What's more important? Both

--

Part 13 of The Post-Constitutional Election is here.

The overload factor may be high, but the answer to my title-question is all of the above and more.

1) "More" includes Jeb Bush's endorsement of Ted Cruz this week, making official the merger between Bush, Inc. and the Cruz campaign, which began when the core of the Jeb Bush campaign finance committee, including the tainted Neil Bush (also globalist Boyden Gray) moved over to Team Cruz. Cruz supporters, from Rush Limbaugh (undeclared) to Kellyanne Conway, explain this as proof of how "True Conservative" Cruz has co-opted GOPe. I don't think so.

If that were so, why, as the Texas Tribune reported, did Ted Cruz make that first phone call to Charles Foster, a Houston immigration super-lawyer, to get the Bush, Inc. ball rolling? Foster is an active advocate of mass immigration. His law firm motto is "Fostering Global Immigration Solutions." He actually supports Obama's executive amnesty. According to the Texas Tribune, Foster "wasn't thinking about immediately supporting any candidate" after Jeb Bush dropped out. But he gave Cruz's phone call some thought, and, as Politico reported, "spent part of Monday afternoon writing a letter to other Bush alums and former donors urging them to come on board with Cruz to stop Trump." 

Must have been an interesting phone call from Cruz to Foster. I wonder what they talked about? If Cruz is as tough as Trump on Foster's main issue of immigration, why would Foster bother opening his wallet (and his friends') again? 

Since writing about Foster here, I have learned that in the 2012 presidential election cycle, Foster donated $500 to Mitt Romney for President -- and $16,700 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also made a series of small donations ($250) to congressional campaigns of multiple US Representatives, all Democrats except one Republican (including Sylvestre Reyes, Lloyd Doggett, Republican Kay Grainger) all of whom are notable for having received ZERO percent ratings from the immigration watchdog group FAIR. Foster also gave $250 to Act Blue, "a non-profit, building fund-raising technology for the left."      

For the left? And this is the guy Cruz reaches out to for money? What's the deal?

Did Cruz and Foster discuss immigration? Did Cruz remind Foster of their work together crafting candidate George W. Bush's immigration policy back in 2000, and of Cruz's longtime support for streamlining and also expanding legal immigration? Cruz has been quiet about this sort of thing since Trump entered the race, but this background would surely make him preferable to Foster than Trump, who, in the last debate, pointedly declared his opposition to the H1B visa program, for example. It's not hard to imagine a Cruz pitch to Foster: A Cruz administration would be infinitely preferable to Mr. Global Immigration Solutions over a Trump administration in which immigration restrictionists and anti-globalists such as Sen. Sessions and his former aide-turned-Trump adviser Stephen Miller would be bound to influence or craft policy.

But we're supposed to assume Cruz co-opted Bush, Inc. with pure "conservatism."

I predict we will see increasing evidence of the reverse, as Cruz more openly reverts to "free" trade, global-immigration-solutions-compatible rhetoric.

2) Already this week, Ted Cruz  introduced what I think is a new critique of Trump as "isolationist" for questioning the expenditures, terms and purpose of NATO -- a good opening question, in my view, by the way (also, I saw, Sen Tom Cotton's). "Isolationist," of course, is that misnomer for anyone who does not see the entire globe at the USA's first line of defense; it is most often bandied about by people who seek to "democratize" everywhere but primary states won by Donald Trump, and who embrace mass migration and "free" trade" as The Way -- i.e., by the neoconservatized GOPe establishment interventionists/Bush-Clinton-Obama Democrats.

More to the "coincidental" point, "Trump as isolationist" was a Jeb Bush theme, back when Cruz himself was being accused of same. Even former first lady Laura Bush has gotten into the act lately, speaking against the United States becoming "xenophobic and isolationist." Now Cruz?

Interesting.

3) Before we could begin to ponder such things, wifegate/The National Enquirer smashed into each other. 

First, National Enquirer. Ted Cruz is Mr. Traditional Marriage, Christian conservative, etc. If it is true he is at the same time an adulterer, he is, among other things, a hypocrite of the most epic proportions. If it not true, I hope he and the women in the story become gigantically wealthy from successful lawsuits against The National Enquirer. In the meantime, I can't help thinking that Cruz is already revealed as a hypocrite, for example, for being the constitutional originalist who claims his Canadian birth makes him "natural born" in the originalist sense -- which is nonsense. Meanwhile, National Enquirer has a notable record of scoops on the political sexbeat in particular (Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards come to mind), so the tabloid's charges are serious enough to regard without, as they say, clutching pearls and passing out. Time will tell.

About Wifegate. After the hyperventilation subsides and we move on to the next thing, I hope it will be seen that Melania's modeling career, her haute-stay-at-home-mom-dom, her odyssey as a legal immigrant, etc. are central to our understanding of her husband and his campaign, just as Heidi's high-powered political and banking career is central to our understanding to her husband and his campaign. In Heidi's case particularly, just think of the Hill and Bill "blueplate special" we were all served back in the 1992.  

4) The real "beans" on Heidi Cruz is that she is the daughter of medical missionaries, living part of her childhood in Africa. It is not hard to see the leap into policy-making and international banking that opens borders and creates union where sovereign states and border walls once existed. This is borne out in her work inside the Bush administration and also as part of a Council on Foreign Relations task force of 31 co-authors that produced "Building a North American Community" in May 2005.

As noted in her task force bio, Heidi Cruz "served in the Bush White House under Dr. 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." These positions, along with her banking experience, perfectly suited Heidi Cruz for this CFR study on how better to "integrate" the economies, workforces, security infrastructures, education systems, etc., of Canada, the United States and Mexico -- or in globalspeak,"North America."

The task force recommendations, which would effectively abolish the USA, include:

Establish a common perimeter by 2010.

Develop a North American border pass.

Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America (remember, that's Canada, US, and Mexico).

Spread the benefits of Economic Development ... "by promoting better economic opportunities in Mexico ... Mexico should also be recognized as a priority within the international development programs of both the United States and Canada ..."

Establish a North American fund for infrastucture and human capital

Establish a seamless North American Market for Trade

Increase Labor mobility within North America

Expand temporary migrant workers programs

Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico

Mutual recognition of professional standards and degrees

Create a major scholarship fund for undergraduate and graduate students to study in the other North American countries ... To illustrate the scale of this proposal, it would lead to some 60,000 Mexican students studying in the United States and Canada ... 

Streamline immigration and labor mobility rules

Encourage professional associations to develop shared standards to encourage short-term professioal labor mobility

We get the terrifying anti-nation-state-drift. This is the framework of dissolution of the United States as most of us think we know it. 

Fourteen task force members, who included co-chairman Robert Pastor, the so-called father of North American Union, added comments in their own names.

Heidi Cruz was one of them. Here is what she wrote:

I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America.

When asked about Heidi's stint at CFR in January 2012, Ted Cruz described Heidi as "one of the few conservatives" there "trying to push for conservative outcomes."

I don't know what else Heidi did at CFR besides work on this task force, but there is nothing remotely "conservative" or constitutional-conservative about the CFR's North American Union blueprint that she worked on and supported in toto. It is a radical plan for the globalistic reconception of our nation. ( This video provides an excellent overview of the hemispheric agreements undertaken by Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush -- mainly without input from We, the People -- that have brought us to this point.)

For the record, here is the balance of Heidi Cruz's comments. Not too surprisingly for an investment banker, she goes on to emphasize the importance of ensuring the role of private sector investment in carrying out Task Force recommendations: 

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.

Ted Cruz has famously called CFR a "nest of vipers," but does he agree with his Goldman Sachs wife about this report, about any of its recommendations? Might we expect Heidi Cruz to take a job in a Ted Cruz administration? Hillary Clinton oversaw heathcare. Would Heidi Cruz oversee North American integration? 

Have such questions been asked? Would Ted deflect them as attacks on his wife?  

It was Derrick Broze who asked Ted Cruz about his "family connection" to the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2012. Broze's video is fascinating to watch as Ted answers the question as an attack on his wife.

Bonus: here is one more entry in the Cruz-CFR genre, a bizarre Rush Limbaugh clip (one of many by now in which he plays defense for Cruz). In it, Rush hah-hah-hah-belittles a caller who has brought up three valid points indicating Cruz is in fact an establishment-rooted candidate.

Clearly, more and bigger beans need to be spilled.