Ted Cruz again battles 'globalist' charge against wife
With Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, setting his sights on the Oval Office, some of his critics are once again confronting him with the issue of his wifeâ€™s former membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and her role in the crafting of a CFR document espousing North American unity.
The national spokesman for Cruzâ€™s presidential campaign, Rick Tyler, emphasized in a response to WND that the senator has never been a member of CFR and harshly criticized the organization during his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign as a threat to U.S. sovereignty, even though his wife was a member at the time.
Tyler noted that at a campaign event in Tyler, Texas, in 2011, Cruz called CFR â€śa pernicious nest of snakesâ€ť that is â€śworking to undermine our sovereignty.â€ť
Tyler explained that Heidi Cruz, then an energy investment banker for Merrill Lynch in Houston, served as a CFR term member....
Christopher000 wrote: Kenny, I have to say that I'm pretty much in shock. Did you just challange US to meet for a street fight? If so, over what exactly? I read through the comments and didn't see anything that even came close to warranting some sort of a meet me by the flag pole, after school fight. You don't know US, but should get to know him via his comments and posting style, along with everyone elses before you start meeting in parking lots and flying around the country to unload your fists on their faces over contextual misinterpretations. He's owed an apology...
I can see Kennys point. A member of the unholy trinity made an unsavory implication about Kens wife for vain reasons. Kenny responded
Kenny, I have to say that I'm pretty much in shock. Did you just challange US to meet for a street fight? If so, over what exactly? I read through the comments and didn't see anything that even came close to warranting some sort of a meet me by the flag pole, after school fight. You don't know US, but should get to know him via his comments and posting style, along with everyone elses before you start meeting in parking lots and flying around the country to unload your fists on their faces over contextual misinterpretations.
kenny wrote: Why can no one engage in a discussion by sticking with the topic? Parsing words and snarky comments prove nothing but stupidity. UnprofitableServant: You've crossed the line, Hoss. Meet me at the Marietta Diner parking lot - or anywhere else of your choosing - this evening and I'll happily explain my wife's pajama situation with you in person. I live nearby so anywhere close is great with me. Don't be a coward - meet me. Maybe after your wife gets home from Kroger. And that's assuming you're a man.
Really, I stood in amazement at terms YOU used to describe a stay at home mom, pointing out you would not use the same terms for your wife and you get upset at me for it? I have no quarrel with you and have asked the moderator to remove my comments 4/7/15 12:11 P.M.
our younger generations (men) are out of work especially BECAUSE of the CFR and their globalist work that they put into action through our Congress and other means. Many want a NA Union like the EU, which so many nations are desperately trying to get out of as we speak! the globalist debt slavery system that benefits a few monopolies is what these groups are about. either they are in glass ceiling syndrome and removed from the effects of their own philosophies or just love the $$$$ and power too much.
it is ironic that she would spend her time designing the world that men would have to live under instead of raising her children with humility.
these are the groups that design derivative markets and beg trillions in reparations for the markets they crashed. They are not popular and fund both parties. Anyone can research these things for themselves.
Why can no one engage in a discussion by sticking with the topic? Parsing words and snarky comments prove nothing but stupidity.
UnprofitableServant: You've crossed the line, Hoss. Meet me at the Marietta Diner parking lot - or anywhere else of your choosing - this evening and I'll happily explain my wife's pajama situation with you in person. I live nearby so anywhere close is great with me. Don't be a coward - meet me. Maybe after your wife gets home from Kroger. And that's assuming you're a man.
God sent us a Saviour. Why? Let's talk about Jesus. Let's talk about him. Let's talk about the Son of God who became a man, and died for all of our sins. Let's talk about the Crucified who bled and died, and in three days rose again. Let's talk about Jesus. Let's talk about him.
Why did God send this one into the world? For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (Jn 3:17-19) Amazing! He did this while we were yet sinners.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 4:10). We love him, because he first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). SERMON FOR TODAY by Robert Fisher: "Unity: Love and Truth:The Importance of Love and Implications..." at SermonAudio.com
Again, am not endorsing her having a career but a little research shows you jumped to conclusions.
Heidi Cruz told the New York Times in 2013, â€śI think it works really well for our family for us both to have careers, and I know what my commitments are to Goldman. I think itâ€™s also really good for our girls to have me at home with them.â€ť
Glad your wife stayed home to be a mom for her kids.
I said nothing about drawing conclusions, I said something about jumping to conclusions. Drawing conclusions is based upon known facts, jumping to conclusions is based upon speculation.
She apparently stays at home with the kids. The sitting around in pj's drinking coffee is a great example of you jumping to conclusions and really, your wife was a stay at home mom, you think she sat around in her pj's and drank coffee? You gotta think about what you are saying.
Not drawing conclusions is compromise and compromise is the language of satan. I prefer to exercise discernment and judge righteous judgment. That's what Scripture tells me to do.
Two points: 1) I don't know what your business experience is but I can assure you that any executive with Goldman Sachs isn't sitting around the house in her pajamas drinking coffee much less raising her kids. That's a high power job and requires anyone's full attention and participation. 2) People always trot out the "Proverbs 31 woman". But she lived in an agrarian society that required MUCH more attention to the daily maintenance of her household than is required of a woman today - she had no washer, dryer, dishwasher, running water or Publix on her corner. Daily life was a day to day challenge and she sure as heck didn't have time to be out earning her husband a living because he was too lazy and irresponsible to take care of it himself.
I didn't jump to any conclusion. I based my considered conclusion on my knowledge of Ted Cruz, my understanding of Scripture and life experience. I would dearly LOVE to have the couple of million extra dollars I would have if my wife (previously a banker) had worked for the past 30 years but obedience to God was/is more important. Her beautiful kids agree.
kenny wrote: . BTW - Mrs. Cruz is not a part time clerk at Kroger while Ted watches the kids. She's an executive with Goldman Sachs. Who's raising the girls?
Thanks for your response. Welcome the 21st century. She doesn't have to leave the house to be an executive with Goldman Sachs and clearly the Proverbs 31 (v24) woman was a work at home mom.
I don't know, the kids may be being raised by nannies or grandparents or stuck in a daycare. But you don't know if she isn't the one rearing the kids and taking care of the house. Remember I not trying to debate your position, just saying we can't jump to conclusions. Go ahead and write the man off your list of candidates, but I think we should be careful with drawing conclusions about things that we do not know for sure are true.
I understand your position and I respect it. But there are no two ways to interpret what the Bible teaches regarding Christian mothers working outside the home. (Many would say Christian women, period.) Until the feminist movement kicked in full throttle, there wasn't even any discussion about it among believers. God told Adam that he would earn his living by working after the fall, not Eve. The NT makes it crystal clear as to what the man and the woman's roles are and almost always when a man argues about it, it's because he has his wife out earning him a paycheck while his kids languish in the care of strangers. It doesn't matter what Ted Cruz thinks or how he "interprets" Scripture. What matters is what God's word says. Cruz is a grown man with a wife and two kids. He went to Harvard and Princeton and he got himself elected to Congress so he's not stupid. He's undoubtably reasonably wealthy. He says he's a Christian and has been for years. If he doesn't know what Titus teaches he would do well to find out and apply it. If you know him, have him contact me and I will happily explain it to him. If you're right, somebody sure needs to. BTW - Mrs. Cruz is not a part time clerk at Kroger while Ted watches the kids. She's an executive with Goldman Sachs. Who's raising the girls?
kenny wrote: .. I think he is a phony, a hypocrite and to be honest, a pansy. ...
First let me premise this by saying I am not defending Ted Cruz or disputing the view about the wife being a keeper at home, so please don't go there and say I am.
I am saying you are jumping to conclusions brother. Not everyone shares your view or has the same understanding of Scripture you have. To say he is a hypocrite and is blatantly disobedient assumes he views the verses in Titus the way you do and then just chose to do his own thing regardless of what he knew the Bible teaches. We should be careful and remember we all have our own corruption that we must deal with daily. It matters not to me how you vote or have voted, but I would be not be so quick to judge someone on the basis of my beliefs and understanding, not all share that knowledge. Your assessment might be right on and he needs to repent, but without knowing all the details we would do well not to jump to conclusions.
JayJay wrote: I'm sorry I can't atatch a link, but I have faith in you that you can do your own homework and find the truth.
what an interesting find. she's been quite involved in the CFR strategies for North America. As workers over these decades have lost work and borders left open, CFR works behind the scenes to integrate the nations instead of letting them keep their own powers. been great for business, they all went down to mexico, and figures show higher percentage of work for illegal immigrants than American workers now.
Hmm, it seems that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors. Is calling people "petulant children" and a "13 year old" loving your neighbor? Are you showing respect to us? Are you (more importantly) showing love towards us?
Unprofitable Servant, you were just around the corner from my house at Marietta Diner. Everybody loves Marietta Diner!
JayJayAhemandBiblesays, again, you sound like a petulant child. It's none of your bloody business who I voted for in the past two elections but I'll tell you anyway. I did EXACTLY what Frank did and for the same reasons. At least with Romney, you knew where he stood. Couldn't vote for McCain because Palin was attached and she is a disgrace. I may end up voting for Cruz though I'll bet he's not the candidate. He could (if elected) end up being a fine President. But I wouldn't vote for him in the primary and I hope he loses. He presents himself as a Christian - he even announced his candidacy at Liberty University - yet he sends his wife out to make him a paycheck to the neglect of his home and children and that is blantant disobedience. I don't like that. I think he is a phony, a hypocrite and to be honest, a pansy. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, JayJayAhemandBiblesays?
And if somebody can get Ted to join this discussion I will happily tell him the same thing.
JayJay wrote: In the last two Presidential elections I mean.
Let me go first. First I am of the position that it is impossible for anyone to be a practicing Christian and be elected for any high government office. I have argued that on occasion so I am ready, willing and able to do it again. Now with that said and meant completely from the heart, here is who I voted for and why. In 2008 I didn't vote at all because Palin was on the ticket and I felt that she could confuse the genuine church of Christ. IOW, she is an evangelical feminist; period, end of conversation and most of the Christians I spoke with were confused by her, IOW, they really thought she was in the faith.
In 2012, I voted for Romney because I didn't think he would confuse the genuine church of Christ and he was more conservative than Obama so I felt he would slow down the rate of abortions which I consider to be the murder of innocent babies. But I certainly never assigned a greater moral standing with any of these folks. I also agree about what kenny said about Jeb Bush and have told my wife if he or Hillary were elected, we are moving out of the country. Well maybe move.
kenny wrote: Hi, John UK! Always good to hear from you, brother. Mike, like SteveR, I'll vote for whoever the conservative candidate is regardless of their personal life EXCEPT for Jeb Bush. I believe the Bush family is at the heart of the globalist direction we're being railroaded toward and I can't in good conscience vote for another Bush. I doubt he will be the Republican choice but if he is, I'll have to sit this one out.
Had dinner with an old friend who was traveling through these parts at the Marietta Diner. (just down from the big Chicken) Food and service were great and because he picked up the tab, couldn't beat the price. Hope all is going well for my fellow Georgian.
What I liked about Romney was his dedication forming the best government possible to govern our country. Instead of pandering to certain groups for extra votes because of his VP choice, he chose the person he felt was best qualified. Sadly, the electorate didnt agree and gave his ticket less votes than the McCain/Palin farce. If Romney/Ryan had received the same number of votes as McCain/Palin, 0bama would be in Hawaii today instead of DC forcing left wing policies down our throats
btw- The aforementioned article was well balanced, the Guardian(like most major newspapers) is center-left.