Replies

That is a lie. And you are pushing leftwing talking points.

Cruz initially supported fast track (TPA), because that is how it's been done for 80 years, and because he is for free trade and thought it would open the doors to grow the economy and create jobs. When he realized he was being lied to, hence why he called McConnell a liar, he withdrew his support and he did NOT vote for TPA. He was always against TPP (the actual trade deal). Read more detail here

Cruz has NEVER been for open borders. NEVER. He has always opposed amnesty. He has always opposed legalizing illegals. If you are trying to spin his stance on the amendment to the Gang of 8 bill, then you haven't been paying attention. He opposed the bill, and he introduced an amendment to allow illegal aliens to gain legal status as long as they never became citizens with the right to vote. He did so to show that Democrats were more interested in new votes than in helping illegal aliens. He also did so to show there were conditions under which conservatives would accept immigration reform. That is the story Cruz is telling, and that is exactly how it happened.

There's no conspiracy, explicitly no proposal for a North American Union in the source document, and it's not even clear that Heidi Cruz was all that supportive of the conclusions of the report. It's all a patchwork of irrational fear and ignorant assumptions with no substance to it whatever. Yet I still see many conservatives who might otherwise support Ted Cruz' run for the Senate repeating this story at face value without ever having looked into the utter lack of truth behind it.

Although the proposals in the paper are a mild call for general hemispheric economic cooperation with no formal structure, the conspiracy-inclined have interpreted it as a sinister conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty and combine us into a single union with Canada and Mexico. They are inherently suspicious of the Council on Foreign Relations, despite its repeated claims to be politically neutral and solely interested in studying issues objectively. It has become a lynchpin in globalist conspiracy theories and anything associated with it immediately looks more sinister in some eyes.

The paper is basically benign, pointing to ways that the nations of North America could work together through free markets and reducing trade barriers to spread more success and raise up the economies of the poorer countries. In its concluding section it says:

"North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty."

Which certainly doesn't sound all that terrible, what with acknowledging how different North America is from Europe, promoting market solutions instead of government and explicitly rejecting the idea of a "confederation or union" while promoting respect for national sovereignty. It's almost like the conspiracy theorists never read the document, or gave up after the title and wrote a fantasy version in their heads based solely on the title and their obsession with the CFR.

Admittedly, there are plenty of bad ideas in the report. It's full of proposals for government managed trade and incentive programs and inter-governmental cooperation for regulation and security. It's all stuff which makes sense if you think government is the way to solve problems, but not something which would resonate with true conservatives. Yet the big irony here is that it appears that Heidi Cruz doesn't even agree with those aspects of the report for which she is being blamed.

Heidi Cruz' role in all of this was as one of a large panel of readers and her sole identifiable contribution to the project is a one-paragraph response in the final appendix in which she says:

"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."

The whole idea that Heidi Cruz is part of some grand conspiracy is patently ridiculous. It's guilt by association and by innuendo from people who donâ€™t understand the CFR or the report which they so revile and who assume that anyone who may have been in a room with Robert Pastor or William Weld must be some sort of globalist stooge. The reality is that the CFR draws on a diverse pool of experts, most of whom have very little involvement in the organization and that its output, like this paper, tends to be in the form of general suggestions with no force behind them which no one ever really acts on. We certainly aren't plunging headlong into any kind of regional union on the basis of one paper which no one seems to have read.