No products in the cart.


Two Views On Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz just announced he is a candidate for the Presidency. As such, we need to take a look at him; in particular his stances on the Constitution. We have two views to present to you. The first comes from Gary Franchi at the Next News Network. His video segment is titled, Ted Cruz: First President of the North American Union?  Does Ted Cruz support the North American Union (NAU)? Does he support relinquishing US sovereignty to a larger Union, similar to the European Union? Gary takes a look at this issue. This is important, because if any candidate supports the creation of the NAU, he is giving up the sovereignty of the US, which NO ONE has the Constitutional power to do. Such a candidate/politician would be breaking their Oath to the Constitution.

Watch the video and decide for yourself. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]

Our second view on the Ted Cruz candidacy comes from Pastor Chuck Baldwin. Chuck wrote an article at It is presented here.


By Chuck Baldwin
March 26, 2015

Texas Senator Ted Cruz made his candidacy for President of the United States official this week. He is the first Republican to officially jump into the presidential race. He chose my alma mater, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, to make the announcement. Readers immediately inundated me with requests for my thoughts on his candidacy. Today’s column will attempt to answer those requests. Mind you, these are preliminary thoughts, subject to change one way or the other as I learn more about Senator Cruz.

Before I list what seem to me to be more obvious pros and cons of his candidacy, let me say that it is extremely obvious that Mr. Cruz is wanting to “corner the market” on the Christian conservative vote and make them the ideological and political base of his campaign. The fact that he chose Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the country, to make his announcement makes it crystal clear. And if some of the early reactions to the senator’s strategy are any indication of whether Senator Cruz succeeded or not, it may seem that he has taken a big step in that regard.

While the politically potent Religious Right of the Reagan/Bush era is only a shell of its former self, it is a stark reality that no Republican since Richard Nixon has won a presidential race without the enthusiastic support of Christian conservatives. Republican presidential candidates must at least APPEAR “conservative” enough to attract the base of religious conservatives or face a thumping in the general election. If you don’t believe that, just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney. And even though G.W. Bush was no conservative, Karl Rove and Company did a stellar job of packaging him that way. And as we know, more often than not, image garners more votes than reality. Sad but true. Former Texas Governor, Rick Perry, attempted the same thing in his presidential campaign in 2012, but was never able to make it stick.

By casting himself as the “Christian” candidate, Ted Cruz is trying to follow the campaign script of fellow Texan (and the last Republican to actually win the White House), G.W. Bush. And, of course, Cruz actually worked in the Bush campaign, so he has first-hand experience with it. And this is not something that Cruz feels uncomfortable doing. He is the son of an evangelical pastor and graduated from a Baptist high school. Accordingly, Cruz can naturally talk the language.

Since Jerry Falwell passed away, there is no evangelical leader with the ability and clout to coalesce, lead, and speak on behalf of enough Christian voters to make a lot of difference in Republican politics today. Plus, as a whole, the Religious Right has compromised its principles (and showed itself very ignorant of New World Order issues) so many times, and has disenfranchised so many religious conservatives that, as a movement, the Religious Right really doesn’t even exist today.

However, if one wants to get an idea of what the remnant of the old Religious Right is thinking today, read what my friend Richard Viguerie has to say. Richard is one of the original founders of what became known as the Moral Majority and then the Religious Right. He is still very influential with those who would identify themselves as part of the Religious Right. And Richard has glowing words for Mr. Cruz:

“Today’s official announcement that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is running for president changes everything in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. My only comment about the 2016 selection cycle — If it has an “R” or a “D” beside its name, it cannot get my vote. Period.

    Elias Alias, editor

    1. So your answer is not to vote at all? That will work out just great for Hillary. I bet if it were Ron Paul who seems to walk on water you would jumping for joy. I will take Ted Cruz any day over anyone else in the field! there are many articles out there that have shown because his mother is an american born citizen he is eligible but of course if you don’t like him i guess not.By not voting what do you think would happen?

      1. Does it really matter? The last election we had a 140% turnout in several districts. How can you possibly have more then 100%? Regardless of what party wins, they all are controlled by the same puppet masters.

        1. A lot of truth to what you say but it bothers me when people look for anything to attack Cruz but their guy Ron Paul gets a pass. I like a lot of what Paul stands for but i don’t go out of my way to look for things i think he is wrong on and there are plenty. Right now i have a hard time finding anyone who speaks more on how i feel than Cruz.Believe me all i want is someone who will right the ship.

          1. James Stamulis,
            Oath Keepers is a non=partisan organization. As such, we do not support individual candidates. We will, however, continue to point out when any candidate, or their close associates, promotes unConstitutional measures. Heidi Cruz supports the North American Union. I have no recollection of Ted Cruz stating his opposition to Heidi’s involvement with the CFR and its promotion of the NAU. These articles are an alert to all Oath Keepers to acquaint them with the knowledge they need in making a choice. Ted Cruz will not publicly support the NAU until he gains the Presidency, if that should occur. It will be then that he will support measures to continue the process of the NAU, just as Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinto, Bush II and Obama have done. If you want the NAU, then Ted Cruz, or Hillary Clinton would be perfect choices for you. For that matter, so would most, (if not all), of the leading candidates.
            We, at Oath Keepers, will continue our support for the Constitution, regardless of whether politicians have an R, or a D, next to their name.

            Shorty Dawkins

  2. Hello Elias

    Will we still have elections in 2016 or will it be Martial Law? – Is Jade Helm the overture for Martial Law?

    Many Oath Keepers are concerned about Jade Helm. May we expect a position from HQ?

    Molon Labe! (and count on it, they will!)


  3. Does it no longer matter that politicians no longer respect the constitution of the USA they swore and oath to up hold?

    He is not a natural born citizen any more that obama is. He is not qualified to run period and would it not be treason to do so if he tried? He did swore and oath and he is willing to break it so he can run. Does that sound like a guy who you can trust?

    There is a reason the constitution requires a natural born citizen of two citizen parents. Two wrongs don’t add up to a right. I am with the other commenter, If it is and R or D in front of their name, they are just two heads of the same snake oil and with a wife who works for GS, where do you think his loyalties are? The elite, get it.

    Voting does not matter anyway as the next puppet will be selected not elected.

  4. The one X factor that no one seems to perceive, is the fact of the black or minority vote. There was no way that a black person was not going to vote for a black candidate, even if that candidate was a self professed communist or Muslim. That was the first election where Christian leaders did not unite and back a candidate- Hagee supported McCain. Graham supported Huckabee and TD Jakes supported BO. Not that BO was a Christian or even confessed he was saved, but purely because he was black. Same for Colin Powell. The Demos slandered, cursed and stated incredible racist remarks against him when he supported Bush, but opened their arms when he turned against his own party and supported BO. Again, this was strictly because of race. This element will be changing in this next election. No Black candidate has the pull that BO had, so Hillary will we that party’s nomine by a large margin. The issue is not the Libs., the issue is – will BO actually step down when his term is over? The underground Militia that has been forming for the last 9 months in Texas, does not think so. The rumor is that right before BO is to leave office, some great calamity will happen in the US. That will more than likely be blamed on terrorist, but not the way you and I would imagine. Once that happens, BO will declare a national emergency, intact martial low and boldly declare that once the emergency is over, he will step down but he just can’t do at that time because of this great disaster. That lie will never happen as BO has not intention to ever release power. Only time will tell, but if this does occur, there will be no looking back as US citizens will revolt and begin to actually organize movements. The Underground Militia has already developed the frame work and is watching closely the outcome. Be prepared, time is growing short and the US will never be the same again by the start of 2018.

    [Editor’s Note: Yo, ripcord-Wes, please advise the Underground Militia for me. Please get word to them that the forces of Technocracy for whom Obama, Bush-43, Clinton, and Bush-41 all work(ed) will win every election, stay in power, and deepen their power while expanding their control over American societal behavior. I would like to invite you to tell the Underground Militia, cannot lose what was already lost, cannot wreck what was already destroyed, and cannot deprive America of what America has already forfeited in its comfort-seeking denial of the face of tyranny coming at them from within their only recognized government. Please tell them that they are missing the bigger picture by a long-shot whenever they pay attention to who is in the White House. Obama has no power, is not a king, and is only doing what the powers force him to do, and what they allow him to do. Yes, he’s a believer in the money power which dominates U.S. policy, and yes, he’s a socialist-oriented manipulator who is getting some little tidbits which he wants for doing their job, and yes, he has betrayed the public trust including the trust of those within the black community who were compelled to vote for him as a testament that “Black Has Arrived”. Like the three Presidents before him, this President works for an unseen power. Please tell the Underground Militia for me that Obama does not need to extend his already bogus stay in the White House, and he has no plan at all for becoming Emperor of America, because that is not necessary and is not called for by the Technocracy’s machinery. We have much bigger problems to worry about that which clown sits next in the White House, I can assure you. Obama will go where he is told to go, do what he is told to do, and step down when he is told to step down. Elections matter not one whit, except that they are used to deepen the wedge of divisiveness which the globalizing socialist Technocrats use to keep the People from uniting. Please tell all that to the Underground Militia and let ’em know Ol’ Elias sent it to them as a message, yes? Thank you.

    And remember this note aside to the Invisible Handler: That which is implied silently, between the lines, so to say, as a MindWar psy-op cannot be properly used in the relevant theater of public perception, and the SPLC and Ilk cannot use your offering herein, because of what I’ve said above. The American people are waking up to Psychological Warfare, including the pathologies apparent perception manipulation via public forums and comment threads.

    Elias Alias, editor]

  5. Mar 26, 2015 Why You Should Not Vote For Ted Cruz In 2016

    In this video Luke Rudkowski gives an inside look at that 2016 Presidential run of Ted Cruz and why you should not vote for him.

    Sen. Ted Cruz Junior Senator from Texas Republican Serving Jan 3, 2013 – Jan 3, 2019

    These special statistics cover Cruz’s record during the 113th Congress (Jan 3, 2013-Jan 2, 2015) and compare him to other senators also serving at the end of the session.

  6. I’ve been hearing he is another NWO plant and I saw him vote against veterans benefits, something that was posted on line. Plus, I thought only if you are born out of the country to military parents on base you are an American Citizen, not just because your American mom moved to Canada. Of course I am not a lawyer and had only trusted the news until about 2 years ago, I was asleep but signals where going off when I would hear unheard of American comments from the news, puzzled and couldn’t identify what was going on. I had be Republican since Reagan and betrayed by them such a bad feeling, and life and death alert now. The 70’s as a teen was the best time, gullible and trusting about everything even riding on the back of a Honda 750, memories are a treasure. Anyway why kick the can down the road, I’d vote for Allen West though.

  7. If it has the stench of Cronyism, the smell of Corporatism, the vanity, lust of Narcissism and the willingness to bend or ignore the Constitution as to the qualifications written therein, then I’ll not give consent. Have we not learned from the ‘Past’?

    1. When one reads the US Constitution a lot it becomes pretty clear that part of the reason for the its system of divided institutions, checks and balances was to also create limits on the power of faction(s) in political life being able to work against our type of government.

      They used the tools of separating powers between three branches within each government, and also between the states and the federal governments; putting into writing the exact powers assigned to those who serve within the federal government.

      Then they staggered the different elections, plus the representation of different constituencies; then they basically insulated the Senate, the Presidency, and the Courts from direct “democratic-type” electoral changes.

      Through those mechanics listed in the previous paragraph – and more – the Framers sought to balance the good things government COULD do and the things for which it was needed against their fear of the kinds of abuses of government that led them to declare independence in the first place. They also wanted to limit the damage that factions could cause to our type of government. (It helps to read the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the US Constitution, and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights to get a better idea of what I mean.)

      When someone votes party, party line, they are supporting factions not the US Constitution. One must always vote the US Constitution, and toss out those that do not follow it.

      What did the framers, forefathers say about factions?

      George Washington on factions in his farewell presidential speech:
      “‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

      It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

      … But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” (End Washington quote)

      John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

      Within the US Constitution political parties are not mentioned. So what is a “party”? Political parties are factions with interests OTHER then the US Constitution and seeing that it is enforced; and they exist today to separate and divide the America people. When the “strongest” faction controls our government(s), those that serve within it do NOT support our legitimate government, instead they support the party and pursue and promote the party’s interests not the US Constitution or the interests of the people. It basically goes against our legitimate government, and only promotes the interests of the party in power.

      Personally I believe that political parties were formed to destroy the US Constitution, and to be used to try and “capture” and control all three branches plus the states is WHY they are basically limited to two major parties. Easier to control and to “guide” the people within the direction wanted if there are only two lanes they can “travel” down.

      Three other things all should not forget. The American “experiment” was putting the power of government into the peoples hands, and putting those in government under them. It was done the way it was to protect the peoples liberty, to stop hasty actions regarding those “we” put into government (and “we” will put people in again when we STOP Election Fraud), stopping those who SERVE within our governments from being able to make decisions that affect the nation in haste, etc.

      James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

      George Washington: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”

      Thomas Jefferson:“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

      Benjamin Franklin: “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

      Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

      Ted Cruz is a part of the faction process, and I do not believe that he supports the US Constitution; but that he does support his party line, and they are controlled by outside interests.

      Partial Solution:
      What we need to do is to put in Ron Paul (who actually did win the “Republican” presidential nomination, but like with Obama and Hilary Clinton they had to make it a choice between the two that was chosen to be “candidates” not one outside the faction element and who stood for the US Constitution) as a US President pro tempore, and fill in the seats with others selected from constitutional movements as “pro tempore” for the positions they occupy while we the people create our own elections so that OUR voice is heard and OUR representatives are placed within OUR governments- state and federal.


    (Everything presented in this timeline is a matter of public record. All of it is based upon publicly reported events, public statements made by Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz, officials with the Elect Ted movement or U.S. and Canadian officials.)

    1957 – After working as a teen to help Fidel Castro gain power in Cuba, and being imprisoned for his actions by the Batista regime, Cuban Rafael Cruz applies for admittance to the University of Texas as a foreign student and enters the U.S. on a four year student visa to attend four years of college. He is a Cuban citizen attending a U.S. college on a student visa obtained through the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

    1961-1962 – After graduating college at the University of Texas, and upon the expiration of his student visa, Cruz Sr. applied for and received “political asylum” and was issued a “green card.” A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a “citizen” of the United States, in this case, under political asylum from Castro’s Cuba. His citizenship status was that of a Cuban national living and working in the United States, under a green card work permit. According to U.S. laws, the “green card” holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.

    1964-1966 – Cruz Sr. takes a few odd jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. “I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” – (From and interview with NPR)

    Peter Spiro, a legal expert on U.S. citizenship at Temple University. Spiro says Rafael Cruz’s multi-country odyssey did not follow traditional models for immigration. – SPIRO: “Ted Cruz himself seems to be an advocate of those traditional immigration models. Maybe he should be a little more tolerant of the nontraditional versions, given his own father’s history.”

    1970 – Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, U.S. statutes would have voided the prior “green card” status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the U.S. green card.

    1974 – The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a U.S. Naturalized citizen in 2005. As a result, his wife and son were also Canadian citizens, his son being born a citizen of Canada in 1970.

    2005 – Rafael Cruz applies for legal U.S. citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for U.S. citizenship exists as of 2005.

    2013 – Freshman Senator Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Tea Party movement, and calls for him to run for the White House begin. In July, Ted Cruz is questioned by the press about his interest in running for President, and the issue of his Canadian born citizenship is brought up.

    Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.”

    NOTE: Senator Cruz omits the part of his father’s story, in particular, the part about his parents applying for and receiving Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth in Calgary. He also attempts to gloss past the actual definition of natural-born Citizen by implying it is a mere legal debate for others to figure out.

    August 2013 – As Ted’s political stock rises in the Tea Party, so do press questions about his eligibility for office. Ted decides to quiet the questions by releasing his birth certificate, which now becomes absolute proof of Ted’s Canadian citizenship at birth, 1970, Calgary. The release of the Canadian birth records only serve to further fuel the controversy…

    Ted seeks legal counsel, as the media is now pressing members of Canadian Immigration and Naturalization to clear the matter up, when instead, Canadian officials confirm the Ted Cruz was in fact born a legal citizen of Canada, the son of two parents who had also applied for and received Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth.

    “He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section. “Generally speaking, under the Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat,” said ministry spokeswoman Julie Lafortune.

    Legal counsel advises Ted to “renounce his Canadian citizenship” in order to make himself eligible to run for the Presidency. Of course, renouncing one’s original citizenship only further proves one’s original citizenship.

    May 2014 – Ted Cruz legal counsel files to renounce Ted’s Canadian citizenship in an effort to make him eligible to run for high office under the natural-born Citizen clause Article II in the U.S. Constitution.

    AUSTIN, Texas – Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has given up his citizenship from his birth country, making good on a promise from last summer. Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said “the Tea Party favorite formally gave up his citizenship May 14. He received official confirmation of the action at his Houston home Tuesday.”

    News that he had renounced his citizenship was first reported by the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper also broke that Cruz had dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship when he released his birth certificate in August.

    Frazier said Cruz “is pleased to have the process finalized” and that it “makes sense he should be only an American citizen.”- Of course, the Constitution does not require that one be only an American citizen, but rather a natural born Citizen.

    As of February 4, 2015 – No evidence of any U.S. Citizenship has been released to confirm anything at all about the true citizenship status of Ted Cruz.

    Because Ted Cruz has been confirmed a legal citizen of Canada up until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014, and because he has been confirmed a citizen of Canada at birth, and because his Father is on public record stating that he and his wife became citizens of Canada during their eight years living in Canada and because Rafael Cruz remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced and applied for legal U.S. citizenship in 2005…. There is simply NO WAY that Ted Cruz was, is or ever can be a “natural-born Citizen” of the United States eligible for the offices of President or Vice President.

    So, does this mean that members of the Tea Party are engaged in an overt effort to defraud Tea Party members who are Ted fans, by all of this legal fancy footwork?

    The facts are all well documented. You decide…

    One who inherits their Citizenship at birth via nature alone, from their natural birth Father, is a natural born Citizen of the United States. According to all available information on Ted Cruz and his family, Ted Cruz was a native born citizen of Canada and not a natural born Citizen of the United States. Now, Ted is either not too bright, or not too honest…. But he is at least one of the two… and what about the Tea Party leaders behind this legal shell game?

    1. Excellent timeline! Thank you for taking the time to research and gather those facts.

      “…members of the Tea Party are engaged in an overt effort to defraud Tea Party members…”

      Of course it does. The wanta be elites cannot have anyone not under their control in OUR office of the US president, in our legislature, or in the judicial branch – federal or state (though occasionally one slips in – rarely).

  9. Ted Cruz is Not a Natural Born US Citizen and as such is NOT US Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of US President or VP no mater how many Harvard lawyers he gets to back him up . To get the true meaning of Natural Born Citizen Google Dr . Herb Titus and Natural Born Citizen . Dr Herb Titus is a Constitutional lawyer who has been practicing US Constitutional law for the last thirty years and should know what he is talking about .

  10. I’m a TeaBagger and I love the Ted Cruz message content. HOWEVERRRR…… I’ve got a beef with someone who’s paid upwards of $200K in taxpayer salary yet so far this year has missed 26% of the Senate votes (the average is around 1.6% missed) and yet still finds the time to write a book. TWENTY SIX PERCENT!!! I’m getting signals that if he can’t even find the time to cast a “yea” or “nay” while he’s out preaching constitutionality, then he’s being hypocritical. Sure, Rand has a book out too…but he only missed 1.8% of his votes. (I’m certainly not on the Rand Paul buss either but c’mon…do your jobs.)

  11. This is Heidi Cruz writing. Free market! CFR draws from many areas as a thinking tank for agendas. “We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us — truly the measure of our success. As such, investment fundsand financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

Comments are closed.