Inevitably while Sen. Ted Cruz sets his sights on the Oval Office, some of his critics are again confronting him with the issue of his wife’s Heidi’s former membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, not to mention her role in the crafting of a document to create a proposed North American Union.
Sen. Cruz’s national spokesman for his presidential campaign, Rick Tyler, emphasized in response to an inquiry 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 explained too that Mrs. Cruz, at the time an energy investment banker for Merrill Lynch in Houston, served as a CFR term member, which expired in 2011. Tyler also discussed how she was one of 31 members assigned to the task force which produced the “Building a North American Community”report.
“Her contribution to the report was narrowly focused on economic issues. She said as much in her dissenting view included in the report.”
That 2005 report by the Task Force on the Future of North America was co-authored by task force vice chairman Robert A. Pastor, then the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Pastor, in the 2007 bestselling book “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada,” was dubbed “the father of the North American Union” for his influence on the CFR report having had on a tripartite summit meeting between heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada culminating in President George W. Bush illegally declaring without congressional approval the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
It would also involve the United States, Canada and Mexico entering into an exchange rate mechanism for a proposed single currency known as the amero, akin to the failing euro within the eurozone of the European Union today.
True to Tyler’s word, Heidi Cruz is listed as one of 31 members of the Task Force on the Future of North America, which further specifies that she served under George W. Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the director of the Latin America office at the U.S. Treasury Department and as special assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. trade representative.
Prior to government service, Mrs. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City. She is not currently listed as a member in the present CFR roster.
When reading the 2005 document, Mrs. Cruz’s recommendations appear on pages 33-34 of CFR’s “Building a North American Community” under a paragraph that included “Additional and Dissenting Views” that contended economic investment must be led by the private sector, not government.
The critical point in Mrs. Cruz’s commentary includes the following:
“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, 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 funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”
Sen. Cruz’s interview with Derrick Broze of the Conscious Resistance is available for viewing immediately below, conducted in January 2012, after Mrs. Cruz had left the CFR.
The lecture during which Sen. Cruz attacked the CFR as “a pernicious nest of vipers” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty” is embedded below courtesy of Ben Smith at Politico. Then senatorial candidate Ted Cruz is heard drawing a broad round of applause to his attack on CFR. after declaring “I’ve spent a lifetime fighting to defend our sovereignty and I think that’s exactly what we ought to do.”
Politico confirmed through an unnamed CFR official Mrs. Cruz had been an active CFR member at the time under a five-year “term membership.”
Said Cruz’s 2012 senatorial campaign spokesman James Bernsen,
“It was never the main point of that debate and this race isn’t about the CFR, this race is about who’s going be the best senator from Texas. Other people are trying to change the debate away from who would be the best senator because I think Ted’s message is resonating.”
Cruz claimed the “attack” by his opponents, chiefly then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, suggested he would be “less than a full-throated defender of U.S. sovereignty.” Cruz insisted Lt. Gen. Dewhurst’s chief objective was to divide conservative and tea party voters, a rich irony given he was the lone candidate to have stood up against the U.N. in defending U.S. sovereignty.
Cruz’s biggest case during his tenure as Texas’ solicitor general was Medellin v. Texas in 2008, where he emphasized how he opposed President George W. Bush.
“I went before the Supreme Court and said no president has the constitutional authority to give away U.S. sovereignty.”
The case involved the Bush administration supporting a U.N. International Court of Justice ruling that year for 51 Mexican illegal immigrants on death row in Texas having been deprived of rights after not being permitted to seek assistance or advice from the Mexican consulate after their arrest. WND reported in July 2008 that the order from the U.N. court arrived only weeks prior to Texas administering a scheduled lethal injection for Jose Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of gang raping and murdering two girls in Texas.
Tyler expanded on Sen. Cruz’s claim, citing he had “fought and won a landmark ruling for U.S. sovereignty” against “90 foreign nations and the president of the United States to ensure the supremacy of U.S. legal system against encroachment by international treaties and rulings of a World Court.”
In the Medellin v. Texas Supreme Court Case, Ted Cruz won a ruling about American sovereignty. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that any decisions by the International Court of Justice were not binding in U.S. courts, that the president of the United States had no authority to impose U.N. court decisions to reverse or otherwise amend decisions reached by a duly constituted and administered Texas state criminal court; and finally, the rule of intentional criminal law in accordance to the United Nations does not apply to the United States of America because it is an international, non-sovereign governing body.
Neither Ted Cruz, nor his wife, can be considered a globalist in any sense of the word. They are strong American nationalists who fight for the sovereignty of the United States.