Heidi Cruz Supports Trade Promotion Authority

Amazing timing.

Just this afternoon, I got my copy of “Thank You, President Bush” in the mail which contains two essays by “Outsider” Ted Cruz and his globalist wife Heidi Cruz – who works for Goldman Sachs and used to work for the Council on Foreign Relations – brownnosing George W. Bush in 2004. Heidi’s fawning essay in that book, in which ¡Jeb! wrote the introduction, is titled “Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade.”

Well, it seems that might be old news. Apparently, Heidi is on the campaign trail in South Carolina bragging about how Ted voted for Trade Promotion Authority and boasting that Ted has always been a free trader:

“Heidi Cruz misstated her husband’s vote on a key and controversial trade provision last year in a radio interview this week.

The issue of trade has become a hot one for both parties this cycle. Donald Trump’s made the case that the United States is getting screwed on free trade — that U.S. policies have ruined the wages for the American worker.

In a radio interview on South Carolina’s Vince Coakley Radio Program, Heidi Cruz argued free trade is a powerfully good force and that presidents should have increased powers to negotiate trade deals — a policy that has become particularly controversial over the last year as President Obama has pushed for what’s called trade-promotion authority (TPA) to negotiate a U.S.-Asian Pacific trade agreement. …”

Note: I will post some key excerpts from Heidi’s free trade essay tomorrow. It’s good to see she is becoming more vocal about her globalist views on trade policy.

24 Comments

  1. Sir, apparently I was not right on the issue of Senator Cruz having waffled on the issue of illegal immigration.

    Today I heard, over the national radio, three television interviews Cruz gave in 2012-2013, in which he said the same thing…

    ‘I am for legal immigration, but against illegal immigration. I am for building walls, and or electronick fences, and new information systems that will put a stop to this.’

    In one interview, a reporter, waiting to sabotage Mr. Cruz – had the following exchange with the Texas senator…

    ‘Senator : are you a fiscal conservative?’
    ‘Yes, I am.’
    ‘Well, Senator : the Department of Homeland Security says it will cost 6.5 million dollars a mile to do what you say. In light of that, do you feel your position is fiscally conservative?
    ‘Yes, it is.’
    ‘How could that be?’
    ‘Because of all the money it will save us; not to mention that The Constitution mandates it to be done.’

    • never mind Ted’s fast talk. During the gangbanger surge from Central America, Cruz and Glen Beck stood side-by-side on the Tex-Mex border, handing out teddy bears and soccer balls to the invasive orcs. And, BTW, the post-1965 “legal” immigration catastrophe is even worse than the the illegals. On an average day, 4,000 anti-White orcs come in “legally”; illegals @ c. 3,000/day

      • Dear Stuka,
        Okay, I’ll never mind Senator Cruz’s fast talk and focus on his legislative record, which, to my lights, looks very good.
        I think it’s time for the Yankee government to come clean and put an end to non-white slavery – by stopping the importation of those who will be used for exactly that.
        I think it’s time for America to get over itself and realize that the time for immigration and resettlement is over.
        In lieu of that, I would be in favour of returning, indefinitely, to
        the immigration policy, the Yankee government held between 1924 and 1968 – though, I note, most of my
        fellow citizens do not seem to share that view.

      • Further, I will remind all y’all Trump; supporters of my view : that, yes, he would construct a wall, while allowing ‘legal’ immigrants to come in at just as quick a rate, or, even, quicker, than they come in illegally.
        Mr. Trump is a billionaire globalist oligarch from Manhatten. If y’all think that he shares y’all’s views, on this matter, then y’all are likely to be very disappointed.
        Like all successful Manhattenites, he is a master of smoke & mirrors – getting all from you that he needs, and welching, fanagling, amnd refanagling when the bill comes due.
        Y’all heard it here. Don’t get angry at the messenger. Contemplate the message.

  2. Because I don’t follow electoral politics as closely as do many other commenters here, at Occidental Dissent, I have no idea of the answers to the following questions, which I’d like to put to Rush Limbaugh:

    1 — Did Ted Cruz not really campaign very hard in New Hampshire?

    2 — If so, is that because he knew he had no chance of winning New Hampshire?

    3 — If that’s true, is it because he knew New Hampshire didn’t have a large enough population of religious conservatives (“evangelicals”)?

    4 — If all of that is true, then how many states without large evangelical populations could he expect to win in a general election?

  3. Junius,

    By my count, we can say the following about Heidi Cruz:

    1.) She is from California.

    2.) She went to Harvard.

    3.) She is a banker who works for Goldman Sachs who has also done stints at J.P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch.

    4.) She worked for the Council on Foreign Relations and explicitly endorsed that report “Building a North American Community” which was basically a blueprint for the North American Union.

    5.) She worked for Robert Zoellick under George W. Bush to push for free trade deals.

    6.) She’s a vegetarian.

    7.) She’s praising free trade deals right now on the campaign trail in South Carolina. She also made a point to say that Ted has always been a free trader.

    • Sir,
      Heidi Cruz is not the candidate, any more than is Melania Trump.
      But, for whatever it is worth, I’ll tell you this : Miss Heidi does not seem to beJunius Daniel’s kind of folk – no way, no way, no how.
      Enough said.

      Thank you, though, for sharing with me you insight and wisdom on these subjects. I appreciate your friendship.

      • I would say Heidi Cruz tells us a lot about Ted.

        There’s no question that Trump married Melania because she is a beautiful young woman. OTOH, Heidi was a policy wonk who Ted met while working for George W. Bush. In the book, Ted and Heidi both have essays praising George W. Bush.

        • Sir, I am sure you are right about what you say – yet, what that tells you is not across the board 100% accurate.

          My wife and I are two peas in a pod, deeply in love with each other, and soul-mates.

          Still, we have some serious arguments – and some of them are over the fundamentals of our individual Weltanschauung.

          • No, Sir, she does not. We consider it an occasion to go to the local barbecue buffet and spend $60 on ourselves, our daughter and her boyfriend; but, then again, I ain’t a’ runnin’ fer prezident!

            If I were, we, too, would go a calling for big money!

            Have a nice day, tomorrow!

        • Sir – I certainly respect however you wish to interpret what their marriage means to you.

          For me, however, it means that they fell in love, made love, and decided to make a commitment and have a family.

          Further, they are both respectful, highly intelligent, articulate, well-educated, law-abiding and ambitious people – but, probably, I do not need their marriage to tell that to me.

          Publick life is a hard way to go, and, for those who attempt such a thing, they are usually highly driven and extremely ambitious types.

          Jefferson Davis was condemned for being such a man. Ted Cruz is such a man, Donald Trump is such a man. I am such a man – though politicks is definitely not my venue.

          As to free trade : I am okay with it, if it is practiced with Nationalist concerns – what the Constitution requires. Sadly, it has not been, for decades now.

          Sir, let me be absolutely clear about this : I prefer Mr. Trump’s trade ideas (he thrills me in this regard) and some of his foreign policy ideas – particularly those pertaining to Russia.

          I prefer Cruz on general governance, (the bill of rights) taxation, the right to life, the defence of Christianity, on traditional values, on the deregulation (80,000+pages of new suffocating Federal regulations passt just last year alone) desocialization of the economy (health care for one) and his views on the function of jurisprudence.

          As to immigration, Sir, I like them equally, and, as well, how I feel about their anti-political correctness. I am sickto death of the fascist/ communist restraints on speech, and all the endless sissified whining and apologizing of this culture.

          That, Sir, is where I stand, as of this day.

        • I see.

          Then, Sir, she and her husband must have had some very considerable arguments over politicks!

          Thank you for your informed thoughts.

  4. How did Buchanan do with his stance on trade in the elections of 92, 96 in the state of SC. From my faulty memory I thought he got clobbered.

    • after his NH primary win, Buchanan essentially skipped the SC primary…went to a debate in Arizona, and other such nonsense. A fatal mistake as he might have done well in SC

    • Nice try. NAFTA was only passed in 1994. Since then, polls has consistently shown republican opposition to it, and Trump is clobbering Cruz all over the country on it.

Comments are closed.