Posted on 05/15/2015 9:37:25 AM PDT by Jack Black
The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005.
The Task Force’s central recommendation is the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity.Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
Shared challenge of uneven economic development. A fast lane to development is crucial for Mexico to contribute to the security of the entire region. Mexico’s development has failed to prevent deep disparities between different regions of the country, and particularly between remote regions and those better connected to international markets. Northern states have grown ten times faster than those in the center and south of the country. Lack of economic opportunity encourages unauthorized migration and has been found to be associated with corruption, drug trafficking, violence, and human suffering. Improvements in human capital and physical infrastructure in Mexico, particularly in the center and south of the country, would knit these regions more firmly into the North American economy and are in the economic and security interest of all three countries. Leaders in our three countries have acknowledged
(Excerpt) Read more at cfr.org ...
I find the personal attacks, cheap shots and knee-jerk vitriol scattered all over this thread to be of stuff no better than the partisan mindset that FReepers so freely (and correctly) ridicule when it's coming from the political left.
We on the conservative side of the battle are supposed to be better than that.
Agreed Jack. I am still a Ted Cruz supporter since I see no alternative that is better across a broad set of issues (isn't that what we all have to come to at a point before we pull the levers?), but I certainly don't want to pull the covers over my head and be blind and deaf to reality.
I think most of us rightly criticize the left and gopE types for being blind & deaf to the reality of the candidates that they support, why would any of us want to do the same?
Personally I have been aware of Heidi Cruz's background since his Senate race, I've consciously chosen to not let that overshadow the many positive attributes that he has displayed to this point. The key word in that sentence is consciously, not blindly. Thank you for your thread.
The article has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. Zero. Zilch. You are the first person to bring the topic of Israel up. The article has nothing to do with John Birch Society, either.
I haven't decided who I will support in the primary, at this point I like things about Rand, Cruz and Walker. I dislike Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, and Perry. I'm sceptical about Rubio, but probably find him in the middle, not one of my top choices, but not as bad as the group above.
I did not vote for Ron Paul in either of the primary / caucus's (we have both in Washington, unbelievably) when I had the chance.
I did not vote for Buchanan either in his GOP primary run or in his bid as a third party candidate, but I think he's written some very good books, particularly "Death of the West". Have you read it?
There has been a movement for decades for Canadian provinces to join the USA as STATES.
From the FAQ pages:
http://unitednorthamerica.org/
3. Why isn’t Mexico included?
While Mexico is clearly geographically a part of North America, from a social and political perspective it more closely matches Central American nations. Canada and the United States share a great deal because of their common beginnings, common language and culture that were built within multi-ethnic, free and democratic societies. Mexico does share some similarities with Canada and the US, but the differences are still far larger. And from a practical perspective, the enormous cost of Mexico’s inclusion would heavily drain the Canadian and US economies.
4. Why should we use the US model?
Although the Canadian Constitution has many great components, it is missing some very valuable ingredients that were crafted long before it. This includes: an elected Head of State, an elected Senate, equal representation in the legislature, separate and equal branches of government, and the separation of church and state. Just as importantly, the US Constitution, unlike its Canadian counterpart, contains no special or extra rights for certain ethnicities, linguistic or religious groups, and lives true to the ideal that all men are created equal. While modern Canada is independent and free, it was not created that way. And so while the founders of the United States declared inalienable rights and a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the same cannot be found within the supreme laws that defines the Canadian system. Some might suggest a new Constitution, but the unique set of circumstances that gave birth to the original US Constitution is not so easily reproduced by modern politicians with the powerful political action groups and lobbies that exist today.
which provinces would WANT to be part of the USA. It seems the more conservative “rugged individual” provinces would become part of the USA and the “gimme free stuff” would want to stay out.
The Goldman Sachs thing has always given me pause. That’s like being in the Mafia. You never really quit.
It is interesting that Ted Cruz is connected to Wall Street. I think that is an important point.
Very interesting are the possible combinations. Cruz v. Warren is so totally different from Cruz v. Clinton.
Etc etc etc.
Thank you that was very informative.
Ted Cruz is not an outsider. He is connected to the government and the Wall Street elites.
I would not want someone without some experience.
That, to me, ideally would mean both some reasonable high level government experience and some business experience. Mitt Romney was ideal, from that point of view, but that didn't work out very well (either in terms of his positions, which were pretty liberal, or in terms of his campaign, which was lackluster, or in terms of the result, which was Obama's second term)
So, experience isn't the only qualification, or a guarantee of a good candidate, but still it's important to most voters, including GOP primary voters.
Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson lack any political experience so I will not be voting for them. I will give Fiorina some credit for at least running on the GOP ticket for Gov. in the most liberal state in the USA.
Carson is deluded, just like all the other no elected experience vanity candidates before him: Trump, Perot, Buchanan, the Godfather's Pizza CEO, Alan Keys, etc.
Cruz meets the minimum experience standard, and that make him a credible and viable candidate. He has more experience than Obama did, and as much as Rubio and Paul, two other candidates near the top. He's past the threashold to be taken seriously by American voters.
He has very limited business experience himself. His wife's career could be a plus then, sort of balancing out a weak part of his resume. But they rub is it's with Wall Street.
For myself, and many other potential supporters, I think Wall Street connections are a particular valid concern.
On a purely pragmatic level we know that a full frontal attack on Wall Street privileges and practices, is a very likely attack from the Democratic candidate.
Regardless of whether you personally feel there is any merit in them, we know they are a powerful line of attack. Romney's run was destroyed in large part by painting him as a "vulture capitalist", a "huge fund multi-millionaire" and someone doing shady deals in foriegn jusidictions to avoid taxes. Again, maybe you feel these characterizations were unfair, but Romney was not able to counter them, and the played a huge part in his loss.
Many of us are anxious not to make the same mistake again, and nominate a candidate whose background can be easily demonized. Whether or not Cruz's wife's occupation would provide enough fodder for that is a reasonable subject of debate, in my opinion.
For others of us the association with Goldman-Sachs and Merrill Lynch is in itself troubling. Goldman, in particular has a terrible record of law breaking, including many multi-million and even billion dollar settlements with various regulator bodies for breaking the law. The more you look into these the more egregious they turn out to be. I urge you to do some research, perhaps I will post some links on this at a future date.
The entire spectacle of "too big to fail" banks getting incredible deals from the government, and the special treatment they received stinks to many Americans.
Hopefully, you can recall that the Tea Party movement arose as a huge unscripted outpouring of anger at these bailouts. Not only was Goldman one of the largest recipients of bail out funds, we know they were in the room when the decision was made to bail out AIG, something critical to their survival.
As a result of the economic chaos caused by Goldman and a handful of other large Wall Street firms the American economy was sent into a near-crash. Millions of Americans lost jobs, millions more lost homes, everyone suffered as the economy contracted, and many feel it has not fully recovered.
We'd like a candidate who can pin a lot of this, the failed or underwhelming recovery, on Obama. Someone who was, herself, part of two bailed out firms is probably not a good person to do that. Heidi Cruz makes $600,000 a year plus bonus, a lot of Americans feel that it's pretty unjustified for Wall Street bankers to earn those types of salary when their continued existence is a gift from taxpayers, whose average annual income is $51,399 dollars.
I understand that you view this as "capitalist system experience". I'd say running a business successfully is that, I'd say this is a crony-capitalist shakedown, that has often included very unsavory practices (again, google "Goldman-Sachs guilty and read the links, then do the same for Merrill-Lynch, HSBC and Chase.)
I hope you now can at least understand other people's point of view on this issue.
Have a nice weekend.
Why do I get the feeling that if this story was about Jeb's wife the rhetoric would be a little different.
This forum has been after the Clinton family since it was founded, are you calling us bottom feeders?
If the shoe fits.
This “connected to wall street” crap is straight out of Camp Warren.
Ted Cruz seems like he is fighting for the Constitution and the conservative cause. Senator Cruz is linked to special interests. Ted Cruz must first serve the special interest groups or his campaign will not get funded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.