Ted & Heidi Cruz, the CFR & Why It Matters

During the dust-up between Ted Cruz and his PAC's ugly use of Melania Trump's picture to damage Donald's campaign in Utah, something popped up on my radar and I finally got around to following the trail.

Trump threatened to 'spill the beans' on Heidi Cruz. The media latched onto that threat and ran with it, putting blame on Trump for going after Cruz's wife (although a strong argument can be made that Cruz got their first with tacit approval of that billboard) - but what is it? Trump hasn't said. He nudged it but then let the sleeping dog lie.

That, however, led some people to dig around and post pieces on their blogs about what might be behind it. Katrina Pierson, Trump's spokeswoman laid it out directly during an interview on MSNBC.

There is a police report about Heidi Cruz from 2005 - but that doesn't worry me. She was having emotional problems based on what can be extrapolated from the heavily redacted report (which you can find if you Google it).

In sum, a policeman found her sitting on the grass verge about ten feet away from a busy expressway with her head in her hands. He approached her and took her into custody 'for her own safety'. So, ten years ago, she was emotionally unstable. That does not mean she is now, but the potential is there, in her DNA.

What does worry me is her affiliation with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a liberal 'think tank' that began in 1921 to deal with international relations, economics, politics, trade, societal dynamics and the rest of it.

Over the years, from just talking about how to make the world a better and safer place for individual countries, its scope has changed. According to the CFR website, one of their goals is 'globalization'.  Globalization is, pure and simple, global unification - international integration. Borders don't exist. Countries don't exist. Individual governments don't exist. Sovereignty is gone - once and for all.

It's grown over time, too. It currently has roughly 4,900 members. Most of these members are at the upper level of world politics and the media. It makes interesting reading. From their roster, a few names leapt out a me:

Madeleine Albright (Billy-Jeff's Sec State), John Bolton (Bush II's UN Ambassador), Dick Cheney, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Susan Rice (of Hilliary Clinton's State Department), Charles Krauthammer and Monica Crowley (Fox News Contributors) are just a few. There are also Hollywood types - Warren Beatty - and SCOTUS Justices - Stephen Breyer and someone named John Roberts and another named Ruth Ginsberg... Hmm. Could it be that our Supreme Court which has power over all of us is part of this, too?

Now the idea of a One World Government might sound utopian to you, but it doesn't to me. Just look at the UN members. Who will govern this beautiful new world? Will they rotate through the roster? How would you like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia ruling the world? Are you up for what their world vision looks like? I'm not.

So here we have the wife of a presidential candidate who didn't just work there, she helped write a report called 'Building a North American Community'. That report recommends getting rid of the borders between Mexico, the US and Canada for citizens - like the EU. Meaning that once you're in one of those countries, you can move freely from one to the other without having to prove where you live.

Heidi Cruz supported that recommendation.

Look how well open borders are working in the EU right now with ISIS / Daesh / ISIL terrorists flowing back and forth like a tide. Paris suffered a terrorist attack just four months ago. Last week it was Brussels and the EU is still hunting down some of the perpetrators and their associates. There are still more threats floating - against the UK and others.

The CFR promoted the original formation of the EU. They pushed the US government into NAFTA which is a trade agreement that has not benefited the US but has benefited Canada and Mexico.

They are not looking out for the citizens of the world. They are looking out for the uber-wealthy, the powerful who view us as cogs who can go hang because we don't count and we don't matter. If you don't believe me, Google 'CFR membership' and take a look at their roster - it's eye-opening who's on there.

So why is this a concern? That's in her past, right? Well, yes, it is in her past but I do think it shows where her ideas lie - a one-world order scenario in which the United States no longer exists as an independent sovereign country.

First Ladies are influential people. Look at Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hilliary Clinton - who became Senator, Secretary of State and is now running for president.

The history of Heidi Cruz not just being associated with a group like the Council on Foreign Relations but being involved in writing such a report, and the sway any politically active and adept wife holds over her husband, raises a big red warning flag for me. Particularly if she becomes First Lady to the President of the United States.

Could it be that the pivot toward Ted Cruz by the Elites is that he's already making conciliatory noises about falling more in line with the CFR ideas?

When push comes to shove if that supposition is correct, who's going to win?

Will it be the electorate that is clamoring for tightened borders and smaller government, or will it be the woman he sleeps with every night? Will We The People get the wall we want, or will his wife who shares his bathroom convince him it's a bad idea?

I don't know but it is a concern.

At this point, even if he were to come out and declare his independence from the CFR I wouldn't believe him. He's already proved he's a serial liar - voter violations, telling the voters in Iowa that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race, lying about all sorts of other things that have been brought up in just the past two months. Once a liar, always a liar and you cannot trust the words of someone who has been shown to be dishonest, as he has.

Do some reading - there's plenty of it out there - and you can start right here:

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Go to the Recommendations that start on page 7 and read from there.

And, at the bottom of the page this link will take you to, there is a list of contributors. Look at who's Number Three:

Now isn't that interesting...

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

I Don't Like Liars & Ted Cruz Qualifies

Good grief! What a weekend... Accusations about things I would rather not imagine - and some of it looks more than a bit suspicious, like it might actually stick.

Back on April 1st last year, one of the women who has been identified on the internet as one of Cruz's Babes appeared in a Tweeted selfie while showing off a Winston Churchill tattoo placed on the back of her left shoulder. That is not an easy place to self-apply a tattoo and she just happens to be wearing what looks like it might be a man's suit jacket (it's hard to tell - but...)

It's all over the place on the 'net that at the same time on the same day she took that pic, Ted Cruz was appearing on Fox's morning show. There he showed off a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right forearm while batting away a question about where his jacket might be.

This is a seven minute segment, but if you fast forward to about 6:30 you'll get to the part that's most interesting and potentially relevant - the display of the tattoo and question / deflection about the whereabouts of the jacket.

When asked where he got the tat, he said he was on the West Coast - so it would be interesting if someone were to follow that lead. Was Ms. Carpenter also on the West Coast at the time?

These tit bits were put together by several sites across several blogs, but the pictures and video are available off the internet if you just do a search.

There are other little things, too. Like the $500,000 contribution made from the Cruz campaign to Carly Fiorina's PAC - and the fact that another of the Cruz Babes happened to work for Fiorina. The Election Commission is looking into that peculiarity but I wonder if it's hush money for something.

It doesn't matter whether it is or not - that transaction stinks to high Heaven. After all, why would one presidential campaign transfer a cool half-mil to another, competing campaign? I can't think of a logical answer. Wouldn't the Cruz campaign be able to make better hay with that money than hand it off to Carly's account?

Further to this whole thing, several places including Lawnewz.com, have posted articles that raise a really interesting point.

While Ted Cruz has attacked the National Enquirer article that started the rumpus on Friday, he has not denied doing anything wrong.

He's called the article 'garbage' and accused Trump of planting it (which Trump didn't as more than one person has traced it back to the Rubio campaign), but he hasn't declared in no uncertain terms 'I did not boff that woman, or that one, or that one, or...'

It's an interesting point because when we're accused of doing something we didn't - particularly if it's unsavory or embarrassing - don't you or I immediately stand up and say, 'it wasn't me! I didn't do that!'? That reaction is missing between here and last Friday from Mr. Cruz.

There's also the question about the lawsuit. If the article put out by the National Enquirer has no basis in fact, it's defamatory and this is a case where great harm can be easily shown. Just the embarrassment of such allegations against such a pillar of moral society would be enough. Or the emotional harm caused to his wife and children. Those criteria have been met. So why is Cruz not threatening a suit against a defamatory publication? Could it be that he knows there is something there - perhaps not five but maybe four or three?

If he were to take this to court, and if there is evidence that he was doing these women on the side, he'd look like an idiot. Could it be that he doesn't want to look like more of an immoral snake-in-the-grass than he does already?

I will say I don't feel sorry for Heidi Cruz. I've done some digging into her background and she is just as unsavory as her husband. Besides, she's probably known he was getting some on the side for a while. After all, for more than a year he was working on his political career in Texas while she was working with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

No - I feel sorry for the kids. No children should ever have to be faced with stuff like this and hearing these horrible things about a man you look up to and respect? It's a terrible thing for them. Just on that score Ted Cruz should hang his head in shame.

Another piece of moral character that is missing from Mr. Cruz's make-up is the apology to Mrs. Trump and her husband about his PAC going after Mrs. Trump with those billboards.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and those billboards could qualify as art - she made a gorgeous model. Since that picture was shot for a British gentleman's magazine - not quite Playboy - I don't think she's terribly embarrassed by it. Except for how that picture has damaged her husband's campaign in Utah - but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Not with Romney out there stumping for Cruz.

Hmm. I wonder what Romney will think, say or do if these allegations about his new political bestest bud are proven true? Wave it off and give it a pass? Wonder if the moral compass needle in Salt Lake is broken, too.

Art and political bed mates aside, when a political candidate benefits from the actions of a PAC, and that PAC is responsible for doing something reprehensible - like targeting the opposing candidate's wife or children - doesn't that candidate bear a responsibility or obligation to stand up and denounce the PAC? Morally and ethically I think they do. After all, if they're benefiting in some way, they do bear some responsibility for what provides that benefit whether or not they are directly involved in the decision to run with it.

No matter. It's water under the bridge - except for those bobbing beauties still to be identified and named who are caught in the current.

As for the other lying - not related to the babes - it's documented.

PolitiFact has a list readily available.

The little fact that his wife, Heidi, worked for at least five years at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is another.

That association puts a hard and fast exclamation point on the #LyinTed tag. After all, the CFR has quite questionable goals - small, non-intrusive government emphatically not being one of them. You can read all about them and draw your own conclusions, but if Ted's goals are small government and strict adherence to the Constitution, wouldn't he kind of object to his wife being associated with an organization diametrically opposed to Constitutional sovereignty?

In any event, I'm going to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop from this distasteful (but interesting) millipede. It shouldn't be long...

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Twitter Wars & TMI

Ted Cruz, as I have said before is, in my opinion, a sleaze. Actually, lying slime ball might be more accurate. Whatever he is, he is not my idea of a 'Christian' since he hasn't a single shred of decency or character.

First there was the voter violation form in Iowa:

This is despicable. Particularly if you consider that some, if not many people who received this probably thought it was legitimate. The Iowa Secretary of State certainly took exception to it, and launched an investigation.

At about the same time, Cruz's campaign put out the news that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race. They knew he hadn't, but that didn't stop this man or his campaign from telling voters and potential voters that he had.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/05/ben-carson-campaign-releases-tape-of-ted-cruz-worker-spreading-rumors/

In Utah, the bastion of Mormanism which has peculiar ideas about sexual right and wrong (polygamy is still not entirely unheard of in this day and age, but showing off your nude body is morally wrong), one of Cruz's many superPacs plastered billboards of Melania Trump's naked body all over the place.

I'm not going to post that here - you can look for it if you want - but please note:

1) She was a professional model doing her job during that photo shoot (and she's gorgeous!); and,
2) That photo was taken before she was Mrs. Donald Trump and long before Mr. Donald Trump decided to run for president.
3) A woman doing her job before she was married to a political candidate should be strictly off-limits, and any decent human being would have left it alone.

But Cruz's campaign through its super PAC didn't pay any attention to that, and Ted Cruz didn't denounce it as he would if he had just one speck of any moral standing at all. Just one speck of decency and he would have both denounced that attack and he would have demanded that the superPAC take those billboards down and issue an apology. At the very least, he would have done the morally right thing and would have publicly apologized to the Trumps for that slimy stunt.

Tellingly, he didn't. Not before, not during and not since. Then, doubling down on duplicity, he's put on a great show of being outraged by Trump's response - the Tweet and re-Tweet of an unflattering picture of Cruz's wife.

Then, on Friday, the National Enquirer came out blaring in lurid headlines that Ted Cruz is a sex machine (five mistresses - what stamina!). Cruz instantly accused Donald Trump of being behind it. He made that accusation without any fact or foundation - and he did it on live national television.

Since then the boil has simmered down and it's come out - spread all over the internet - that the rumor was floated to the mainstream media back in late January and early February by the Rubio campaign.

That's right - Little Marco Rubio was prepared to float that rumor, and was trying to shop it long before it boiled up in the National Enquirer. This is being reported by Salon and the Huffington Post.

So here we have a Ted Cruz who waves his Christianity in the air like a battle flag defaming Donald Trump by blaming Trump of doing something he didn't do.

Sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness to me - and it has not been rescinded. Cruz has not been a man. He has not been honest and clean. He has not stepped forward and apologized to Trump for accusing him of doing something he did not do or to his wife for the slimy tactics of his super PAC - which no doubt altered the political landscape in Utah.

Now, is that the Christian thing to do, to stand by a lie instead of admitting it was a mistake? Is it the decent thing to do not to apologize to someone who should have been left alone during a campaign being dragged into it, as Melania Trump had done to her?

Is it any wonder at all that Donald Trump consistently refers to Ted Cruz as 'Lyin' Ted'? I don't think so. And, further supporting Trump's label, Politifact has the following 'file' on Ted Cruz:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

Just 6% of Ted Cruz's assertions are true. 94% of his assertions range from Mostly True to Pants on Fire so 'Lyin' Ted' fits.

For someone to trash another man's wife - even if doing it at arm's length and with a wink and a nod - and then to accuse that woman's husband of trashing him is despicable.

It deserves retaliation - which Trump has not done. Yes, he put up an unattractive picture of Heidi Cruz next to a lovely picture of Melania, but he hasn't trashed Mrs. Cruz in any substantial way.

Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman disclosed salient information about Mrs. Cruz while being interviewed on MSNBC - but if the statements made are true, I don't see a problem with it.

First, the allegation about Mrs. Cruz working for Goldman Sachs is documented, as is the fact that Ted Cruz 'forgot' to disclose the loan from Goldman on his financial disclosure forms. There's a direct tie to the Wall Street banks that have caused such pain in the US economy during the past decade.

Second, and potentially more important, is the allegation of Heidi Cruz being associated with the Council on Foreign Relations. This is true - she was for five years under a 'term membership' affiliated with this group.

What is this Council? According to some, it is a group that has plans to wipe sovereignty from the global map - no sovereign nations, a one world order with the UN as the government.

During his first run for the Senate Ted Cruz called this organization a 'pernicious nest of vipers'.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327

Heidi Cruz was an active member of this 'pernicious nest of vipers' for more than five years, so which is it?

According to the article linked above, she served for 'five years'. However, it's documented on the CFR website that she worked on a task force to write a report entitled "Building A North American Community". This was a plan which would irrevocably tie Canada, the United States and Mexico together and was issued in 2005 - six years before the linked article says she left her 'five year' membership.

Here is a link to this report which you can open as a PDF or download.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Her name is in it as a contributor - and an advocate - and if you read the recommendations starting on page 7, it's pretty clear that the borders between the three countries would be virtually eliminated. There would be no independent and sovereign Canada, no independent and sovereign United States of America, and no independent and sovereign Mexico.

So he lies to us every single time he opens his mouth and says he is 'for' a sovereign United States of America that includes a wall between here and Mexico.

Obviously, his wife worked for more than a few years for an organization that supports no such thing. Obviously they discussed her work there - it's what any married couple does. They talk about work, about what they're doing.

If he truly believes in a sovereign America, why did he not insist that she quit that 'pernicious nest of vipers'? Could it be that he was in silent agreement with their goals?

I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious - which is more reason why I will never, ever vote for Ted Cruz - not even for dog catcher.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories