Ron Paul Warns don't vote for Ted Cruz

[dannno]

That said, I have three questions for Dr. Ron Paul.

1) Rand Paul took money from Bilderberg member Peter Thiel. Before taking that money Rand spoke on video about how concerned he was about the secretive Bilderberg group. After taking that money Rand purposefully avoided being interviewed again on the subject of Bilderberg by the same WeAreChange reporters that interviewed him the first time. Does that mean Rand is owned by Bilderberg?

It's a lightning rod issue that would have marginalized him as a candidate and it didn't need to be brought up in the campaign.. many felt the same way about 9/11 truth when Ron Paul ran. It doesn't mean Rand supports Bilderberg, he certainly doesn't support their goals.

2) If Cruz is so terrible, why did you endorse him for senate? What changed between that endorsement and now to make him Satan incarnate? Cause he didn't vote on EndTheFed? Well Rand didn't stand with Cruz on his Obamacare defund efforts. Is one vote going to be a litmus test for everything?

Well for one thing Cruz never disclosed his loans from Goldman Sachs when he ran, but the primary goal was to get other Senators who could form a coalition with Rand in the Senate on some important liberty issues.. Cruz ended up totally screwing Rand Paul over by running against him, and arguably that was why they put him in position to get more power in the first place.

 

[dannno]

Look, people share circles.

I cannot find a reason why Goldman Sachs or the CFR (not a monolithic group) would want Ted Cruz as President.

I used to buy into this stuff, but I can't do it anymore. Too many false predictions. What is supposed to go down doesn't go down. For me, the NWO conspiracy is the boy who cried wolf.

The more I study campaigns, the more I realize that they are almost totally driven by candidate ambition. Sure, special interest groups try to curry favor and they do, but that really only occurs with the likes of the Bushes and Clintons. I do not believe that people are "selected" to run for President.

What false predictions? The NWO can't do whatever they want, they just have a lot of power and few people know about it, otherwise it wouldn't work. It's not a conspiracy of everyone involved, not every Bilderberger has the same exact goals (i.e. human depopulation), but the ones at the top tend to have similar ambitions (primarily to maintain power), but still they are people too and there are factions within the elite.. They just have the power through media manipulation to choose people with certain ambitions and generally when promoting a candidate to a position of high power they like to have someone who they have dirt on so they can control them. It's pretty simple.

Trump never did their secret society bullshit, so I don't know if they really have much on him.. Maybe they do and they will release it when he gets to the general.. or maybe they are tricking people into thinking he is anti-establishment and he is just as establishment as the rest of them. There is no way of knowing because we don't have access to the NWO elite's plans.. but we can track patterns and make good educated guesses.

 

[CaptUSA]

Barring an amazing third party candidate, I'm sure I'll be voting for a Paul. (Just not sure which one yet.)

Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Clinton, Sanders... they all want to grow the state and take our liberties away.

 

[squirl22]

Cruz is a dubious politician and a snake. You can never tell is he working for Goldman Sachs or some other branch of neocons

Can never vote for Cruz. I'm back to voting for Trump...drive the neocons out of the GOP...sometimes you need to destroy to open the way for something new,

 

[LibertyEagle]

I wasn't happy with Cruz's support of the TPA. Still, I'm convinced he was doing so in the spirit of free trade.

What free trade? None of those trade agreements from NAFTA on have had one iota to do with free trade. Seriously, you don't think they are free trade just because they have "free trade" in their name, do you? They are no more free trade than the Patriot Act is patriotic.

Ted Cruz's wife had a dissenting opinion on the NAU. She is a nice woman and I find nothing nefarious about her.

She was all for the NAU; she just thought that corporate America should lead it, rather than government.

 

[ghostofbort]

Sorry, I just can't take the "owned by Goldman Sachs" stuff seriously.

Why is that? Do you not think politicians in general are owned? Or just specifically Ted Cruz in this case. I think he didn't disclose a $1 million loan from Goldman Sachs when he ran.

What about his wife's CFR connections? What about the fact he voted for TPA ("fast track") which basically makes it easier to pass stuff like TTIP. What about his warmonger talk?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uz-changed-position-trade-promotion-authorit/

 

[Mike4Freedom]

Yes, we keep getting told who NOT to vote for, with no recommendation on who we should vote for.

Abstaining from choosing an evil is still a choice.

 

[Dianne]

Heidi Cruz, The Council on Foreign Relations, and ‘Building a North American (Union) Community’

I just don't trust Cruz. It seems he's caught in a lie every other day. And there is good reason why he failed to disclose his Goldman Sachs loans during his Senate bid. How can anyone forget an extra million they picked up in there bank account.

http://sfppr.org/2016/02/heidi-cruz...nd-building-a-north-american-union-community/

Some of Ted Cruz’s primary opponents for Senate brought up ‘Building a North American Community’ (BNAC) in 2012, and Cruz responded that the criticisms were a distraction because “this race isn’t about the CFR.” Yet, as Donald Trump has brought issues involving open borders, immigration and trade to the forefront of national debate, national sovereignty has become a key issue in the 2016 race. Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller said that the race ultimately boiled down to “nation-state versus globalism.” By lending her name to one of the most pernicious attempts to undermine our American sovereignty, Heidi Cruz stood firmly on the side of globalism. The BNAC blueprint remains. It raises the question, “Would a President Cruz embrace the Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Community?”

 

[Jan2017]

Ahh, a new spring day . . . what new and exciting chit to learn about Ted Cruz ?

The recent Canada expatriate, who is not yet eligible to serve in the Senate as an exclusive US citizen of less than two years,
has an impressive collection of puppetmasters . . . including the Chertoff group for expanding NSA metadata collection (?)

 

[jmdrake]

It's a lightning rod issue that would have marginalized him as a candidate and it didn't need to be brought up in the campaign.. many felt the same way about 9/11 truth when Ron Paul ran. It doesn't mean Rand supports Bilderberg, he certainly doesn't support their goals.

Hello Dr. Paul. Nice to hear from you.

Okay Danno. Here's what you are missing.

1) Rand talked about his concerns regarding the Bilderberg group after being elected senate.

2) Rand avoided the question later before any announcement for running for president.

So obvious guy says the campaign had nothing to do with the change. What is the one thing that did change? Why Peter Thiel throwing a lot of money Rand Paul's way. So if Ted Cruz is "owned" by Goldman Sachs simply because Goldman Sachs gave him a loan, that he has to pay back, why is impossible to consider that Rand might be "owned" by Bilderberg? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe Rand is, maybe Rand isn't. But the money trail isn't that different between the two.

Well for one thing Cruz never disclosed his loans from Goldman Sachs when he ran, but the primary goal was to get other Senators who could form a coalition with Rand in the Senate on some important liberty issues.. Cruz ended up totally screwing Rand Paul over by running against him, and arguably that was why they put him in position to get more power in the first place.

People keep bringing up the fact that Ted Cruz wife works for Goldman Sachs and is a member of the CFR. Well...that was true before Ted Cruz ran for senate. And simply getting loans from Goldman Sachs doesn't make Ted Cruz = Hillary Clinton. If Ted Cruz was that bad...he never should have been endorsed in the first place. And what has Ted Cruz said and done since being elected president that deserves a Hillary Clinton comparison? The OP article hasn't articulated that. Seems like Ron is dealing in hyperbole and throwing stones that could hit Rand. I don't like Ted Cruz. But this seems a tad bit silly.

 

[dannno]

Hello Dr. Paul. Nice to hear from you.

Okay Danno. Here's what you are missing.

1) Rand talked about his concerns regarding the Bilderberg group after being elected senate.

2) Rand avoided the question later before any announcement for running for president.

So obvious guy says the campaign had nothing to do with the change. What is the one thing that did change? Why Peter Thiel throwing a lot of money Rand Paul's way. So if Ted Cruz is "owned" by Goldman Sachs simply because Goldman Sachs gave him a loan, that he has to pay back, why is impossible to consider that Rand might be "owned" by Bilderberg? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe Rand is, maybe Rand isn't. But the money trail isn't that different between the two.




People keep bringing up the fact that Ted Cruz wife works for Goldman Sachs and is a member of the CFR. Well...that was true before Ted Cruz ran for senate. And simply getting loans from Goldman Sachs doesn't make Ted Cruz = Hillary Clinton. If Ted Cruz was that bad...he never should have been endorsed in the first place. And what has Ted Cruz said and done since being elected president that deserves a Hillary Clinton comparison? The OP article hasn't articulated that. Seems like Ron is dealing in hyperbole and throwing stones that could hit Rand. I don't like Ted Cruz. But this seems a tad bit silly.

I feel like if you don't trust Rand Paul, but you trust Ted Cruz, you have been missing everything that has been happening in the last 9 years.

Ted Cruz is a known liar and comes off as a greasy snake. Rand Paul grew up under his father's wings, we know where he has stood his whole life and I have no reason to think that he doesn't believe in liberty. Ted Cruz is highly suspect. This is my own opinion, of course.

Maybe Thiel asked him to lay off the Bilderberg group stuff or maybe Rand was trying to mainstream his image more, but I don't think that any of that would affect his policy decisions so no I don't think he is owned by Bilderberg.. Cruz, on the other hand, I think was planted by the elite for the specific purpose of stopping Rand.

 

[jmdrake]

I feel like if you don't trust Rand Paul, but you trust Ted Cruz, you have been missing everything that has been happening in the last 9 years.

You're missing the point. I think you're smart enough to get it. If the reason to not trust Ted Cruz is that he received money from someone we don't trust and was arguably influenced by it, that applies to Rand Paul as well. This would be like attacking Ted Cruz or endorsing Mitt Romney after Mitt became the nominee.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think we have the same problem here of people supporting Cruz that we do with Trump, which honestly seems kind of backwards to me.

But it's relevant that when Ron said this it was when Cruz was running against Rand. At this point in time, Cruz is the candidate whose views are closer to Ron's than anyone else's, even if he is still probably unacceptable to Ron and many here.

I can see why one would not want to support Cruz (I don't either) but considering Rand is out I don't see why it hugely matters if someone does.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Yes, we keep getting told who NOT to vote for, with no recommendation on who we should vote for.

Isn't it obvious? If you shouldn't vote for any of the candidates, then that leaves no one to vote for. Go see a movie that day. Or go get drunk.

 

[jllundqu]

I guess it is Justin Amash at a contested convention for Ron.

Amash endorsed Cruz, sadly

 

[dannno]

You're missing the point. I think you're smart enough to get it. If the reason to not trust Ted Cruz is that he received money from someone we don't trust and was arguably influenced by it, that applies to Rand Paul as well. This would be like attacking Ted Cruz or endorsing Mitt Romney after Mitt became the nominee.

No, there are A LOT of reasons not to trust Ted Cruz, that is just one of them. I have every reason in the world to trust Rand - that doesn't mean that I would agree with all of his actions, but I trust that he has our best interest at heart and I just don't feel that with Cruz at all.

 

[TaftFan]

What free trade? None of those trade agreements from NAFTA on have had one iota to do with free trade. Seriously, you don't think they are free trade just because they have "free trade" in their name, do you? They are no more free trade than the Patriot Act is patriotic.

Lower tariffs=freer trade

She was all for the NAU; she just thought that corporate America should lead it, rather than government.

Fine by me.

 

[jmdrake]

No, there are A LOT of reasons not to trust Ted Cruz, that is just one of them. I have every reason in the world to trust Rand - that doesn't mean that I would agree with all of his actions, but I trust that he has our best interest at heart and I just don't feel that with Cruz at all.

The chief one that keeps being raised is "He's owned by Goldman Sachs" and that's just a silly reason not to support someone. Cruz taking a Goldman Sachs loan is no worse than Rand taking Bilderberg money. In your heart you know this to be true. If Rand had the Goldman Sachs loan and Cruz had the Bilderberg cash that wouldn't change what you think of either of them one IOTA. I think LibertyEagle is making a decent case against Cruz based on the TPA. But I do recall Rand taking Donald Trump to task for wrongly saying that China supported the TPA when, according to Rand, the TPA would open up U.S. trade to China's competitors. And to be honest, I can't tell where Rand stands on the TPP. I'm very confused.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership
Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Sure, that's from 2014. But it's still surprising and concerning. He did ultimately vote against granting Obama fast track authority to negotiate the TPP.

http://www.wmur.com/politics/paul-opposes-granting-obama-fasttrack-trade-authority/32951864

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal

After a May 2015 town hall event in New Hampshire, Paul told WMUR, ABC 9 that he would vote against trade promotion authority (TPA), and that he would consider voting for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said, "I’m hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven’t seen. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be a time I could be for it, if I’d seen the trade agreement, and it’s fine. ...I still might vote for the trade agreement, but I hate giving up power. We give up so much power from Congress to the presidency, and with them being so secretive on the treaty, it just concerns me what’s in the treaty."[44]

So a black mark on Cruz for voting for fastrack.

 

[Dianne]

Go to drudgereport.com right now and look at some of those Cruz headlines.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Lower tariffs=freer trade

There is no free trade when only one side of the equation is doing it. Did you ever watch Perot's flip chart presentation about what NAFTA would do to our economy?

Fine by me.

You're fine with a North American Union? You do realize that would mean our Constitution is out the door; a parliament would replace our Congress and likely would be appointees.

Are you serious? How about global government? Are you good with that too?