Four Dumb Reasons for Not Voting for Ted Cruz (Part 2)

Heidi Cruz & Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the North American Union

The Republican Party now has the first opportunity it has had since Ronald Reagan of nominating a true conservative as its Presidential candidate. Should Senator Ted Cruz win the Republican nomination, Americans, in the general election, will have an actual choice between a limited government, constitutional conservative in Ted Cruz and a pro-big government liberal in Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic party nominee. Those under the age of 40 have never even had the choice to vote for an actual conservative as President of the United States. The reason being is that, since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has typically chosen democrat-lite candidates as its nominee. Should this present opportunity pass, one wonders if the opportunity to nominate an actual conservative for President will ever present itself again.1


Yet, despite this unprecedented opportunity before them, the Republican Party is on the precipice of throwing it all away by instead opting to embrace the vision of Donald Trump, a lifelong Democrat and someone who only began speaking the conservative lingo around 2011, coincidentally when he began to become public about his presidential aspirations.2 Should Cruz become the nominee, most of the major polling data indicates that Cruz will trounce Hillary in the general election.3 Both establishment Republicans and Democrats well understand this. That is why the name of their game now is to preempt a Cruz Presidency by denying Cruz the Republican nomination at any cost.


This is sad enough. However, what is even sadder to observe is how some “conservatives” have become “useful idiots” for the left by disseminating on the internet and social media bizarre theories about Cruz in an attempt to dissuade their fellow conservatives from voting for him. The term “useful idiots” was originally used by Marxists in reference to those who could be used to propagate the ideology of Marxism and yet would be dispensed with at a later, opportune time after they had served their purpose in helping start the Marxist revolution. When I first began to be exposed to some of these strange notions, I initially thought that they were so far afield that it would be inappropriate to even dignify them by commenting upon them. However, recently I have received several inquiries asking me if these theories are accurate. Obviously then, they are gaining traction in the minds of many. Four such theories come to mind. What I hope to briefly demonstrate is that these theories are built on the flimsiest of evidence and thus constitute insufficient grounds in the minds of any rational thinker for rejecting the Presidential candidacy of Ted Cruz. If people end up not voting for Cruz, then it should be on the basis of substance rather than based upon these silly theories. In our prior post, we noted that a Cruz Presidency should not be rejected merely on the grounds that Cruz has been endorsed by unorthodox Christian teachers like Kenneth Copeland and that Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, is a Dominionist. In this post, we will examine the alleged connection between Ted Cruz’s wife Heidi Cruz to Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the North American Union.


Heidi Cruz and Goldman Sachs, the CFR, and the NAU

Image Source: Wikipedia

Image Source: Wikipedia

The third theory currently being used to undermine Ted Cruz’ Presidential run is that there are concerns over Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi Cruz. Critics go on and on pontificating about her one time employment with Goldman Sachs as well as her role in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) with its advocacy of the North American Union (NAU).4 Opponents of Ted Cruz note Heidi’s connection to Goldman Sachs in an attempt to demonstrate that Cruz is really an insider and somehow partly responsible for the financial meltdown and bailout of 2008. Yet, even if this dubious connection could be established, Trump is hardly a better candidate in this regard since Trump publicly supported the TARP bailout.5

What about Heidi Cruz’s involvement in the CFR? Cruz’s critics like to use this point to prove that Cruz really is a globalist at heart. Here is my response. It is possible to be a member of an organization without advocating everything that that particular organization stands for. For example, just because I, as a licensed California attorney, am a member of the California Bar, does not automatically mean that I endorse all of the policy positions of that particular organization. Rather, I am a member in order to maintain my professional license as well as to keep abreast educationally of trends impacting the legal profession. Similarly, as a credentialed theologian, I also have many colleagues who are members of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). Yet, the ETS made a decision a few years back to admit Open Theists (those who dispute the exhaustive foreknowledge of God) into their organization as members. The decision was a controversial one even causing long-time ETS members, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, to leave the organization. Are we to conclude that all those that remain in ETS are now adherents of Open Theism? Obviously not, since Open Theism continues to this day to be a point of controversy within the ETS. My point is simply this: mere membership in an organization does not in and of itself indicate agreement with everything that an organization does or stands for. By pointing to Heidi Cruz’s involvement in the CFR, people are assuming her agreement with everything the CFR does, and that, to my mind, seems like an unfair and unsupported conclusion. It should be pointed out that conservative and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton was also formerly involved in the CFR.6 As an outspoken nationalist and constitutionalist, his mere involvement in the organization in no way implies his agreement with all that the CFR does or stands for.


But did not Heidi Cruz while in the CFR play an instrumental role in the advocacy of the NAU, which is a globalist plan to strip America of her sovereignty through an international merger to eventually take place between Canada, Mexico, and the United States? While Heidi Cruz was apparently a one-time member of the CFR and the CFR did indeed advocate the NAU in one of its past policy papers, Heidi Cruz’s contribution to the NAU was negligible at best. The blog The Common Truth provides some much needed balance on this topic:

Heidi Cruz was the daughter of missionaries who spent a lot of time overseas helping people and bringing them not only relief, but the Christian values we embrace. She eventually went on to graduate from Harvard (again, on her own dime and not from some fabulously rich family). Heidi worked for the Bush administration on economic policy, eventually becoming the director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in 2003. In 2005, she joined Goldman Sachs, serving as a private wealth manager. That means handling accounts of over $40 million and giving investment direction. She took a leave of absence without pay for her husband’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Allegations about her supporting and contributing to a New World Order are completely false and the whole smear against her was done in Ted’s Senate campaign by the opposition. Heidi was an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations which reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community” which was largely authored by Robert Pastor and is the presumed origin of the idea of the North American Union, though Pastor has repeatedly denied that it contains anything like that. Heidi Cruz’s 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 funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.” So basically, her role here is to say that free markets and free trade are the answer to greater regional prosperity. Amazing. Republican principles in a few sentences and suddenly she is accused of being part of the NWO?…Please do some research on your own. If you see something negative about Ted or Heidi, I am willing to bet the real story is quite different than those using it to smear a great patriot couple.7

In fact the entire attempt to smear Ted Cruz by associating his wife with the advocacy of the NAU appears to have originated with liberal Republican David Dewhurst, who was Ted Cruz’s Republican primary opponent in his 2012 race for the United States Senate.8


Cruz’s opponents like to point to the alleged connection between Cruz’s wife and Goldman Sachs, the CFR, and the NAU in order to paint Cruz as a globalist who merely gives lip service to the Constitution in public while privately scheming to undermine it in private. Yet, is this really an accurate caricature of Ted Cruz? Is Ted Cruz really a globalist at heart? One becomes suspicious of these attacks against Cruz since they are built around insinuations against his father and wife. Why not allow the candidate’s personal record to speak for itself? Why drag family members into the argument. The reason this must be done is that there is nothing in Cruz’s life itself that would give any impression that he is a Dominionist or globalist. Thus, family members must be dragged into the equation in order to make these arguments seem plausible. Interestingly, Trump’s public statements, especially related to his desire to promote CFR President Richard Haass, seem far more sympathetic to the CFR agenda in comparison to Cruz’s public statements, which have openly criticized the CFR.9


However, the complete record indicates that Cruz is anything but a globalist. This fact becomes readily apparent by understanding his role in the Supreme Court case Medellin v. Texas.10 Jerome Corsi summarizes the facts of the case as follows:

A legal case that demonstrated the extent to which U.S. laws are being compromised by the political and economic agenda to integrate with Mexico involved a man named Jose Medellin. At issue was a death penalty verdict in Texas for Medellin, who confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two teenage girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena of Houston. Both were sodomized and raped for over an hour by Medellin and eight of his Mexican illegal – alien gang members. The girls made a fatal mistake. After a pool party that ended late, they decided to take a shortcut home by the railroad tracks, trying to make one of the girl’s midnight curfew. In the hour-long torture, one of the girls was hit so hard her teeth were knocked out of her head. Medellin and his gang buddies strangled the girls to death with their belts. Medellin then boasted of keeping a Mickey Mouse watch from one of the girls to give to his girlfriend as a souvenir of their crime. Medellin and four of his cohorts were convicted of a capital crime and sent to Texas’s death row. While Medellin was still pleading for his life, one of these criminals had already been executed for the crime. Almost unbelievably, the Bush Justice Department argued in 2008 at the U.S. Supreme Court that a Mexican murderer on death row should be given a new trial at the demand of the U.N.’s international Court of Justice in The Hague. Why? All because Medellin was not allowed to first call the Mexican consulate when he was arrested. In other words, the Bush Administration argued Medellin’s confession should be thrown out because years after the crime he complained his civil rights had been violated when the Mexican consulate was not invited to take on his defense. The Supreme Court had already rejected Medellin’s complaint once and the Texas Appellate court had rule that under the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has no authority to tell Texas criminal courts to stand down so international law could apply to determine the outcome of the case. Medellin appealed the Texas appellate court decision and the case was sent back to the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time. In 2008 President Bush instructed the solicitor general to argue alongside Medellin’s attorney that international law has supremacy over U.S. criminal law, and the U.S. treaty obligations under the Vienna Convention trump Texas criminal law. If President Bush’s argument had prevailed, Medellin’s confession could have been thrown out, with the result that there might not have been enough evidence to retry him. He might have been released despite his confessions to the heinous crime. What was at stake was the very foundation of U.S. judicial sovereignty. The World Court hates the death penalty, and Mexico was loath to see even one of its worst criminals in the United States be put to death for capital crimes. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bush’s arguments and Medellin was executed despite the strong protests of the Mexican government. Yet, we still have to ask: if Medellin’s appeal had been successful, would law-enforcement officers in the United States have to call the Mexican consulate every time a Mexican, either legally or illegally in the United States, is arrested? Borders opened under the banner of free trade end up producing situations where the sovereignty of U.S. law is ultimately challenged.11

Who was the lawyer that argued this case before the Supreme Court favoring the sovereignty of the State of Texas over against the New World Order? Who bravely and courageously argued and stood on principle against the imposition of international law upon America and Texas? Who stood courageously against the globalism emanating from not a Democratic Administration, but rather from a Republican one? It was Ted Cruz as he was functioning in his role as the Solicitor General for the State of Texas. Cruz advocacy in the Medellin case demonstrates amply that he is not a globalist. In fact, he is so opposed to globalism that he is willing to fight against it even when it is found within his own political party. Why would a globalist argue against and successfully defeat the globalist position in such an important case? Those that contend that Cruz is a globalist on the basis of impugning his wife’s involvement in the CFR are never able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question.

Ted Cruz - Photo by Gage Skidmore

Ted Cruz – Photo by Gage Skidmore

All of this to say, that if the voters want to reject Cruz, and also perhaps our last chance of ever electing a constitutional conservative to the Presidency, then let it be for substantive reasons. Please do not reject him based upon specious theories ultimately emanating from the left and mindlessly regurgitated by “useful idiots” on the right. Senator Ted Cruz deserves careful consideration by all American voters in this important Presidential election cycle since the man is not unorthodox despite Kenneth Copeland’s personal endorsement of his candidacy and he is not a Dominionist or a globalist. In our next installment, we will examine a final theory that is being used to bring down Ted Cruz’s presidential candidacy: namely, that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for the Presidency since he was born in Canada.


(To Be Continued…)



  1. []
  2. []
  3. []
  4. []
  5. []
  6. []
  7. []
  8. []
  9. []
  10. Medellín v. Texas 552 U.S. 491 (2008). []
  11. Jerome R. Corsi, America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), 115-16. []

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)