Can You Handle the Truth? Ted & Heidi Cruz and the North American Union

[kahless]

Can You Handle the Truth? Ted & Heidi Cruz and the North American Union
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/0...-ted-heidi-cruz-and-the-north-american-union/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met his wife, Heidi (née Nelson), while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Nelson Cruz as an “investment banker” and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.

Comprised of a group of prominent business, political and academic leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Task Force was organized and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was co-chaired by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico, Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld.

Its main publication is the 70-page Task Force Report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community (May 2005). Heidi Cruz is listed as a member of the Task Force (page 9 of the report in PDF) and described as “an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas” who “served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.”

Building a North American Community
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

 

[erowe1]

Can You Handle the Truth? Ted & Heidi Cruz and the North American Union
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/0...-ted-heidi-cruz-and-the-north-american-union/



Building a North American Community
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Can you find anything objectionable in that document? Can you find anything that supports the North American Union in it?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Are these folks moonlighting and working part time on commission, for the Rothschilds?

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

...

 

[phill4paul]

I don't see a problem with it. A North American expansion would be great. Ron Paul only had it half-right when he said to bring the troops home and put them on the border. We should put them on the border and then attack north and south. Why fight foreign wars of aggression when we can do it right here and increase our land-holdings?

 

[erowe1]

I don't see a problem with it. A North American expansion would be great. Ron Paul only had it half-right when he said to bring the troops home and put them on the border. We should put them on the border and then attack north and south. Why fight foreign wars of aggression when we can do it right here and increase our land-holdings?

Does the document mentioned in the OP advocate anything like that?

 

[erowe1]

Can you find anything objectionable in that document? Can you find anything that supports the North American Union in it?

So far I see nobody seems to have an answer to this.

I recall this coming up before, and nobody had an answer to this question then either.

 

[phill4paul]

Does the document mentioned in the OP advocate anything like that?

I dunno. Didn't bother to read it. If it doesn't it should.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't see a problem with it. A North American expansion would be great. Ron Paul only had it half-right when he said to bring the troops home and put them on the border. We should put them on the border and then attack north and south. Why fight foreign wars of aggression when we can do it right here and increase our land-holdings?

Trump is the candidate most likely to do that. Many of the same Trump supporters that denounce wars of aggression in the Middle East right now would be thrilled to see the US fight to expand it's borders.

 

[phill4paul]

Trump is the candidate most likely to do that. Many of the same Trump supporters that denounce wars of aggression in the Middle East right now would be thrilled to see the US fight to expand it's borders.

Well, at least there is some sense to it.

 

[kahless]

Can you find anything objectionable in that document? Can you find anything that supports the North American Union in it?

For me yes, for you no. You advocate open borders, I do not. I also do not believe in the integration of Mexico and Canada into the United States both economically or militarily. It advocates the expansion of NAFTA which has been a disaster for the US.

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America

 

[erowe1]

For me yes, for you no. You advocate open borders, I do not. I also do not believe in the integration of Mexico and Canada into the United States both economically or militarily. It advocates the expansion of NAFTA which has been a disaster for the US.

OK, so as someone who disagrees with Ron Paul, you also disagree with this document. But from the perspective of this website, you can't find anything wrong with it. The quote you provide could have been made by Ron Paul himself.

Please quote the words it uses in advocating an expansion of NAFTA. I may object to that part as well. But I'm not sure that it actually includes that.

 

[Smitty]

OK, so as someone who disagrees with Ron Paul, .

Does Ron Paul support forming a Union between the U.S.A., Mexico, and Canada?

 

[erowe1]

Does Ron Paul support forming a Union between the U.S.A., Mexico, and Canada?

Not a governmental one. He supports a union of free people that arises naturally through commerce unimpeded by government. He even supports a common currency, such as would exist in a free market without a government fiat currency monopoly.

 

[kahless]

Ron has been pretty vocal about NAFTA, free trade agreements and the NAU threat to national sovereignty.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+NAFTA+"Lew+Rockwell"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Ron+Paul+NAFTA

 

[erowe1]

Ron has been pretty vocal about NAFTA, free trade agreements and the NAU threat to national sovereignty.

Me too.

Can you find a quote in the document referenced in the OP that advocates any of those?

In fact, the quote you already provided suggests the exact opposite.

 

[kahless]

Me too.

Can you find a quote in the document referenced in the OP that advocates any of those?

In fact, the quote you already provided suggests the exact opposite.

Their ultimate goal is the post I quoted which should make you very happy. Open borders and an end to national sovereignty.

Where I disagree with Ron is no restrictions between the US and Mexico will only drive more jobs to Mexico. You want to call me a protectionist or nationalist since I believe we should look out for the best interests of Americans first then I am fine with that.

Read the the PDF, it is quite long. They want to expand it and eliminate barriers.

Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded or those aspects that have not been fully implemented.

Each of the three countries decided to exclude unilaterally certain sectors and issues from NAFTA. Some of these remain sensitive issues; others
may be ripe for review. In addition, several elements have not been implemented in the way that all had anticipated. Some changes—
for example, the negotiation of a sanitary agreement to promote agricultural trade, or expanding the NAFTA services agreement to include cabotage—wouldbeuseful but also difficult.We recommend a high-level review to examine all of these issues and make recommendations on how to make the coverage of NAFTA more comprehensive

If the media covered Cruz's support for Obama fast track, NAFTA, TPP and the destruction of the American manufacturing base he would be polling in the single digits now. Amazing what acting like a preacher and a little support from establishment hacks like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck can do for a candidate.

 

[erowe1]

Their ultimate goal is the post I quoted which should make you very happy. Open borders and an end to national sovereignty.

Where I disagree with Ron is no restrictions between the US and Mexico will only drive more jobs to Mexico. You want to call me a protectionist or nationalist since I believe we should look out for the best interests of Americans first then I am fine with that.

Read the the PDF, it is quite long. They want to expand it and eliminate barriers.



If the media covered Cruz's support for Obama fast track, NAFTA, TPP and the destruction of the American manufacturing base he would be polling in the single digits now. Amazing what acting like a preacher and a little support from establishment hacks like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck can do for a candidate.

I have read it. Have you?

It looks like you're mixing together quotes from the document in question and quotes from other people talking about it, and not necessarily accurately. What is the source of your quote here in post #17? It doesn't look like it's from the CFR document itself.

And what do you mean when you say, "Their ultimate goal is the post I quoted,"? Which quote are you talking about? If it's the one and only quote that you actually got from the CFR document, then sure, it makes me happy, just as it would make Ron Paul happy. He could have written it himself. That quote makes no mention of NAFTA or an NAU, and in fact, that quote taken by itself seems to be against those things rather than for them.

Yes, you are a protectionist.

 

[kahless]

I have read it. Have you?

It looks like you're mixing together quotes from the document in question and quotes from other people talking about it, and not necessarily accurately. What is the source of your quote here in post #17? It doesn't look like it's from the CFR document itself.

And what do you mean when you say, "Their ultimate goal is the post I quoted,"? Which quote are you talking about? If it's the one and only quote that you actually got from the CFR document, then sure, it makes me happy, just as it would make Ron Paul happy. He could have written it himself. That quote makes no mention of NAFTA or an NAU, and in fact, that quote taken by itself seems to be against those things rather than for them.

Yes, you are a protectionist.

I read it and all quotes came from the document I provided. I posted the PDF link in post #1. You play this game all the time to cover for open borders and then say Ron supports it. There is a mountain of posts here, google and youtube videos where Ron states he opposes the loss of national sovereignty through these agreements.

On one hand Ron puts America first by opposing these agreements due to national sovereignty issues while on the other he betrays the American worker whom is unable to compete with external slave labor. Like I said sure I am an protectionist for placing American citizens above foreigners.

 

[jmdrake]

Kahless, since you are against the CFR, what do you think about Trump's secret meeting with Richard Haas? How about Trump's real estate ventures being funded by George Soros? Or are those truths that you can't handle?