Wednesday, March 16, 2016

$10 Mil to End “Diaper Disparity” after Free Diaper Laws Fail Twice in Congress

Judicial Watch ^ | March 16, 2016 

On two different occasions Congress has rejected laws to give “needy” families government-subsidized diapers—in addition to free food and medical care—but President Obama is determined to make it happen, allocating $10 million in taxpayer money to the highly unpopular cause. The multi-million-dollar initiative is being promoted by the White House as essential to eradicate a national “diaper divide” and the goal is to abolish “diaper disparity” by expanding access to affordable diapers for America’s poorest families.
Behind this high-priced mission is Cecilia Muñoz, the White House Domestic Policy Director. A renowned open borders lobbyist in Washington D.C., Muñoz was vice president of National Council of La Raza (NCLR) before Obama brought her on as White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A few years later the president promoted her to the more powerful and prestigious post of top advisor on domestic issues. Muñoz wields tremendous power, coordinating the policy-making process and supervising the execution of domestic policy in the White House. If she wants Uncle Sam to give poor families free diapers, it’s safe to bet that it will happen even if Congress has twice nixed the scandalous idea.
To get the ball rolling, the administration announced this month that it plans to spend $10 million to “test effective ways to get diapers to families in need and document the health improvements that result.” Because it’s unlikely that Congress will pass a law to accomplish this, Muñoz admits the administration is getting creative and using every tool it has to help solve this dire problem. The low-income families that will benefit from the administration’s diaper initiative already get essentials like food and health insurance from the government through a variety of federal programs such as Medicaid, the nutrition program known as Women Infants and Children (WIC) and food stamps. Diapers are just as imperative to babies’ health, according to Muñoz, who says that “no family should have to choose between keeping their babies healthy and keeping the lights or heat on.”
The costly initiative comes just months after Congress resoundingly rejected the second measure in four years to grant poor families government-subsidized diapers. The legislation, Hygiene Assistance for Families of Infants and Toddlers Act, was introduced in late November and would have allowed states to provide diapers or a diaper subsidy for low-income families. One of the federal lawmakers behind the measure, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, says one in three families struggle to provide diapers for their children yet they are a basic need. “No parents should have to choose between buying diapers for their child or buying groceries,” according to the veteran Democrat legislator. “Diapers are expensive, but necessary, to keep children healthy and in daycare, giving their parents the freedom they need to work.”
Years earlier DeLauro introduced similar legislation that also got slammed in Congress. It was called Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act and Judicial Watch wrote about it when it was creatively presented in October, 2011 as an economic development and health measure. Without an adequate supply of diapers, a child cannot attend day care and therefore “working mothers have a harder time getting work and can fall even further behind,” according to the economic development argument of the failed law. The congresswoman also asserted that infrequent diaper changes can lead to diaper rash, increased risk of urinary tract and skin infections and can even cause outbreaks of viral meningitis, dysentery, and Hepatitis A. At the time the veteran legislator was a ranking member of the House Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee and the measure was expected to gain traction though it never stood a chance.

Autonomous braking to be in most cars by 2022

Associated Press ^ | Mar. 16, 2016 12:48 PM EDT | Tom Krisher 

Major automakers and the U.S. government have reached agreement to make automatic emergency braking standard equipment on most cars by 2022, two people briefed on the deal said.
The agreement will be announced Thursday by automakers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Automakers will phase in the equipment on nearly all models except some with older electronic capabilities and some with manual transmissions, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because terms of the agreement haven’t been announced.
Automatic emergency braking uses cameras, radar and other sensors to see objects in the way and slow or stop a vehicle if the driver doesn’t react. The technology already is available as an option on many models, but automakers are struggling with how to fit it into current product plans that might not be ready for the electronics. Making the feature standard equipment on nearly all cars will speed adoption of the technology. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

In the Name of Lenin, What’s a ‘Democratic Socialist?’

American Thinker ^ | 16 Mar, 2016 | J. Robert Smith 

It’s a curious quirk of leftists like Bern Sanders: qualifying “socialist” with “democratic.” Of course, it’s designed to make socialism less menacing and more appealing to Americans, who, at least, have some vague recollection of the “Better dead than red” Cold War trope. But the modifier “democratic” should raise suspicions, and not in ways flattering to Bern and his red ilk.

If socialism is so wonderful, so about equality and justice, so respecting of the individual and his place in a collectivist system -- so inherently democratic -- why the need for the qualifier? You mean to say there’s undemocratic socialism afoot? A system of rulers and subjects? Of elites whose superiority confers on them the right to chart the course for the masses? Who won’t blink about using force when the masses get uppity?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s Misuse of Special Operations Forces Has Led to Larger ISIS Threat

Daily Signal ^ | 3/15/16 | Steven Bucci

President Barack Obama is misusing our most elite forces.
Since the onset of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS) The Heritage Foundation has called for a greater use of American Special Operations Forces (SOF). This includes the Navy SEALs, and Army Rangers.
Special Operations Forces are designed to conduct high end, politically charged warfare, and to execute better than anyone in the world (which is what we need against ISIS).
It seems that Obama has finally stated to heed this call. So what’s the problem now?
The administration has ramped up the use of Special Operations Forces, but they have neglected to adjust another critical aspect of the approach Heritage’s analysts have recommended.
This is the utilization of a much more robust air campaign to go with the elite forces on the ground. Special Operations Forces are able to be force multipliers—low numbers in the fight, but big results—because they can provide targets to aircraft, advise on the correct mix of munitions, guide the ordinance to the specific targets, and provide accurate bomb damage assessment.
These skills will only have an effect if there had been an orders of magnitude increase in the numbers of airstrikes involved.
Presently, coalition forces (almost all American) are making one to two dozen sorties a day against ISIS. To a civilian, that may seem like a lot, trust me, it is not. In previous air campaigns, the numbers were in the hundreds.
Additionally, a sortie means a plane takes off, flies to the target area, and returns. If one looks closely, nearly 70 percent of the sorties are returning with their ordinance still on the plane. They do not drop the bombs.
This can be attributed to the ridiculously restrictive rules of engagement imposed by the White House leadership. While there are always going to be missions that get waved off to protect against inordinate civilian casualties, strikes against ISIS are not occurring because they don’t want to spill oil on the sand (no negative environmental effects).
That is ineffectual and unnecessary.
Another development has come to light showcasing the misuse of our special operations assets. It seems that the command in Iraq has been providing Russia the exact locations of American special operations units operating in Syria.
The reason for this breach of operations security? So the Russians will not inadvertently target them with air strikes.
To some this may seem prudent, and it would be if Russia were an ally. They are not. Russia and its proxy the Assad regime are striving to find and kill the exact units our special operations units are training and advising. Does anyone think the information given to the Russians will not be used to crush the very forces our people are supporting?
If the Obama administration wants to protect American soldiers from possible Russian air attacks, they need to step up and tell the Russians that the U.S. will not allow Russia to fly at all in the northern and western parts of Syria, under threat of retaliation. The Russians will understand that sort of “force protection”.
Frankly, even if the Obama administration did do this, it is no longer clear that this sort of response will be enough to stop ISIS.
The dribble of military “antibiotic” used so far may have only built a “super virus” that cannot be stopped by anything but a much larger response.
Exactly what Obama fears most, may be what he has created.

Top 10 Reasons For Not Having Kids

For the umpteenth time: The hour glass of your fertility turns upside down at 30, and five years later it’s all but drained.
Gavin McInnes
You know that commercial where the guy goes, “I am never getting married,” then he says he’ll never have kids or move to the suburbs? Most of us suburban dads are embarrassed by how perfectly that imitates our lives.
I was so adamant about not having kids as a young man, I tried to get my tubes tied at the tender age of 21. Now that I have three, my only regret is waiting so long. I wish I could have had five. You’ll hear a lot of parents lament that they had too few or didn’t have a boy or had all boys, but you’ll never hear them say, “I wish I hadn’t had a kid.” Whenever I see couples without kids, I plead with them to change their ways because, almost without exception, the ones who refuse to breed are the ones who would make the best parents. Here are the same ten excuses they always make and why they’re wrong.

1. Ew, Diapers? Gross

Do you wipe your own ass? This is the same thing, only much smaller. You’ll be surprised how un-gross changing diapers is. I knew our third would be our last, and each diaper change was getting closer to the last I would ever do. I coveted each chocolate-covered nutsack like I was the White House pastry chef, and when the last diaper went into the trash, I cried like a baby.

2. I Hate Kids

No, you hate other people’s kids. We all do. These are your kids. They don’t just look like you, they are you. Have you noticed that, as you get older, your dad goes from cruel tyrant to just a wrinkled version of you? It’s the same with kids, but in reverse. If my son screws up a drawing, he rips it to pieces and hurls it into the garbage in a rage, where it lands next to the crumpled notes I just threw in there in a similar rage.

3. I Just Don’t See the Appeal

Do me a favor. Smell a baby’s breath and get back to me.

4. Only Egomaniacs Have Kids

“Are you so obsessed with yourself you need to make more of you?” a friend recently asked so I’d stop hassling him about being childless. You can phrase it any way you want, but the biological imperative is the most intrinsically human thing you can possibly do. It’s the meaning of life.
As far as it being selfish, trust me, you are way too busy running around praising, reprimanding, hugging, and giving time-outs to gloat at your prodigy. That’s something only the childless have time to think about.

5. I’m Too Selfish

This is the opposite of the egomaniac excuse, and it’s often followed by, “I can barely feed myself.” Don’t fret, virtue signalers. You will be able to summon the strength to prevent your child from starving to death. It’s an instinct that goes back at least a quarter of a million years. Besides, they scream so unbelievably loud at night, you can’t possibly ignore them.
After that, they learn to walk and develop incredible strategies to avoid being ignored, like growing big eyes and saying the darndest things such as “The Bob Marley has begun” and “Scientists say, when you read a book to love, you just fall apart.”

6. The World Is Overpopulated

Er, I don’t know how to say this without sounding like a eugenics nut, but it’s about quality, not quantity. Yes, India has dead bodies floating down the river. Your local public school having yet another kid named Cody is not going to cause global warming.
These kinds of myths gain traction because of the death of math. We want to save all the kittens and rescue all the pups and kill all the babies, because we think there are a finite number of each. There are seven billion of us. Your gestures aren’t “thinking globally.” They’re not thinking at all. If you go on to the beach and wash one grain of sand, you’re not “doing your part.” You’re wasting your time. We live in the safest, healthiest, and most prosperous nation ever. If anyone should feel good about creating more people here, it’s you. And if you don’t, someone else will.

7. My Parents Were Horrible and I Don’t Want to Repeat That

Yeah, your lineage has been polluted by the crappy parent gene, and you’re doing the world a service by cutting it off. In fact, the opposite is true. My experience has been that the children of negligent parents know exactly how damaging that is and are the least likely to reproduce it (“my experience” is code for “white middle class” and is relevant here because that’s likely who is reading this article—sorry).
Have you been around the dads without dads? The biggest problem with them is they dote on their children too much.

8. It’s No Big Deal If I Don’t

Really? How could it possibly be a bigger deal? Besides the part where our entire civilization is choosing to stop reproducing, what about you? Cavemen fought saber-toothed tigers. Your ancestors survived the plague. World war after world war went by, and your relatives made it through, and you’re going to throw that all away with a shrug? You’re ending that incredible journey through history because you like watching Netflix in the daytime?

9. It’s Too Expensive

So is eating out in New York if you do it wrong. You can have a dinner for $4 or you can have one for $400. Public school is free, and there are still plenty of areas where they’re just as good as private. Bicycles are cheap, toys are cheaper, second-hand clothes are everywhere, and kids don’t really care if they’re in an apartment or a mansion. College and piano lessons are all frills kids don’t require. In the ’70s, we didn’t have any of that stuff, and we loved it. Having a kid is exactly as expensive as you want it to be.

10. We’re Not Ready

Women are convinced they can cram a career in before their ovaries dry up, but did you notice you started menstruating at 14? Twenty-four is already ten years past that date. At 34, you’ve basically told your womb to pack it in. I’ve heard doctors get in trouble for saying this to their patients, but for the umpteenth time: The hour glass of your fertility turns upside down at 30, and five years later it’s all but drained.
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is dangerous to cling to. I don’t know how many couples my age have realized it’s too late way after their best-before date and have spent tens of thousands of dollars attempting to reverse the clock. When they do manage to pull it off, they have to worry about health issues and autism, not to mention how brutal it is to get no sleep when you’re over 40.
Look, going out for dinner is fun and Barcelona is beautiful at this time of year, but eventually you close that chapter in your life and move on to the next one. That’s what I was trying to say in “The Death of Cool.” I’m not trying to take away the party years where you did whatever you wanted and traveled the world getting blackout drunk. Do that.
However, adults recognize this is only a stage, and eventually you’re ready to move on to the next one. You’ve been a kid for decades now. It’s time to grow up and make some of your own.

Gavin is an old punk from Canada who founded VICE in 1994 and left to join the Right in 2008. His most recent book is "The Death of Cool" and his most recent movie is "How to Be a Man." His columns regularly appear on Truth Revolt and TakiMag and his own site, Street Carnage(which also hosts his various podcasts).

Lockheed hails progress on hypersonic military aircraft

The Financial Times ^ | March 15th, 2016 | Robert Wright 

Lockheed Martin revealed on Tuesday it is on the brink of a technological breakthrough that could lead to the US developing military aircraft that can fly six times the speed of sound.
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed’s chief executive, outlined the proposed hypersonic aircraft as she also disclosed the company was working on a laser weapon that could be used on the battlefield.

At the company’s annual media day, Ms Hewson expressed optimism about future US military budgets following years of cutbacks.

She said that lawmakers seemed set to pass an increase in the budget for 2016-17.

However, her most eye-catching remarks were about innovation. She said a series of technological advances were on the verge of making possible weapons systems that had been mooted for years but never come to fruition.

A hypersonic aircraft would give US military planners a significant advantage in reaching targets before opponents had time to react.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Losing Ohio Improves Trump’s Chances to Win the Nomination

American Prospect ^ | Mar 14 2014 | Sam Wang 

Summary: Keeping John Kasich in the race divides the anti-Trump vote.
Two months ago, based on a computer model I developed of the Republican delegate race, I wrote in The American Prospect that the GOP’s nomination rules tilted the playing field to Donald Trump’s advantage. For Trump’s opponents, the time window for counteracting many of those advantages and winning a first-ballot nomination has passed. Now the campaign enters a new phase, as Trump’s rivals try to deny him a majority of pledged delegates going into the convention. Simulating the remaining contests based on current polling data, my model picks up an unexpected wrinkle: Trump’s strongest position comes if he loses the primary in Ohio on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Free education

Political Promises ^ | March 16, 2015 | John Stossell 

Democrats trash businesses. But if businesses promised things the way politicians do, the owners would be jailed for fraud. It's not legal to promise more than you can deliver.
I don't suggest that prosecutors should go after politicians who lie. Voters can do that. Political speech should be free.
But politicians' promises are routinely repulsive. I'm thankful that most of their promises will be broken.
For my TV show, I listed this presidential season's worst promises. Here are a few.
--Donald Trump says he'll impose a 45 percent tariff on goods from China and 35 percent on any Ford car imports from Mexico.
This wins Trump votes because so many Americans believe that trade "takes away" American jobs. Trade does actually take away some. Some autoworkers lose work when plants move overseas. That's the "seen" loss. But the unseen benefit is that when trade is allowed, more Americans gain jobs. We get better and cheaper products, too.
The historical evidence is clear. When countries close borders, stagnation and poverty follow. When trade is allowed, there are winners and losers, but most people prosper. The gains are harder to see because they are spread throughout the economy, but they are very real nevertheless. The chance that President Donald Trump would start a trade war scares me a lot.
--Bernie Sanders promises free college and Hillary Clinton offers "high-quality preschool."
But government has no money of its own. "Free" isn't free. Taxpayers and, later, other students pay tuition bloated by college loans. Taxpayers also pay for preschool that won't be "high quality" -- or at least won't stay high quality. Oklahoma and Georgia already tried universal preschool. By third grade, student gains disappeared. Of course, the extra spending -- that continued.
--Sanders and Clinton also want the national minimum wage raised -- Clinton to $12 and Sanders to $15.
Do people think that means Sanders is more generous than Clinton? If we could just pass a law and increase people's pay without harming businesses and making them less likely to hire in the first place, why not raise the minimum to $22? Or $83? Businesses pay according to value they get in return, like everyone else. No law can make you worth more to an employer. It just makes you more likely to get laid off. Or never hired.
--All current Republican candidates promise to increase military spending. They always do.
Republicans say our military has been "gutted." But in inflation-adjusted dollars, we spend as much as we did during the Cold War. It's true that America has fewer planes and fewer ships than we once did. But we have better and deadlier planes and ships. America is going broke but still spends $600 billion on defense, more than the next seven nations combined. That's not "gutting" the military.
If we didn't intervene in so many foreign countries, we could focus on actual defense, rather than nation building. Since conservatives are the ones who say they want to spend less, here's a great place to start.
--Donald Trump promises "a mandatory death sentence" to anyone who kills a police officer.
But the president cannot issue any criminal penalties. Does Trump care about the Constitution? Despite media hype about a "war on cops," the last few years have been the safest for cops -- ever. It's terrible when anyone gets killed, but we do not have a violent crime crisis on our hands. And what about the poor guy whose house is raided by mistake -- who thinks it's a home invasion and shoots in self-defense? Will he be executed, too?
Not every political promise was bad this year. Donald Trump was smart to change his mind and say America should admit more skilled immigrants. Bernie Sanders wants to "rethink" the war on drugs. Ted Cruz promises to eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development and more.
If only there were more good promises to praise.

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and the Establishment

The New American ^ | 16 March 2016 | Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. 

Of the two top Republican contenders in the race to occupy the Oval Office, one is a wealthy, Ivy League-trained, self-professed outsider with substantial ties to a powerful New York banking behemoth, and the other one is Donald Trump.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz each claim the label of outsider and anti-establishment, yet even a cursory scan reveals that these "outsiders" are seeking the advice of a number of high-ranking, influential "insiders."
We'll begin by looking at a couple establishment/neocon heavyweights who have Donald Trump's ear.
First, the Trump campaign has named Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) the chairman of his National Security Advisory committee.
There are several standards one could use to measure Sessions' commitment to the Constitution, perhaps the most reliable of which is The New American's Freedom Index. As explained in the introduction to the Freedom Index published on January 25 of this year, the Index "rates congressmen [including senators] based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements."
Sessions' "cumulative freedom score" is a 72 percent. While that is admittedly above average (the average score of senators in the latest print edition of the Freedom Index was 44 percent), there were, for the sake of comparison, two dozen members of the House of Representatives who received perfect scores in the same index.
Here are some of Sessions' votes on national security-related matters, included in the Freedom Index, that constitutionalists would take issue with:
* Voted to extend provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire, including the "roving wiretap" provision (May 26, 2011).
* Voted to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow warrantless surveillance of phone conversations and e-mails of foreign targets including those communicating with Americans (July 9, 2008).
* Voted for authorizing the President to go to war against Iraq, without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution (October 11, 2002).
* Voted to expand NATO and offer military assistance to several countries in the former Soviet bloc (May 17, 2002).
* Voted to table (kill) an amendment intended to prevent the deployment of U.S. combat troops to Yugoslavia without a congressional declaration of war (May 25, 1999).
Another indication of Sessions' potential predilection for approving American military operations around the world is the fact that the defense industry contributes more money to Senator Sessions than does any other industry sector, as reported by OpenSecrets.
In an announcement of Session's appointment to head his national security team made on March 3, Trump said: "It is an honor to have Jeff as a member of the team. I have such great respect for him and I look forward to working with him on the issues most important to Americans."
Given his record as listed above, the question must be asked whether a President Trump would support the unconstitutional policies promoted by Senator Sessions, including undeclared wars in the Middle East, extending the Patriot Act, and removing constitutional barriers to the expansion of the surveillance state.
In fairness, there is always the possibility that Trump listens to and rejects Sessions' counsel on such matters as the expansion of the U.S. armed forces' oversees engagements. Additionally, despite his apparent willingness to bypass the Constitution in areas of warrantless searches and seizures and executive "war powers," Senator Sessions has been a vocal opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a surrender of sovereignty masquerading as a "free trade" agreement. And to his credit, Donald Trump has also strongly expressed his opposition to the so-called "free trade" agenda. So, while it would be lamentable if Donald Trump followed Sessions' lead on some important issues of domestic and foreign policy, it would be commendable if Trump were to adhere to Sessions' advice on the TPP and reject it as president.
Finally, saving what could be the biggest hint of Donald Trump's embrace of establishment foreign and domestic policy, there is Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
During an appearance on the MSNBC show Morning Joe, Trump praised Haass as someone he admired very much. Later that same day at the Republican debate in Detroit, when asked by moderator Brett Baier to reveal two or three names of people that he would "trust for national security," Trump answered, "I think Richard Haass is excellent. I have a lot of respect for him."
While admittedly not a full-throated endorsement of every CFR policy position, Trump's comments could hint at a future Trump administration that would count the head of the CFR among its national security advisers.
For those unfamiliar with the CFR, here's a brief recap of this group's involvement in U.S. foreign policy:
For decades since its creation, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the "mother ship" of the internationalist establishment and the source of marching orders for the successive State Departments.
Perhaps the best evidence of the influence of this organization was revealed during a speech delivered at CFR headquarters in New York City in 2009, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In her remarks, Clinton offered an accurate and chilling assessment of the relationship between the CFR and American foreign policymakers:
"We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."
How prevalent have members of the CFR been in the highest ranks of American politics?
The administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt have been filled with members of the CFR. From cabinet-level secretaries to the lowest-ranking sub-bureaucrat, presidents have turned to the CFR as the in-house personnel pool.
This path has been faithfully followed by every president -- Republican or Democrat -- including Barack Obama.
For a full and frightening account of the origin, purposes, and practices of the CFR, readers should turn to James Perloff's seminal book on the subject, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline. Originally published in 1988, the information provided by Perloff is timeless and timely.
In contrast to Trump, during an appearance in Maine the day after the Detroit debate, Ted Cruz called out Trump for his praise of Haass.
"Richard Haass is a lifelong liberal. He is someone who has advised Hillary Clinton in the State Department. What does it say about you that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both listen to the same adviser?" Cruz said.
"For him [Donald Trump] to admit that the first name he'd listen to on foreign policy is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a liberal, Hillary Clinton acolyte, is a fairly extraordinary admission," he added.
Given this forceful condemnation of Trump's praise of Richard Haass and the CFR, one wonders how Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, felt when she heard this, given that she is listed as a member of the CFR in the group's 2010 membership roster and she played a key role in their effort to create a North American Union.
In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations released a document called "Building a North American Community," a report outlining the CFR's quest to create a North American Union based on the model of the European Union.
The report identifies its aim as detailing an "ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
In 2014, John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New Americanwarned readers about the dangers lurking in such a scheme. "There can be little doubt that the intention of the globalists includes having a newly created North American Union crush independence here in the same manner that it has been crushed for 28 European nations by the European Union," McManus wrote.
So, what of Heidi Cruz's involvement? Mrs. Cruz was a member of the Task Force that was tapped by the CFR to analyze the proposals for the establishment of a North American Union as set out in the report.
Beginning on page 33 of the report, Heidi Cruz provided her assessment of the NAU proposal:
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.
She does end her analysis by suggesting that "investment funds and financing mechanisms" that would drive the NAU "should only be developed in conjunction with market participants." However, her statement that "market participants" should be involved does not change the fact that she is on record as supporting "recommenations aimed at building" North American union.
Perhaps most tellingly, though, the report was co-authored by Robert Pastor, who was then serving as director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C. Here's a description published by WND of Pastor's role in merging the United States with Mexico and Canada:
In the 2007 bestselling book The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada, Pastor was dubbed 'the father of the North American Union' for the influence the CFR report had on a tripartite summit meeting between the heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The meeting culminated in President George W. Bush declaring without congressional approval the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
With this kind of significant involvement with the CFR, including membership in that very group -- a group Cruz referred to on another occasion as "A pernicious nest of snakes…working to undermine our sovereignty" -- one would think that Ted Cruz would avoid attacking his rivals for their own attachment to the CFR.
In truth, though, Heidi Cruz's membership in the CFR and participation in the NAU task force is not the only big league establishment entry on her résumé.
As has been widely reported, Mrs. Cruz is a managing director at Goldman Sachs. She joined the investment behemoth in 2005. Goldman Sachs spokeswoman Andrea Raphael told USA Today that Mrs. Cruz would be taking a leave of absence for the duration of her husband's presidential campaign.
Notice, she didn't resign from Goldman Sachs; she simply took some time off to accompany her husband on the run for the White House.
The CFR, Goldman Sachs -- those are inarguably A-list players on the establishment team; but those aren't the last of Heidi Cruz's close connections to the neocons.
More from the WND report on Mrs. Cruz:
She served in the George W. Bush White House under Condoleezza Rice as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council. She previously served 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.
That's a very impressive insider résumé.
But just because his wife runs with those in the top tier of establishment circles, that's no indication that Ted Cruz would surround himself with those same influences were he to be elected president.
What would be more compelling evidence of Ted Cruz's own agenda, his own fondness for the CFR and intent to follow their lead in the area of foreign policy would be the roster of advisors he has personally chosen to guide him on these key issues.
As this writer reported in The New American in October 2015, Cruz tapped CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies Elliot Abrams to head up his foreign policy posse.
While the CFR is the most notorious of the associations of Abrams, it isn't the only one. He is also a member (or former member) of the Center for Security Policy, Hudson Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, and many more.
It is likely that it is because of the membership of Abrams in the CFR that George W. Bush chose him to be his deputy national security adviser for Global Democratic Strategy and that Ted Cruz has chosen to follow his advice on questions of foreign policy.
And the CFR connection to Cruz's foreign policy team doesn't end with Abrams.
The chairman of Cruz's foreign policy team is Chad Sweet.
Sweet's professional and political background betrays Cruz's claims of being someone who promises "not to continue going in the same direction" and to "bring power out of Washington, and back to we the people."
Infogram's biography of Chad Sweet includes the following associations, demonstrating that he is very much a step in the "same direction":
"With a diverse background, starting as Director of the CIA, Chad Sweet went into the world of big banks -- from Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley to VP with Goldman Sachs. He would then work for the Department of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration. Currently he is the Co-Founder of Chertoff Group."
As a leader of the Chertoff Group, Sweet "advocated for expanding NSA metadata collection."
This is completely inconsistent with Cruz's condemnation of the federal government's federal surveillance programs.
"One of the most troubling things we have seen in recent years is an expansion of federal government authority into surveilling American citizens. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act," Cruz said during a speech in Austin in November 2014.
That's still not the end of Cruz's neocon foreign policy appointments.
Another of Cruz's foreign policy advisor is James Woolsey, a player who would be drafted in the first round of any neocon fantasy team owner.
The Infogram bio is enough evidence to convict Woolsey of being neocon to the core:
"Woolsey was a national security specialist and former Director of the CIA under the Clinton administration. He heads up many Neoconservative groups including being the Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Founding Member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy."
More than just academic advocacy of the military-industrial complex and the global deployment of American troops to force democracy on the world, Woolsey has no problem putting the noose around those who act against the growth of the government.
In a December 2013 interview with Fox News, Woolsey made the following shocking statement when asked about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: "I think giving him amnesty is idiotic," Woolsey said. "He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."
Finally, there is the latest addition to Cruz's inner circle of policy advisers: Neil Bush.
On March 8, Ted Cruz announced that Neil, the brother of former GOP contender Jeb Bush, would be joining his finance team. "I am thrilled to welcome these new members to our outstanding team. This race is winnowing down between two candidates, and this is further testament that conservatives are continuing to unite behind this campaign," Cruz said in a statement announcing Bush's appointment.
No one could argue with the experience possessed by the people picked by Cruz to advise him on foreign policy. The problem isn't that his inner circle is composed of men and women of vast foreign policy experience; the problem is that their experience is in growing government, supporting surveillance, and using American troops as global peacekeepers. As constitutionalists know, each of these endeavors -- pursued over and over by Cruz's chosen advisors -- is unconstitutional and not at all consistent with Ted Cruz's public statements.
So, the two top Republican contenders each claim to be an outsider yet each has chosen to surround himself with advisors who have blue chip establishment bona fides. That isn't to say that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would follow without challenge or question the counsel provided by these members of their teams.
In fact, both Trump and Cruz have been attacked by the establishment for their failure to toe the party line. Neocon nabobs have taken shots at both men -- a sign that neither would be the first choice of the insiders.
There is no denying, however, that both men, despite their claims of constitutional fidelity and commitment to take power away from Washington, D.C. and give it back to the people, have ties to the top echelon of globalist, neoconservative, Establishment powerbrokers that both candidates have promised to put out of business.

Border Walls Would Humanely Enforce a Just Law ^ | March 16, 2016 | Terry Jeffrey 

The federal government has a duty to enforce this nation's borders and do it in a humane manner that minimizes harm to human life both inside U.S. territory and on the approaches to it.
The best way to do that at the border with Mexico is to build effectively impermeable barriers that send a simple, straightforward message: You can only cross this border legally.
For years, our government has sent a different message: You may be able to cross illegally.
More recently, that inapt message has been compounded by another: If you make it here illegally, we may let you stay.
Between 2005 and 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Department of Homeland Security used a measure called "operational control" to describe the stretches of border it had secured.
"Operational control describes the number of border miles where the Border Patrol can detect, identify, respond to, and interdict cross-border unauthorized activity," CRS said in a report published last month. "In February 2010, the Border Patrol reported that 1,107 miles (57 percent) of the Southwest border were under operational control."
That means our government, according to the Border Patrol, did not have operational control of 43 percent -- or approximately 826 miles -- of our southern border.
By failing to secure the border, the federal government not only allows foreign nationals to come here illegally to live and work, but also provides an avenue for deadly drugs, for the criminals who bring them and for potential terrorists.
The failure to secure our southern border harms American workers whose jobs are put at risk and whose wages are suppressed by competition with immigrant workers here illegally.
It also harms Americans who become addicted to deadly drugs smuggled across the border, and it harms American communities where those drugs are distributed.
"Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States; no other group can challenge them in the near term," the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said in its 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.
"These Mexican poly-drug organizations traffic heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana throughout the United States, using established transportation routes and distribution networks," said the DEA assessment. "They control drug trafficking across the Southwest Border and are moving to expand their share of U.S. illicit drug markets, particularly heroin markets."
"National-level gangs and neighborhood gangs continue to form relationships with Mexican TCOs to increase profits for the gangs through drug distribution and transportation, for the enforcement of drug payments, and for protection of drug transportation corridors from use by rival gangs," said the assessment.
Failure to secure our border not only harms people in the United States, it also harms people in Mexico and would-be illegal border crossers. Mexicans are victimized by the drug cartels that exploit our unenforced border, and migrants seeking to cross our unsecured border to illegally live or work here put themselves at risk in remote regions and in the custody of human traffickers.
The message our federal government should send is: If you are coming here illegally, you will not be able to cross, so do not try.
Building physical barriers along the border that make it impossible for people to illegally pass either on foot or in vehicles -- and deploying sufficient manpower to patrol those barriers -- would send that message. Failing to build those barriers and sufficiently man them says: The people who run our federal government are still not serious about securing our border.
America is a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration.
Between 1980 and 2012, according to a 2014 report published by the Department of Homeland Security, the United States granted lawful permanent resident status to approximately 28,370,000 immigrants.
Those 28,370,000 legal permanent residents equaled more than three times the Census Bureau's July 2013 estimate for the population of New Jersey (8,911,502), more than twice the population of Illinois (12,890,552) and exceeded the populations of New York (19,695,680), Florida (19,600,311) and Texas (26,505,637).
America is also generous in granting refugee and asylum status to those who face a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their home countries. In 2013, this country granted refugee status to 69,909 individuals and asylum to 25,199.
We should not turn our back on those who seek refuge and asylum, especially Middle Eastern Christians who face genocide by Islamic State terrorists. Nor do we need to stop legal immigration.
But the border of the United States is a just law that the federal government has duty to enforce. Building walls that deter and stop illegal crossers is a humane way to do it.









Tootsie Roll




A second opinion


Come and listen




Running mate!