“Facebook” is in a dither about Heidi Cruz and her “efforts” to seek a dissolution of the U.S. in favor of the North American Union (NAU) with Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. as one nation. There have been Facebook comments that Ted Cruz wants to be the President of the NAU rather than the U.S.
I thought facts may come in handy, so I researched:
- Mrs. Ted Cruz
- Goldman Sachs
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
- CFR Report: “Building a North American Community” a report of an independent task force about a North American Union sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Mrs. Cruz is the Managing Director of Goldman Sachs’ Houston, TX operation. Goldman Sachs has a spotted and controversial past involved in the economics and monetary policy of this nation. Too many of its alumni have had very high positions in the running of our national government – at least far beyond their fair share in corporate America. You might say that these folks at Goldman Sachs make the establishment the “establishment”.
The Council on Foreign relations was started in 1921 by David Rockefeller and other well-off movers and shakers. Their mission according to their website is: “The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. Each of these functions makes CFR an indispensable resource in a complex world.” Read more at Council on Foreign Relations Website
Neither Heidi Cruz nor Ted Cruz appear on the CRF March 24, 2016 membership roster. However, Goldman Sachs is a founding Corporate Member of the CFR.
Mrs. Cruz, however, did participate in the CFR preparation of a report called “Building a North American Community” single click on the title and then open the URL for a copy or to read it. Mrs. Cruz participated as a Task Force member on the report and as such she has endorsed the report. as A participant, she was able to post a dissenting view or add to the report. She did not dissent, this is important, but she did add to the report. The report was essentially a smart helpful report, but fell short – I read it. I my opinion it focused too much on lifting Mexico’s socio-economic status and did not focus on the effects of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), a precursor of NAU, which has helped Mexico, but many say at the expense of the U.S. economy, jobs, and future economic growth.
“…Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely...”
“…The strategy needs to be integrated in its approach, recognizing the extent to which progress on each individual component enhances achievement of the others. Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security. North American solutions could ultimately serve as the basis for initiatives involving other like-minded countries, either in our hemisphere or more broadly…”
“…Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America…”
Sounds very much like European style open borders to me – red letters and underlines were added for emphasis. How is that working out for them?
Mrs. Cruz’s addition to the report, not dissent, was:“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…Building a North American Community 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.”
Heidi S. Cruz
While Mrs. Cruz has a positive addition to the report, nowhere does she concern herself with the damage being done to the U.S. economy by NAFTA and the loads of illegal immigrants, affecting our employment and our schools, hospitals, jails, and other public facilities and organizations; which is costing the U.S. taxpayer multiple billions of dollars.
More importantly, this report and opinion, even support, by Mrs. Cruz appears to be diametrically opposed to Ted Cruz’s positions, yet she called his campaign “our campaign” in a recent press conference.
The questions to be considered are “Where do Heidi Cruz and Senator Ted Cruz really stand and in what do they individually and together believe?”. Isn’t it time for the media pundits to find out and sort this out, otherwise the voter may just have to bypass the Senator at the voting booth. The apparent dichotomy is of serious concern.