. One in five American jobs depends on trade, and that share is only going to grow. Ninety-six percent of the world’s customers are outside the U.S. To create more jobs here, America needs to sell more goods and services over there. When that happens, the American worker benefits. Manufacturing jobs tied to trade pay 16% more on average, according to a study released by the independent U.S. International Trade Commission.

Right now, though, the American worker isn’t competing on a level playing field against many overseas economies. The U.S. economy is one of the most open in the world—and for good reason. Thanks to lower duties on imports, the average American family saves $13,600 a year, according to a study by HSBC. But other countries put up trade barriers that drive up prices for U.S. goods and services and make it hard to sell them there.

The American worker can compete with anybody, if given a fair chance. If you add up all 20 countries that the U.S. has a trade agreement with, American manufacturers run a $50 billion trade surplus with them. The problem is that not all countries have a trade agreement with the U.S.; American manufacturers run a $500 billion trade deficit with those nations. That is why the U.S. needs effective trade agreements to lay down fair and strong rules that level the playing field. Without such rules, America’s trading partners will keep stacking the deck against job creators in this country.

But Congress can’t just take the administration’s word that it will drive a hard bargain. We have to hold it accountable, and that is what trade-promotion authority will help do.

Under TPA, Congress lays out three basic requirements for the administration. First, it must pursue nearly 150 specific negotiating objectives, like beefing up protections for U.S. intellectual property or eliminating kickbacks for government-owned firms. Second, the administration must consult regularly with Congress and meet high transparency standards.

And third, before anything becomes law, Congress gets the final say. The Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. So TPA makes it clear that Congress—and only Congress—can change U.S. law. If the administration meets all the requirements, Congress will give the agreement an up-or-down vote. But if the administration fails, Congress can hit the brakes, cancel the vote and stop the agreement.

Trade-promotion authority will hold the administration accountable both to Congress and to the American people. Under TPA, any member of Congress will be able to read the negotiating text. Any member will be able to get a briefing from the U.S. trade representative’s office on the status of the negotiations—at any time. Any member will get to be a part of negotiating rounds. And most important, TPA will require the administration to post the full text of the agreement at least 60 days before completing the deal, so the American people can read it themselves.

The stakes are high, because if you’re not moving forward in trade negotiations, you’re falling behind. In the first 10 years of this century, the countries of East Asia negotiated 48 trade agreements. The U.S., on the other hand, negotiated just two in that region. As a result, America’s share of East Asia’s imports fell by 42%. Every top U.S. competitor did better—every one of them.

Meanwhile, China is negotiating agreements with anyone who will listen—from South Korea and Australia to Norway. And it isn’t free enterprise the Chinese are pushing. Instead, it is their own form of crony capitalism. They’re writing rules that favor government-owned firms and hamper American job creators. So it all comes down to this question: Is China going to write the rules of the global economy, or is the United States?

By establishing TPA, Congress will send a signal to the world. America’s trading partners will know that the U.S. is trustworthy and then put their best offers on the table. America’s rivals will know that the U.S. is serious and won’t abandon the field. And the American people will know this trade agreement is a good, fair deal—because they’ll have the information they need to decide for themselves. Promoting American trade will create more opportunity in the country, and so we strongly urge our colleagues in Congress to vote for trade-promotion authority.

Rep. Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Sen. Cruz, a Republican from Texas, heads the Senate Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-...ade-1429659409

I posted this already on ALIPAC, sometime ago. Again, I"m sorry you didn't see it.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, he's not only supported the TPP, he wrote an article with Paul Ryan for the Wall Street Journal promoting it as well as went with Paul Ryan on a media tour promoting TPA for the TPP.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-...ade-1429659409

I posted this already on ALIPAC, sometime ago. Again, I"m sorry you didn't see it.

Okay, but shouldn't he also be judged on how he feels on the issue now? Besides that, he says he voted against TPA and will vote against the TPP.

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)said that he would vote against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries on Friday while campaigning in Iowa.

According to the Des Moines Register, Cruz said he is “deeply concerned” with the trade pact.

“While Cruz said he supports free trade, he believes the Trans-Pacific Partnership would undermine U.S. immigration laws and the nation’s sovereignty,” reported the Des Moines Register.

“There are a number of Republicans on that (debate) stage who support TPP, who support (the Trade Promotion Authority),” Cruz stated. “I voted against TPA and I intend to vote against TPP.”




http://www.alipac.us/newreply.php?p=1490705&noquote=1

If his wife really is plugged into all of the alleged power groups it means Cruz is just saying anything to get elected like Rubio is accusing him of. It means that Cruz will promise us anything and then serve the CFR which is how they get us every-time.

W

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, but shouldn't he also be judged on how he feels on the issue now? Besides that, he says he voted against TPA and will vote against the TPP.

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)said that he would vote against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries on Friday while campaigning in Iowa.

According to the Des Moines Register, Cruz said he is “deeply concerned” with the trade pact.

“While Cruz said he supports free trade, he believes the Trans-Pacific Partnership would undermine U.S. immigration laws and the nation’s sovereignty,” reported the Des Moines Register.

“There are a number of Republicans on that (debate) stage who support TPP, who support (the Trade Promotion Authority),” Cruz stated. “I voted against TPA and I intend to vote against TPP.”




http://www.alipac.us/newreply.php?p=1490705&noquote=1

No, he shouldn't be judged on how he feels about it now. He should be judged on how he felt about both immigration and trade when he ran for the US Senate, served in the US Senate, voted for TPA, lobbied and promoted for TPA for TPP, wrote his article for TPP and another European Trade Agreement in the Wall Street Journal, as well as how he felt about expanding legal immigration by enormous amounts and supporting border security first, and legalization amnesty of illegal aliens after that. He was asked in 2015 by the Dallas Morning News about his positions from 2013 on immigration and whether they had changed and both he and his campaign office told the paper they had not changed. They didn't "change" until that GOP Debate on December 15, 2015 when he was corned on the debate stage by Marco Rubio.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

If his wife really is plugged into all of the alleged power groups it means Cruz is just saying anything to get elected like Rubio is accusing him of. It means that Cruz will promise us anything and then serve the CFR which is how they get us every-time.

W

His wife is no longer a member of CFR. Actually I'm not sure she ever was a real CFR member. However, she was on a task force that was sponsored by CFR during the Bush administration. Additionally, she is an accomplished woman in her own right. Working for Goldman Sachs doesn't necessarily make her an evil woman. Ted Cruz has come out against CFR, calling them a "pit of vipers" and has denounced the United Nations.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, he shouldn't be judged on how he feels about it now. He should be judged on how he felt about both immigration and trade when he ran for the US Senate, served in the US Senate, voted for TPA, lobbied and promoted for TPA for TPP, wrote his article for TPP and another European Trade Agreement in the Wall Street Journal, as well as how he felt about expanding legal immigration by enormous amounts and supporting border security first, and legalization amnesty of illegal aliens after that. He was asked in 2015 by the Dallas Morning News about his positions from 2013 on immigration and whether they had changed and both he and his campaign office told the paper they had not changed. They didn't "change" until that GOP Debate on December 15, 2015 when he was corned on the debate stage by Marco Rubio.

Okay, I think William intended on this thread being for facts only, not more bashing and so forth. Cruz voted against TPA when it mattered and has said he will vote against the TPP. Furthermore, he never support the legalization of illegals, period! The amendment during the gang of eight bill has been explained to you over and over again. He does not support the legalization of illegals and never has. Okay, I'm through arguing with you on this thread.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

If his wife really is plugged into all of the alleged power groups it means Cruz is just saying anything to get elected like Rubio is accusing him of. It means that Cruz will promise us anything and then serve the CFR which is how they get us every-time.

W

Exactly. Ted is a con artist. You know all those Supreme Court cases everyone thinks he's so brilliant on that no one ever wants to talk about? I researched them and posted the information on ALIPAC. It was 8 cases when he was solicitor general in Texas.

1. cheating poor people on Medicaid out of benefits - LOST 0-9 at the Supreme Court

2. cheating Hispanic Citizens out of their voting districts in Texas - WON 6-3 simply because of states rights but got scathing criticism in the opinion for mistreating minorities.

4-8. Texas Sentencing Cases, either extreme sentencing or death penalty cases, he won some, lost some.

Does any of that sound like something any of US would use to anoint a President?

No, it isn't.

Yet he gets out there and sells it as "standing up for liberty, standing up for the Constitution", when it's just trying to cheat, punish or kill, hardly the "values" most of us want in a President, let alone one that wants TPP, increased immigration and open borders.