Posted on 06/13/2015 6:45:19 AM PDT by ncalburt
That was my understanding also.
Paragraphs are your friend. My old eyes had a difficult time reading all that.
However, I don’t see a connection between Mrs. Cruz and any wrongdoing, unless you have some documentation to prove it.
A number of companies have done quite a few shady or downright illegal things. Some people have been caught and are in prison. But it’s unfair to associate the wrongdoing of one or a handful with every employee.
WTF ? People sell their souls for a lot less than what a Senator or President can go for so what's with the "puppet" stuff ? People go with something because it pays off for them, no strings of control needed. They agree with what feathers their nest.
Trash about someone being a puppet is a way of letting them off the hook, really, like they don't have a clue about what's going on. The reality is that they know and agree or know and don't care. Either way, they're just taking the widely held American attitude of "I got mine, eff you" to the extreme.
The majority of people have some limits on how badly they're willing to shaft others to get ahead. The higher people rise, the more likely they are to decide there's no reason to care what happens to others. That's no different than the extreme end of Presbyterian predestination doctrine, really. So some people even believe they're still very moral people in spite of that attitude. You know, "they're damned anyway so what difference does it make if I screw them, too".
Ted being Baptist, that's my understanding anyway, presumably doesn't see the world that way. The majority of the high and mighty do, though, no puppet master or commitment to some vast conspiracy required.
Sailing with the wind is the best way for them to get ahead so they sail with the wind. That's another traditional American attitude, it's called, "going along to get along".
They are really hitting the bottom of the battle then, Mike Bloomburg ?
Yes, your correct, I do notice that they are silent on whom they want.
Naaaaaa, it can’t be ? Hillary ? Sanders ?
O’Malley ?
I’m still a bit confused on this TPP-TPA-TISA thing also.....Why FReepers are supporting the Kenyan born muslim Obama and another part, (a LARGE part), to/of his America destroying agenda? None of ‘em will address that little fact will they? Anybody supporting this crap, they are supporting Barry, and his globalist NWO puppet masters. Simple as that.
Mrs. Cruz may or may not benefit from this trade deal passing, it remains to be seen.
Did her leave start when Ted was elected to the Senate or only after he decided to run for the Presidency? If she took leave as soon as he was elected to the Senate, or at least shortly thereafter, then in all likelihood she isn't in line for anything at all from this bill passing. If she took leave only recently, that's problematic. What I can find says her leave began in March of this year.
His running for President is the probable explanation for her only recently taking a leave of absence. This deal coming up for a fight during his campaign is another possible explanation. Everyone has their own opinion of just how much coincidence they think is reasonable.
Just as important as whether his wife stands to gain financially from this deal, is the problem of this being a relevant fact not in evidence. As he is reputed to be extremely smart along with being an experienced lawyer, it looks like a major failure of both his smarts and legal background to not have exculpatory evidence right out in front from day one.
Therefore, at the very least, Ted doesn't look nearly as smart as he's reputed to be if he didn't think things through and know to avoid this issue in the first place. "The first place" being when he won his Senate seat, not when he announced his campaign for the Presidency.
As for benefiting from a trade bill, for jobs like Mrs. Cruz has, it would be unusual if she didn't benefit from deals she helped put together unless she has been completely separated from the company for a few years rather than just being on a leave of absence. Whether or not she worked on anything related to the bills in question is another fact not in evidence. A fact that would be totally irrelevant if Ted had access to a smart lawyer in the first place (see definition of, "in the first place" in the above paragraph).
Basically, either there was a reward worth risking a problem over for Mrs. Cruz to stay at Goldman until a few months ago, or her staying shows very bad judgment on the part of both Mr. and Mrs. Cruz.
He has been TRYING to explain his support, but it isn’t working.
Which of those actions should she renounce?
Employment with Goldman Sachs implies being involved with their practices. Would she have stayed with them if she didn’t approve of their banking policies? If she doesn’t, Mrs. Cruz should let us know. Senator Cruz’s stances for more H1B visas and working with Obama, Boehner, and McConnell for trade rules put it in a whole new light.
I listened to him explain.
His reasons were weak in my opinion.
I have attempted to make some sense of it in this thread.
Please see my posts on this topic. They are somewhat clustered in previous pages.
Sounds awful!
Which of their banking policies should she renounce?
Anything that worked against the middle class.
I have gone through the Council of Foreign Relations - members list
Board of Directors 33 people (names of Interest)
Fouad Ajami - professor in middle east Studies, John Hopkins University
Madeline K. Albright - Former Secretary of State
David G. Bradley - Chairman Atlantic Media Company
Tom Brokaw - former editor NBC Nightly News
Sylvia Matthews Burwell - bill and Melinda gates Foundation
Joseph S. Nye - Kennedy School of Government
james W. Owens - chairman, Caterpillar Corporation
Colin O.Powell - former secretary of state, former Joint Chiefs of Staff
Penny Pritzker - CEO - Pritzker Realty
David M. Rubenstein - cofounder Carlyle Group
frederick W. Smith - CEO, FedEX
Christine tod whitman - former Governor of New Jersey, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Fareed Zakaria - Editor -at-Large Time
Corporate Membership Is divided up into Founders, President’s Circle and Premium Members There are amny intersting names here too.
Notable Current Council members ( 6 pages)
Notable Historical Members (3 pages)
Pick any name and many names you will see. Pople that will shock you in that they are members of the Council of Foreign relations,bankers, Politicians, Former Presidents, Former Vice Presidents, Secretary of States.
yes heidi Cruz is listed there as Goldman Sachs, Investment banker wife of Ted Cruz. hey she has contact Bill and Hillary Clinton, Thomas L Friedman and many other media moguls. there is even a supreme Court Justice on the CFR Ruth Bader Ginsburg
You have any specifics?
TPA - a ploy to circumvent the Constitutional demand that a treaty requires two-thirds vote of the Senate. Obama knows he will never do that, so he (his snakes, of course) utilizes TPA, which has been around for sometime in some fashion and requires only majority votes of both houses to pass. Once TPA is law, he can buy off enough Senators and Congressmen to pass any trade bill, such as TPP, which ends our nation as we know it. If you listen carefully enough, you will hear the politicians slip and refer to the trade bill as a “treaty”. Some FReepers have no other choice but to support the Obama agenda because their prince, Cruz, supports the Obama agenda. Every politician I have ever heard speak on free trade will all of a sudden develop this thing in their voices: it conveys a certainty, a longing, a passion, with gentleness, of course, that free trade will deliver societal perfection; it will finally cause all people to finally realize their fondest hopes and desires. Watch for this charade, especially the wounded gentleness, delivered with a bit of impatience. The impatience is designed to skip pass having to explain why 93 million Americans are not working. Obama and the Republicans are counting on the confusion and the usual enablers to carry it across the finish line.
Very well said ‘dawg!! Some FReepers have no choice is correct because some FReepers can’t admit they have been had by Cruz......like I was. (And not the first time a politician has fooled my old bones unfortunately). He is NOT whom we thought he was....not even close. It is not just this ‘trade’ stance of his either, there are a couple other serious things he is for that are not in America’s best interests. They can’t admit it to the point that they continue to spin Barry’s ‘trade’ crap as good for our Country even tho Barry is committed to the destruction of America! We all know that! The fact that Cruz supports Barry on this is almost as bad as FReepers supporting Barry and his globalist puppet master’s NWO TPP-TPA-TISA agenda. Then we get the Cruz supporters ‘Well who then? Who is the perfect candidate then’ jazz, (Their isn’t one, never has been, but I thought Cruz was close until he sold us all out), when we have a long time to go to settle on another choice. Bottom line: The muslim supports this TPP-TPA-TISA thing HARD. He is 100 devoted to destroying America. Support for it....means support for Barry.
A number of companies have done quite a few shady or downright illegal things. Some people have been caught and are in prison. But it’s unfair to associate the wrongdoing of one or a handful with every employee.
no wrong doing on her part and since GS killed off a lot of good companies there are fewer to work for. but GS is premo on the insider DC people. they and anyone associated with the company in my opinion stinks to high heaven. she is the money honey for her honey.
Right now, with Cruz exposed as a traitor to the Tea Party, I nominate Allen B. West as our leader to retake the White House.
West is firmly against ObamaTrade.
His editor-in-chief, Michele Hickford wrote last week:
TWO YEARS ago, Col. West wrote about how wrong-headed the Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority really is.
Now we’re getting ready to watch Republicans in Congress CAVE and give Obama everything he wants.
Col. West wrote, Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive responsibility to set the terms of “commerce with foreign nations” — trade. The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating deals that reward his supporters while harming opponents or the nation as a whole.
If this goes through Obama will be able to sign commercial trade agreements before Congress votes on them. Congress would not even be able to amend the agreements in any way — it would only have an up-or-down vote when the president says so, before members could even read it.
Sound familiar?
Now Wikileaks has released new information about the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which involves the United States, the European Union, and 23 other countries. Bear in mind this agreement is being negotiated in secret.
Breitbart reports, the draft TISA would require all signatories to allow suppliers to keep private information of customers outside their territory. In other words, if a Pakistani company does business in the United States, that company would not be required to keep American customer information in the U.S. and could instead store that information in Pakistan. Leftists are particularly exorcised about one proposal from Turkey that would allow health tourism to foreign countries, reimbursed by home countries’ health insurance plans.
Leftists are upset about that? How about conservatives? Oh riiight, I guess there really aren’t any left in Washington. There are just “Republicans” and right now led by Mr. Speaker himself, they’re all for it.
Writing for Breitbart, Ben Shapiro says, Congressional Republicans…seem to prefer the crap sandwich approach, just as they preferred the omnibus approach to budgeting that resulted in full funding for Obamacare and Obama’s executive amnesty. By giving Obama the authority to negotiate a trade agreement unilaterally, and tying their own hands by exclusively allowing an up-or-down vote, Congress avoids culpability. They can always claim that they had no power to amend the treaty, and that they had to vote for it because it contained so much good material.
And herein lies the problem with the current structure of America’s executive-led government. Congress always has incentive to pass the buck to the executive; the executive always has the incentive to maximize its own power. TPA is just the latest example of that Congressional abdication in action, even if that abdication is in the service of a generally good cause like free trade.
What was the point of voting these clowns a majority if all they’re EVER going to do is roll over and play dead? I simply don’t get it.
Lt. Col. Allen B. West for President of the United States!
Republicans caving over Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.