Category Archives: Congress

Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to sign up for draft

Be careful what you wish for.

Feminists agitate for gender “equality”. And so, heeding their call, the Obama administration decided to open all U.S. military combat roles to women, including the elite Navy SEALS and Army Rangers.

Last December 3, Defense Secretary Ash Carter made that announcement, effective in the new year, which means 2016. To that end, Carter ordered the Marines and Army, along with the other service branches, to open about 225,000 combat jobs to women candidates – the last remaining occupational specialties that had barred female troops.

In so doing, Carter had rejected a request from the Marine Corps for a partial exception so as to keep the infantry, machine gunner, and fire support reconnaissance men-only. Carter said no: “We are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force.” (See “Obama opening combat to women means they will need to register for Selective Service“)

Since Carter’s announcement, U.S. military services have been submitting plans for incorporating women into all of their ranks, a process that could take months or years.

Now, the expected consequence of Obama’s decision is here.

Yesterday, a bill was introduced in Congress which would require women to register for the draft.

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Travis J. Tritten reports for Stars and Stripes, Feb. 4, 2016, that two House Republicans introduced a bill Thursday requiring eligible women in the United States to sign up for the military draft.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Minn., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If the bill is passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.

“This is a very important issue that touches the heart of every family in America, and I believe we need to have an open and honest discussion about it,” Zinke said.

Hunter and Zinke maintain that the Obama administration made the policy change despite research and reservations from the Marine Corps and special operations community, and without adequate debate among lawmakers. 

Obama as king

Hunter said in a statement: “If this administration wants to send 18, 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives.” For his part, Zinke said in a statement: “My daughter is a damn good Navy diver. I know women play an invaluable role in war. Many times women can gain access to strategic sites that men never could. However, this administration’s plan to force all front-line combat and Special Forces to integrate women into their units is reckless and dangerous.”

Two days before the bill was introduced, on Feb. 2, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had testified to the Senate that they believe there no longer should be an exemption in the draft for half of the country’s population now that the military is all inclusive.

The Marines completed a study last summer that found women get injured more often and perform below males in combat. During an oversight hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, lawmakers repeatedly referenced the study and said they are worried the military could lower standards to accommodate more women in combat occupational specialties.

Zinke said the decision now means the country must contemplate changes to the draft. The Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to register beginning 90 days after it is signed into law. 

Men, who historically filled combat roles, are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old in case a draft is again needed. Women have been excluded from the Selective Service System, a decision that was upheld by a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that said as long as women weren’t allowed in combat units, they shouldn’t be subjected to it.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rep. Duncan Hunter said in an interview that the change in policy “is a change to over 200 years of warfare in the United States.” Hunter urges his fellow lawmakers to ask themselves: “Do I think we have come far enough that my daughter should be drafted?”

Hunter said he will try to bring his bill to the floor so all members of Congress will have to vote on the issue because “This should involve every member of Congress. This isn’t a military thing, it’s a family thing, it’s a cultural thing.”

Advocates for women in combat roles dismiss the bill, saying that requiring women to register wouldn’t have much practical effect, as a draft hasn’t been used since the Vietnam War.

The issue of registration for women could become a campaign issue, depending how far the bill progresses.

On Wednesday at a townhall meeting, Hillary Clinton expressed her concern that the policy change could change the definition of an all-volunteer force. She said she wasn’t sure all women should register for the draft on the grounds that “I have a hard time imagining the kind of national emergency that would require the use of the Selective Service System.”

See also Obama’s other acts to socially re-engineering the U.S. military:

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Bombshell: Hillary’s unsecured emails contained names of CIA spies

Hillary For Prison 2016

Last Friday (Jan. 29) afternoon, the State Department released another court-mandated batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was secretary of state. But 22 emails (totaling 37 pages of text) were withheld, even with entire sections redacted.

Those 22 emails were withheld at the request of the intelligence community because although Hillary and her staff treated them as “unclassified,” the emails actually were “Top Secret”.

“Top Secret” is the federal government’s highest official classification level, defined as “information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The disclosure of Top Secret information is a serious criminal matter that normal Americans face prosecution and substantial jail time for perpetrating.

So what is in those 22 “Top Secret” emails?

Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne report for FoxNews, Feb. 1, 2016, that according to a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents, the 22 emails are withheld because they contain “operational intelligence” — real-time information on intelligence collection, sources (informants on CIA’s payroll), the movement of assets, as well as names of CIA agents. The presence of that information on Hillary’s unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives”.

The official was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature. The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time — from the installation of Hillary’s private email server in 2009 until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), who sits on the House intelligence committee, said Hillary had to know what she was dealing with: “There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not. Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo pointed out that the Top Secret information might have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, and that the Obama administration should assume that information has in fact gotten out. That, in turn, counsels changes in operations by the military and intelligence communities.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials because they weren’t marked as “classified”. She accused the Republicans of using it “to beat up on me.”

When ABC’s “This Week” reminded her that in her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement, she had acknowledged that markings are irrelevant (the agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications”), Hillary blamed her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But Hillary is contradicted by national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. MacMahon said, “Everybody who has a security clearance [as Hillary had] has an individual obligation to protect the information. Just because somebody sends it to you … you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

Meanwhile, the release of other Hillary emails has revealed that then-Sen. John Kerry (who is now secretary of state was also using an unsecured, personal email account for classified information. 

Furthermore, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit shows that Patrick Kennedy, the top administrator at the State Department was, in the words of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go.” Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

According to John Schindler of Observer, CIA and the entire intelligence community are in panic mode right now, trying to determine which intelligence officers and agents have been compromised by Hillary’s EmailGate. A senior intelligence community official called the 22 withheld emails “a death sentence” for CIA officers and foreign agents working for U.S. intelligence, saying, “if we’re lucky only agents, not our officers, will get killed because of this.”

 At a minimum, valuable covers have been blown, careers have been ruined, and lives have been put at serious risk. Our spies’ greatest concern now is what’s still in Hillary’s emails that investigators have yet to find.

And what about those 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted?

An exasperated Pentagon counterintelligence official said, “I’ll spend the rest of my career trying to figure out what classified information was in those. Everybody is mad as hell right now. The worst part is that Moscow and Beijing have that information but the intelligence community maybe never will.”

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s josephbc69

~Eowyn

Shocker, not: Hillary’s emails contained America’s top secrets

Maybe, just maybe, the end is near for the Clinton campaign.

Hillary For Prison 2016

I’ve reported on the many lies, twists, and spins on Hillary’s email scandal. A refresher:

The State Department cannot find emails of Clinton IT staffer Bryan Pagliano. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because “what I did was allowed.” Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from 5 US spy agencies. Hillary Clinton deleted half of emails from personal account used to conduct business as secretary of state.

And an  intelligence community review reaffirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department.

The FBI is investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle “cut and pasted” material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private e-mail address.

Former Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told an audience that her boss Hillary Clinton used to use her BlackBerry to send info that didn’t belong on unclassified systems.

The beginning of the end?

The beginning of the end?

Now the NY Post reports that The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the US government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.

The Associated Press has learned that seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret.” The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Read the rest of the story here.

This story broke after the State Department announced they would release some Clinton emails on Friday yet thousands will still be delayed. And how long will they be delayed? Until AFTER voters go to the polls in the first several primary states. What a coinkidink!

hillary and obama laughing

DCG

Pat Buchanan: Conservatives are in a civil war

Be sure to take our poll after you’ve read Buchanan’s essay!

circular firing squad

The Civil War of the Right

Patrick J. Buchanan • CNS News • Jan. 29, 2016

The conservative movement is starting to look a lot like Syria.

Baited, taunted, mocked by Fox News, Donald Trump told Roger Ailes what he could do with his Iowa debate, and marched off to host a Thursday night rally for veterans at the same time in Des Moines.

Message: I speak for the silent majority, Roger, not you, not Megyn Kelly, not Fox News. Diss me, and I will do fine without Fox.

And so the civil-sectarian war on the right widens and deepens.

And two questions arise: Will the conservative movement and Republican Party unite behind Trump if he is the nominee? And will the movement and party come together if Trump is not the nominee?

A breakdown of the balance of forces in this civil-sectarian war finds most of the media elite of the right recoiling from Trump, while Trump leads by a huge margin in Middle America.

National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and the conservative and neocon columnists on the op-ed pages at The Washington Post and The New York Times have almost all come out viscerally against Trump.

He, in turn, has trashed several by name. Wounds have been inflicted that will not soon be forgiven or forgotten.

But while columns and magazines appear in print twice weekly, weekly, biweekly and monthly, millions listen to talk radio every hour of every day. And though websites might be updated daily, radio, more than print, is a medium that moves people.

Among the top talkers, Trump gets more than a fair hearing. Some of the talk shows with the largest audiences are sympathetic, others are supportive. And the Drudge Report, the daily newspaper of Middle America, tracks Trump’s every move.

In the media battle, then, the media elite are being swamped by Trump. And Trump is winning the political battle as well. According to almost every poll, state or national, Trump is ahead of all rivals, with his closest challenger trailing by 10 or more points. Among the populist and Tea Party right, Trump has lapped the field, and he is now competitive among Evangelicals.

How will the civil war on the right end?

Because the differences are not simply about personalities and politics, but principles and policies, it may not end with this election.

There is talk of having the anti-Trump conservatives unite behind the one establishment candidate — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie — who emerges strongest after New Hampshire, to storm through the later primaries and take down Trump.

Yet such a scenario seems implausible.

That audience of 24 million that tuned in to the first Fox News debate and the 22 million that tuned in to the CNN debate were drawn to Trump, and Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, because these men seemed to represent real change.

Democrats who support Bernie Sanders and Republicans who support Trump may disagree on where America should go, but both agree on the need for America to radically change direction.

Yet, if this battle for the GOP nomination should yield another establishment Republican, would not all the fire and energy of the campaign of 2015-2016 soon disappear?

Consistency not being their long suit, some among the conservative elites who denounced Trump’s walkout from the debate, threaten to walk out of the party should Trump win.

But walkout is an option open to populists as well. And if, after the rise of the Tea Party, the capture of Congress in 2014, the Trump-Cruz-Carson rebellion, the GOP offers the silent majority yet another establishment candidate, will populists and Tea Party types rally to him?

Perhaps. One recalls that, after the Revolution of 1789, the march on Versailles, the guillotining of Louis XVI, the rise of Robespierre, and the Era of Napoleon, the French got the Bourbon Restoration — Louis XVIII, brother of the beheaded king, sitting on the old throne.

Still, if the populist-conservative struggle of the last five years, to put behind them the days of Bush 41 and Bush 43, produces Bush 45, or his moral equivalent, how many would shoulder arms and march for him?

And, again, the argument over the acceptability of Trump aside, there is a deeper conflict within the GOP and conservative movement that may be irreconcilable. Millions of conservatives and independents believe it was the Republican policies of the recent past that also failed America.

The Bush-Clinton-Obama trade policies produced the $12 trillion in trade deficits, which measures the net export of U.S. factories and manufacturing jobs, which explain the wage stagnation.

The Republican-neocon foreign policy of intervention and nation building is a primary cause of the present disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

The immigration policies championed by Bush Republicans as well Clinton and Obama Democrats produced the immigration crisis that propels the Trump campaign.

In short, it will be difficult for populists to unite with Beltway conservatives in 2016, when the former see the latter as part of the problem, not the solution.

See also “Seismic shift in U.S. political party system: Independents now outnumber Democrats & Republicans“.

~Eowyn

Mitch McConnell fast-tracks authorization to give Obama unlimited war powers

Yesterday, during a visit to ISIS-friendly Turkey, VPOS Joe Biden said that if a political solution can’t be reached, the U.S. is prepared to use military force to “take out” ISIS or Islamic State (IS) and so end the civil war in Syria. The Obama administration has been carrying out “precision air strikes” on Islamic State (IS), but to no avail. (Source: Bloomberg)

Biden could make that promise because warmongers in Congress are paving the way to give Obama (and future presidents) unlimited war powers with no expiration date.

In 1973, to prevent “future Vietnams,” Congress passed the War Powers Act over the veto of then-Pres. Richard Nixon, to restrain the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to first consult with and report to Congress. Although the Act was generally resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, who regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority, the Act nevertheless acted as a constraint.

In 2014, Obama did exactly that by declaring war against the Islamic State — a move considered by many legal scholars and even many members of Congress as illegal and unconstitutional. As Mike Krieger recounts for Liberty Blitzkrieg

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate….

[Obama’s] refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) is fast-tracking an authorization that would give Obama unlimited war-making powers.

Mitch McConnell & Lindsey Graham

Sarah Mimms and Alex Rogers report for NationalJournal that late Wednesday (Jan. 20) night, McConnell surprised many members of Congress by fast-tracking a broad authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Fast-tracking” refers to “Rule XIV” — setting up authorization for a future vote without putting the proposed AUMF on the Senate calendar, which means a vote can come at any time, or not at all.

McConnell and Graham’s AUMF would give the president unlimited war powers, placing no restrictions on the deployment of ground troops, or on time or geography. Even Obama’s claim of legal authority to wage war against ISIS does not allow for “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” nor is it unlimited in time, but would have expired three years after reenactment, unless reauthorized.

Mc­Con­nell’s spokes­man, Don Stewart, admitted in an email on Thursday that the new AUMF will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

McConnell’s move is an about-face, contradicting what he himself had told reporters last month: “It’s clear the pres­id­ent does not have a strategy in place, so it would be hard to fig­ure out how to au­thor­ize a non-strategy.”

McConnell’s res­ol­u­tion already has four Re­pub­lic­an co­spon­sors: Sens. Lind­sey Gra­ham, Daniel Coats, Joni Ernst, and Or­rin Hatch.

Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Bob Cork­er (R-TN), while saying that there is still a “wide di­versity” of opin­ions on the is­sue, nevertheless argues with the Obama administration that no new AUMF is even needed. He said of McConnell’s new resolution, “I don’t think it changes any­thing [because] I’m in the same place that I’ve been—and that is I be­lieve the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the au­thor­ity to do what they’re do­ing.”

A Democrat warmonger, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has ag­gress­ively ad­voc­ated for an AUMF, was thrilled Thursday that the Sen­ate could soon take up McConnell’s resolution. He argued that Obama’s war against Islamic State is illegal, “I don’t think there’s a leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for it. And I think the greatest danger we end up do­ing is al­low­ing the pres­id­ent to wage a war without Con­gress weigh­ing in.”

Mc­Con­nell’s proposed authorization for the use of military force will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

I cannot begin to emphasize how dangerous this new AUMF is, and what a threat to liberty McConnell et al. are.

~Eowyn

Muslim migrants mean rape, violent crimes, social instability & revolution

On New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne, more than a hundred German women were sexually assaulted by groups of Arabic and North African men.

According to a BBC report: “What is particularly disturbing is that the attacks appear to have been organized. Around 1,000 young men arrived in large groups, seemingly with the specific intention of carrying out attacks on women.”

One man described how his “partner” and 15-year-old daughter were surrounded by an enormous crowd outside the station and he was unable to help. “The attackers grabbed her and my partner’s breasts and groped them between their legs.”

When the Cologne attacks made international headlines, reports began to trickle in from Austria, Finland, and Switzerland where women reported similar attacks perpetrated by Muslim males.

As an example, in Stockholm, Sweden, hordes of young men harassed and groped young women at a youth festival and concert last August. The women reported the attacks to police, but the media covered it up. As recounted by Nyheter Idag‎, thousands of young people were in attendance at the youth festival and concert in Kungsträdgården in central Stockholm on Saturday August 15, 2015:

But for an unknown number of young girls the festival soon became a nightmare. Hordes of young men pressed against young girls, fondled and tried to cop a feel over and under skirts, pants and shirts. There were severe sexual assaults happening right in front of the stage….

During a single night police and security guards had to intervene against around 90 younger males, but even adult men took part in the abuse, says an eye witness to Nyheter Idag. The eye witness has professional experience from working at the Stockholm Police Department as a psychologist.

But Sweden’s leading daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter deliberately covered up the incident, so as not to trigger an anti-migrant backlash. A police officer had tried to contact the newspaper several times, but “they never called back”.

The Cologne attacks have now become a full-blown crisis that is plunging the European Union (EU) into chaos, as Europeans fight back against their governments’ wrong-headed policy. As reported by ZeroHedge:

[A] series of protests last week culminating in a 1,700-strong PEGIDA rally in Cologne that ultimately devolved into violent clashes between riot police and furious right-wing demonstrators. Then, on Sunday, gangs of “bikers, hooligans, and bouncers” attacked a group of Pakistanis in Cologne’s city center after organizing what some are calling “migrant manhunts” on Facebook. The victims of the attacks were hospitalized.

In the Netherlands, however, hundreds of Dutch men somehow thought that the appropriate response to Muslim sex assaults is to “show their solidarity” with women by donning mini-skirts, I kid you not.

dutchmen in miniskirts protest Muslim sex assaults, Amsterdam, Jan. 16, 2016

Here’s a video showing Dutch men in mini-skirts in a march in Amsterdam on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2016:

Dr. Henry Makow observes:

There is a gender dimension to the migrant invasion of Europe that needs to be recognized. A hallmark of heterosexuality is that men protect their women and children. When men fail in this responsibility, they fail as men…. The migrants are the final stage of feminism which was designed to emasculate men and sexually exploit women.

There is indeed a gender dimension to the migrant invasion of Europe.

Valerie Hudson, a professor at Texas A & M University, has studied the effects of sex ratios on the stability of nations. In an article for Politico (via The Australian), Hudson points out these startling official statistics:

  • 2/3 or 66% of all migrants registering in Greece and Italy last year were male.
  • 1/5 or 20% of all migrants who reached the EU last year were under the age of 18; half had traveled alone. More than 90% of these young migrants traveling alone were males.

Dr. Hudson maintains that, given the high percentage of young males among the “refugees” and “migrants” swarming into Europe, the sexual attacks should not be surprising because crimes such as rape and sexual harassment become more common in “highly masculinized societies,” that is, societies with a skewed sex ratio.

In places where males vastly outnumber females, women are less able to move about freely without fear, and demand for prostitution increases, along with a rise in violent and property crime rates. This is not a problem specific to Muslims or Arabs: China and India have suffered a rise in crime due to their sex imbalance in favor of men from gender-select abortions.

As Hudson puts it: “I don’t care if they are Muslim or Greek Orthodox. If you are altering sex ratios to the level of 123 men to every 100 women, you are going to have problems.” But European governments are not looking at the demographics of the migrants. Instead of “thinking strategically about how to protect the normal sex ratios, nobody is talking about this.”

In other words, by indiscriminately letting in hordes of mainly young male “migrants” and “refugees,” European countries have made themselves vulnerable to sexual assaults on their women, violent and property crimes, and social chaos. A large young male population is also a recipe for revolution, as seen in the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings.

But of course, neither Obama nor Congress are heeding these warnings. And among the 2016 presidential candidates, only Donald Trump is sounding the alarm — and getting vilified for doing so.

See also:

~Eowyn

Ted Cruz’s undisclosed $1M loan from Goldman Sachs

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

Senator Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of the Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, on a temporary “leave” because of Ted’s presidential campaign.

Heidi Cruz is also a former investment banker for J.P. Morgan and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for which she served as a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which a North American Union. (See “Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?“)

Although Heidi Cruz presently is on leave, she was fully working for Goldman Sachs in 2012 when Ted obtained a low-interest $1 million loan from her employer for his senatorial campaign. To top it off, Ted Cruz did not disclose the loan as he is required by law.

The New York Times reports on Jan. 13, 2016, that campaign finance reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 GOP primary, Ted Cruz put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Cruz described it in an interview.

But a review of personal financial disclosures that Cruz filed later with the Senate does not show a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained a low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled $750,000 and eventually increased to $1 million before being paid down later that year. Both loans had floating interest rates around 3%, generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time.

Neither loan appears in reports filed by Cruz’s senate campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders.

A spokeswoman for Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race, but insisted that the failure to report the loan was “inadvertent” and that there had been no attempt to hide anything. Frazier did not address whether the Citibank loan was used also for Cruz’s Senate race.

Former election commission lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law Kenneth Gross, however, disagrees.

Gross said that listing a bank loan in an annual Senate ethics report — which deals only with personal finances — would not satisfy the requirement that it be promptly disclosed to election officials during a campaign: “They’re two different reporting regimes. The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”

Specifically, in failing to report the two bank loans to the FEC, Cruz violated:

  • 52 USC 30104 (b)(2) (6), which requires the committee of a federal candidate to disclose on a report filed “loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”; and
  • 52 USC 30104(b)(4)(d), which requires the reporting of “repayment of loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”.

ZeroHedge points out that someone will have to file an official complaint against Cruz, and the FEC could impose fines. But if evidence emerges that his failure to disclose the loans was ‘knowing and willful,’ he could be criminally prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to campaign finance experts.

Aside from Ted Cruz’s dishonesty in not reporting the loans to the FEC, there is also the matter of his hypocrisy.

In 2012 when he ran for the Senate as a darling of the Tea Party, and in his current presidential campaign, Ted Cruz presents himself as a populist for the “little man,” against Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. Recently, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied:

“Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”

As financial analyst Martin Armstrong puts it:

The dishonesty here is that Cruz has pretended to stand against the bankers…. I am sorry. But Cruz is bought and paid for and would be in the pocket of the New York Banks no different than Hillary, Bush, or the rest of them who take money from this crowd. You do not forget to report a loan from Goldman Sachs when your wife is a managing director. Come on. How stupid do we have to be to entertain this excuse?

See also:

~Eowyn