The Cruzes and the global agenda

Here’s an informative piece from the OD blog about Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz and wife Heidi.

It’s been reported for some time that Mrs. Cruz is a member of certain well-known globalist organizations, and that she has long been deeply involved in political and governmental issues as her husband. Some have tried to dismiss this as unimportant, implying that her views (which are evidently globalist) do not necessarily represent her husband’s. The OD post makes the point that the two of them have been regarded as a partnership, not as two individuals whose viewpoints may not coincide.

In 2004, George W. Bush was running for reelection and a book was published defending his “agenda of compassionate conservatism” called “Thank You, President Bush: Reflections on the War on Terror, Defense of the Family, and Revival of the Economy.” You can buy a used copy on Amazon for 1 cent. BOTH Ted Cruz and Heidi Cruz penned essays in this book in which they defended George W. Bush’s policies. Ted’s essay, “The Rise of Opportunity Conservatism,” foreshadowed the theme of his Senate career.’

The fact that they both seem to be committed ideologues in their causes (never a truly conservative characteristic) seems to me very reminiscent of the Clintons and their ‘co-president’ approach when in power.

In her essay in the above-mentioned book, Heidi Cruz argues for free trade, arguing its supposed benefits:

“…helping people deal with the challenges of change, building coalitions for trade and creating leverage in negotiations to maximize the opening of markets around the globe, enforcing the rules of the global trading system and defending America when others don’t play fair, and using trade to improve standards of living around the world.”

The italics in the last sentence above are mine. Free trade may improve standards of living for the Third World or other less-developed countries, but it has not improved our standard of living overall. A relative few might increase their personal wealth by ‘free trade’ but it has tended to lower wages for most — at least for those whose jobs have not been forever lost. Workers who once enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world, especially in proportion to their level of education, have in many cases been rendered permanently redundant. ‘Free trade’ is just one more means of wealth redistribution, as Heidi Cruz more or less admits in that quote. Are our trade policies supposed to benefit us, serve us, or are they meant, really, to ”improve standards of living around the world”, in her words?

If you believe that our government should set its policies based on benefiting the rest of the world, then you are a globalist or a ‘progressive’ ideologue, and you are certainly not a patriot, either an ethnopatriot or a plain old generic patriot.

I still don’t get what’s happened to Texans if they think that Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is one of them, or more specifically, that he has any connection to the Texas of old, the Texas that was, before the influx of Yankees and immigrants, illegal and legal. Count Ted among all those groups, actually. It used to be said by some Texans who disliked the Bush family, especially ‘Shrub’ as that old harridan Molly Ivins named  him, that they were mere ‘carpetbaggers’ and interlopers in Texas. I know I myself referred to them as such. But I suspect that many of todays Texans In Name Only (TINOs?) think that Cruz is a true Texan and native son, else why do they support him so strongly? I have never actually listened to the man speak; does he speak with an acquired Texas accent as George W. Bush did? At least GWB gave a fairly believable performance as a Texan, accent and all, and looked convincing clearing brush down on his Prairie Chapel Ranch.

Bush, ultimately, was a globalist and because his family decided to Hispanicize itself, a traitor to his country. I would say the same for Cruz, but the question is, what country really is his? Canada? If so, maybe that’s why he and Heidi are all-in for the North American Union. Or maybe it’s because of his Hispanic ancestry. Or maybe he and Heidi are both just born-again ”citizens of the world,” like all progressives.

A little biographical information from Heidi Wilson Cruz’s hometown news.

 

 

Advertisements

Dual citizenship?

The official story about presidential aspirant Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is that, admittedly, he was born outside the United States, in Canada, of a Cuban father and an American expatriate mother.

The official story states that Cruz, though born in Canada, had dual citizenship, (American by his mother’s status, and Canadian by birth). Then, the story goes, he became a naturalized American. However I’ve read comments online saying that he never was naturalized because he already has American citizenship through his American citizen mother, thus had no need to be naturalized. But still the story has been that he was a ‘dual citizen’ until fairly recently, when he renounced his Canadian citizenship or his dual citizenship.

This article, which seems to present good information, says that Canada has not allowed dual citizenship since 1970.

“From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.”

So if Cruz is not a native-born citizen, nor a ‘natural-born’ citizen born of two citizen parents, nor even a dual citizen, (which would, if he were, be a disqualification for the presidency anyway, under our law), what is his status?

More to the point, what is our status as the citizens and rightful heirs of our forefathers (“ourselves and our posterity“) if we no longer care whether our potential presidents are eligible for the office under our Constitution and our traditions? I think fewer and fewer people, with each passing year, understand our laws and our traditions, and fewer still can be bothered to care about the laws, much less to seek out the knowledge for themselves. If we end up, from now on,  with ‘strangers’ governing us, being ruled over by people who are not of us, then I suppose our fate will be deserved.