Women In The Draft: Coming Soon

ndaa

Are you ready to feel the equality yet? It’s coming…

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 passed the Senate 85-13-2. The bill passed by both a vast majority with Republican and Democrat support, along with one Independent.

Some of the notable no’s:

  • Rand Paul (R-KY)
  • Mike Lee (R-UT)
  • Ted Cruz (R-TX)
  • Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
  • Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Harry Reid (D-NV)

Who missed the vote, with some very crucial things like changes to Indefinite Detention and the Draft?

  • Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
  • Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

The next time someone tells you that Democrats stand with women, question it. Since the vast majority have signed on to having them drafted into war and killed on a battlefield, that high horse no longer should exist.

And the next time someone tells you that Bernie cares, tell them he skipped out and didn’t care at all. If he did, he would have been there, and fought.

CISA Moves To Obama’s Desk; Likely To Be Signed

7S_PIjM-pAieSuDCQrPCTywgSsZtnbWJ

A week ago Tuesday, the Senate finally passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. This has been on the radar of people who care about the Constitution, and privacy advocates for years now, since the final fall of the old CISPA bill. This bill though has gotten the furthest, and that’s the worst thing about it. The Senate and House have both cleared it. Congress has done all it wanted to do. The President is the last person who will have the bill, and will most likely sign, another bad thing for everyone in the country.

Back last year, I did a video on CISA. It’s on the 2014 version, but it should still be almost spot on to what’s going to be passed probably this week, if not today. You can view that below:

Now, I really am dissapointed by this. Scratch that, I feel betrayed again by Congress and the Republicans who told us they were for smaller government. Here’s how the vote went:


Totals     Republican     Democrat     Independent
  Yea 74
74%
43 30 1
  Nay 21
21%
6 14 1
Not Voting 5
5%
5 0 0
Required: Simple Majority source: senate.gov

A few notables I’d like to mention. First, those who voted in favor of the bills. I’m going to go over a few people who were either recently elected, or have an election coming up, or I’m just upset with:

  • John McCain (I hope Ward kicks you out of the Senate)
  • Joni Ernst (so much for being for the Constitution)
  • Cory Gardner (so much for being for the Constiution)
  • Jeff Sessions (I expect better from you)
  • Bill Cassidy (so much for being for the Constitution)
  • Ben Sasse (so much for being for the Constitution)
  • Thom Tillis (so much for being for the Constitution)
  • Shelly Capito (wait, you were a puppet of Karl Rove. That’s all I need to know)
  • John Cornyn (Ted Cruz endorsed)
  • Mithch McConnell (Rand Paul endorsed)

The bolded one’s are all Freshman Senators who campaigned on smaller government and protecting the Constitution. With this vote, we can finally confirm that to be all a big, fat lie.

Now, for those I’m happy with:

  • Mike Lee
  • Dean Heller
  • Steve Daines
  • Dan Sullivan

Thes are thge 4 Republicans who voted against CISA. That’s pathetic that there aren’t any more besides them, but I’ll still take 4 over none.

Now, the missed votes I can’t just list out. I need to yell at them all separately.

Marco Rubio – Please drop out of the Presidential Race or resign your Senate seat now. You are MY senator, and you sure are NOT representing me, or even the rest of your constituents. You’ve missed votes left and right this entire Presidential Campaign, but somehow, you deflect it as just an attack from the liberal media? Nope, I’m calling you out, Senator. You do not deserve to EVER hold political office again. I didn’t even expect you to vote “NO”, but you could have at least done your job.

Lindsey Graham – Why are you still running for President? What are you even doing? Besides having zero shot at this, you’re already a terrible Senator. You’re like McCain’s secret husband we don’t know about. The last thing the Senate needs today is you. You have missed so many votes, but luckily for you, Rubio is still doing worse than you.

David Vitter – You’re relatively conservative and care abou the Constitution. Now, care about the entire thing, and do your job. I don’t know why you weren’t there, but you’d better have a good reason.

Ted Cruz – For all this talk of restoring the Constitution, and standing up for freedom, Ted, you simply suck. You’re missing votes left and right, just as you did with Loretta Lynch. Maybe not as many as Rubio and Graham, but not that far off. You were supposed to be the third addition to the liberty caucus in the Senate. Ron Paul endorsed you. Rand Paul endorsed you. Mike Lee endorsed you. But what did you turn out to be? A dissapointment. Wait, I need to remind myself that you were part of the Bush transition team back in 2001, and your wife works for Goldmann Sachs. Nothing suspicious there.

Rand Paul – I would say I’m pissed off with you, but I can’t. You at least tried to be involved in the bill’s debate. You at least proposed amendments to it, to try to mitigate the bad in the bill. That, and you helped stalled the vote back in August till now. So you know what, I’m still mad at you, but at least you tried and made an effort on the bill, unlike the others.


So what happens now? What do we do now? Can we get some nullification going around here, because this could be nullified in your state, just like the drug laws and drone laws and the gun laws even. If people don’t want to do that, then the bill needs to be repealed, and killed. Either way, something needs to be done.

On another note, elect better people. I’d think that people with the knowledge of what the Constitution says would greatly improve things.

9 Issues I Have With Ted Cruz

safe_image.phpTed Cruz is one of the best there is in the Senate. He currently sits at some high ratings with conservative organizations, such as:

  • Freedomworks: 100%
  • Club For Growth: 96%
  • New American: 89%
  • Conservative Review: 96%

Those scores are based off the latest info available, from 2014 and 2015 votes.

Now, the one I see used the most would be the New American Freedom Index score. Ted get’s an 89%, which to some, serves as a shock. How is he below 90%? Rand Paul has a 94% right now. What gives? This brings me to why I’m making this post.

Ted Cruz, as great as he has been, is losing me, and fast. His tactics are something I do not agree with, and he certainly isn’t trying to appeal to me. Here are 10 reasons why Cruz does not, and will not have my vote.

#1. Ted Cruz is missing votes left and right, and not doing his job.

We get it, you’re running for President, and that’s a big thing. But that does not excuse you from actually being present in Congress and doing your job. While you’ve been running for President, you’ve missed 64 votes, which translates out to being 22% of the votes since you’ve announced. You know, if I lived in Texas, I’d be a bit upset, because you’ve missed so many.

missed votes

Do you, the reader, not believe these votes are important? I think they are, considering one of them was the Loretta Lynch confirmation vote. When the GOP had a chance to shoot down Lynch, where was Ted? Fundraising for his campaign. He missed that vote, but he and his supporters have desperately tried to cover up for this, playing it as nothing of great importance, and equating his absence to a no vote, which is laughable. I may add that he was the only Senator to not vote.

#2. Ted Cruz supported Trade Promotion Authority

I have documented this in several of my own post that Ted was all in favor of the TPA when it came up for a vote in the Senate, to which, he supported and voted for. Now, what other conservative Senators voted for the TPA? Not Mike Lee. Not Rand Paul. Not Jeff Sessions. Oh, that’s right, the “conservative” hacks that got elected back in 2014. That’s who, and along with the Establishment, such as Mitch McConnell.

The TPA usurps Congress’s authority to regulate the nations trade to international powers. I find that to be strictly opposite to protecting national sovereignty, or even free trade for that matter.

Now, his supporters will say that he “changed his mind” on the TPA. This is a good thing. Thanks for coming around. Just one thing though. That came 1 MONTH after the vote. What did this tell me? He didn’t care to read Obama’s TPP, which I know is completely different, but reading it would have changed his mind. Perhaps he was busy campaigning? I certainly don’t know.

#3. Ted Cruz is all in for Foreign Aid

Remember back to the Ukraine crisis? The Senate took up a measure to send $150 million to them, which was nearly unanimously passed. The vote went 98-2, and Ted Cruz wasn’t one of the two of the no’s (they were Rand Paul (r-KY), and Dean Heller (R-NV)). Now, why is this a bad thing. First off, point out to me where in the constitution foreign aid is allowed. Take your time, I’ll wait.

Second, do we have $150 million just sitting around? In case Ted forgot, we’re trillions in debt, and we still have a deficit. Short answer, we don’t have $150 million just lying around to be sent anywhere for anything. Ted should know better.

Third, I’d like to say this. I’m well aware that Ted worked with Rand to bloke the initial bill, which would have sent over $1 BILLION in aid. That’s great, but voting for the end result doesn’t help you. In the end, you still sold out. You did not hold firm in your opposition.

When it comes to foreign aid as a whole, I’ve seen Cruz all in for it. He specifically points to Israel as a reason as to why we must continue the program, even going as far as saying “I’m no Rand Paul on Israel.” I’m not sure what he means to say, though I take it like this: Israel needs to be coddled and always supported by the US and should never grow up.

Here is Netanyahu himself calling for an end to foreign aid to Israel himself:

And even Israeli economists agree that it is time for the US funds to stop flowing freely to Israel. But I found this to be most interesting. This comes from back when Ron Paul was running for President. A little old, but I think it’s well worth the read:

The US puts pressure on Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United States in any major way.

In the upcoming presidential election, however, there is a chance to change this dramatically, by electing Congressman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Dr. Paul’s position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy – not upon anti-Zionism. Indeed, in a way, his foreign policy is mirrored by his small government domestic policy. Both recognize there are real limits to what a government can usefully do.

Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it would be more self-reliant. Ron Paul would both end this infantilizing, and even corrupting, aid and respect Israel’s national sovereignty.

Ted has some thinking to do.

#4. Ted Cruz endorsed Establishment John Cornyn

Wait, you thought only Rand was capable of endorsing his fellow establishment hack Senator? Well you thought wrong. Back in 2014, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) was up for re-election. He had several opponents, with Steve Stockman (R-TX36) being his biggest opponent. Stockman was a big conservative in the US House, and would’ve made a great liberty Senator. Where was Ted? Holding off till after the primary.

Now, note the difference here. Ted didn’t get into the fray. He didn’t endorse before any major candidate other than Cornyn was running. He didn’t get involved, leaving Stockman all on his own. This isn’t like what happened in Kentucky, where Rand endorsed McConnell before Bevin even entered the race. Ted was a complete no show till after the primary.

#5. Ted Cruz believes he can win over the libertarians

Recently, Ted Cruz brought on former Georgia Representative Bob Barr, who ran as the Libertarian candidate for President back in 2008, as his envoy and outreach person to libertarians. The goal here was to bring libertarians over to the Cruz camp, and away from the Paul camp.

There’s just one problem with that, and that’s that libertarians don’t see Barr as a great figure. To say the least, he’s controversial. Barr is hated by big L Libertarians, and many regret his nomination for their PArty back in 2008. On the other side, libertarians don’t see Barr as being serious here.

The idea that Cruz can pull off libertarians from Rand is another interesting thing. Cruz himself isn’t something a lot of libertarians like. Sure, he did well at the RLC, but when I’m talking with other libertarians, they’re not the biggest of fans. They certainly don’t support his war-mongering. They don’t support his constant cries for government involvement in personal lives of people. These things are big issues with libertarians, and I don’t see how Ted can pull them.

Now, Ted has picked up some. He boasts of picking up Ron Paul people, but there’s something he doesn’t get. The Ron Paul camp contained a wide variety of people, from conservatives to libertarians. More than likely, he’s picking up the more social conservative of the spectrum, but the libertarians surely haven’t gone towards him.

#6. Ted Cruz doesn’t understand the 4th Amendment

The 4th Amendment reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Treat that “shall not be violated” part like “shall not be infringed” like in the 2nd Amendment, and you’re golden. Ted Cruz does not do this.

Back when the USA Freedom Act was up for a vote, Ted Cruz voted for the bill. Rand Paul voted against it. What was the issue? Key phrases of the PATRIOT Act were going to be extended through 2017. This part was what caused Rand Paul to vote no on the bill. This is why he said that the bill did not go far enough.

These key provisions in the PATRIOT Act violate the 4th Amendment, and the whole bill needs to be killed off once and for all.

#7. Ted Cruz is sounding hawkish on war

I’ve known that Cruz isn’t the biggest war hawk, but this?

“And if the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to the 72 virgins,” Cruz said, grinning as the crowd cheered in approval. He was referring to the belief among some Islamic extremists that they will receive 72 virgins in the afterlife upon martyrdom.

ARE YOU F****** KIDDING ME? Are you trying to start WWIII? Do you really want war with Iran? I would think that’d be bad for Israel.

Going into Iran is a bad idea. Especially for Israel. What kind of person says something like this? This is crazy, and it speaks to what Cruz believes on foreign policy. Ted, you cannot go around the world, and force people to like you and the US. The US has been trying that policy for decades. We tried that under the Marshall Plan. We’ve tried it under foreign aid. IT’S NOT WORKING.

Was is a bad thing, and you shouldn’t be making stupid quotes like this, especially if Cruz wants libertarian voters, or even rational voters.

#8. Ted Cruz has flipped on issues

What, he hasn’t been consistent on issues? I must be lying.

Nah, let’s bring this up. Cruz used to be very much against marijuana legalization, and that’s something I cannot agree with, though I know many conservatives (mostly older in age) will agree with him. However now, when he announced, he’s now all for leaving it up to the States to decide, and is now for it.

As Marijuana Politics points out:

Appearing at the conservative conference CPAC earlier this year, Ted Cruz made clear that he would not crack down on legal marijuana should his presidential bid be successful:

“I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,’” the Texas senator said. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”

(via Forbes)

These remarks certainly bode well with drug policy reformers, but Ted Cruz has not always held these views on the issue. In January of last year, Ted Cruz spoke out against the Obama administration’s policy towards states with legalized marijuana. According to Ted Cruz, Barack Obama should have sought action through Congress to reform the federal enforcement of marijuana. While Sen. Cruz did not provide clues as to what reforms he would endorse, he complained that people in violation of federal law were not put in prison:

“Now, that may or may not be a good policy, but I would suggest that should concern anyone — it should even concern libertarians who support that policy outcome — because the idea that the president simply says criminal laws that are on the books, we’re going to ignore [them]. That is a very dangerous precedent.”

(via Reason)

What is the real flip I’m concerned about? It’s actually not the marijuana one. It’s this one: he has made it clear he won’t enforce a law, yet he also has criticized the President for not enforcing those same laws he now supports not endorsing. Which is it Ted; will you enforce all the laws as President, or will you pick and choose?

#9. Ted Cruz is only appealing to certain groups

Does this sound stupid to you? Let me explain. Right now, when I see Ted Cruz graphics from either the campaign or even fan-made, I feel like there’s a general trend to them being tailored more to the Christian conservatives. The same goes for his campaign messages, as well as practically anything.

Now, while that might be working now, how will that work come the general election? Will it work as great then? My thoughts are no. I might be a Christian myself, but that message of his does not appeal to me. I care about my government shrinking. I don’t care if my government is Christian or secular. If it’s a big government Christian nation, then that doesn’t change anything. That’s social engineering, at worst.

What do I like? Rand’s message is about the Constitution, and shrinking the size and scope of government to expand economic and personal liberties that we’ve lost. It’s not tailored to just Christians, or any specific religion. It’s not tailored to any particular group, except those who want their freedom back.


So, that’s it for this post. I don’t really have any other problems with Ted other than these that come to mind at the moment. Ted is a good guy, but he’s far from perfect, and certainly not as good as Rand.

 

 

Trade Promotion Authority & Why We Should Not Give It To Obama

Many conservatives, mostly Ted Cruz supporters in his campaign for President, will come to his defense on his vote to approve the TPA, or Trade Promotion Authority bill within the Senate, which will be up for vote in the House quite possibly today. They claim that this is for the better, that the Executive Branch should have this power. Should they hold this power? I argue that they shouldn’t. Here are some reasons why.

1. This bill will help the Obama Administration finish off the negotiations for the TPP.

This bill will help smooth the process for the Obama Administration to finish negotiations with other memebers of the possible Trans-Pacific Partnership member countries. This is a massive trade deal that is being sold under the guise of “free trade”. To say the least, it is not free trade. For more background on this, see other posts made to this blog.

2. We have to do it now!!!

Trade Promotion Authority is a six-year deal that would authorize the Executive Branch the power it needed to do negotiations with other nations on trade deals. While the ease may be there, just because it is easier, doesn’t mean it’s for the better. TPA would mean that Congress does not get to make any changes to the deal they would be voting on. They’d only get an up or down vote once it goes to them. Meaning, it’s either approved, or killed. It’s as simple as that. With a deal such as the TPP moving through, I would expect there to be some who would like to make amendments to it, and I could see why the GOP would want to do it, but unfortunately for them, this deal isn’t a good one, and just allowing an up or down vote on it, or other deals in the works like it, frankly, won’t be enough.

3. We need it to pass trade deals!!!

No, you don’t. Here is the CATO Institutes K. William Watson to explain:

Free trade agreements are an important tool to improve U.S. trade policy, and “fast track” trade promotion authority has been helpful in securing the completion and passage of those agreements. But, contrary to the assertion of many trade advocates, trade promotion authority is not a necessary prerequisite to passing trade agreements.

So, as stated, it makes it easier, but no, it’s not necessary. Let’s be serious.

4. We need it so that there won’t be so much the Democrats can do with it!!!

Um, welcome to the Republican held Congress. What are Republicans worried about? They control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. There is no major threat that can come from the Democrats really, when also factoring in how much lobbyists have spent trying to promote this thing as well. Guess what, the Constitution put the power to negotiate trade deals in the hands of the CONGRESS. Why? Because who does Congress represent? THE PEOPLE, or that’s how it used to be. The power to negotiate deals was given to the Congress in the Constitution by the Founders. They didn’t want the Executive doing it. They wanted those closest to the people doing it.

I could go on, but I’ll stop there for now. These are some of my objections to TPA currently. If the trade deal was really about just free trade, then I wouldn’t be really hesitant to be for TPA, but with the super-secretive deal like the TPP, aka ObamaTrade, I honestly don’t think giving the President TPA will be for the good of the Country, even going into the next Presidency.

Paul Introduces Amendment To Stop Indefinite Detention In NDAA 2016

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment on Tuesday to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 that would put an end to the Indefinite Detention clauses already within the bill, that were placed in there by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2012.

The Kentucky Senator said this in a Press Release on the Amendment:

WASHINGTON—Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the Due Process Guarantee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment is designed to protect Americans from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial.

The amendment aims to end ongoing legal ambiguities by affirming and strengthening the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

“The indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without due process is fundamentally un-American. Our founding fathers believed so firmly in the right to trial by jury that they enshrined it in the body of the Constitution, and again in the Sixth Amendment,” Sen. Paul said. “We can and will vigorously investigate and prosecute all who seek to do us harm, and we can do so while respecting the constitutional liberties of American citizens.”

If you’d like to read the comments of the other Senators, click the above link to view the full press release. I would like to touch on one person here though. Ted Cruz sponsored this, and in it, he had this to say:

“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial,” said Sen. Cruz. “That’s why I have consistently supported measures to prohibit indefinite detention in the NDAA. The Due Process Guarantee amendment will prohibit the President’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. While we must vigorously protect national security by pursuing violent terrorists and preventing acts of terror, we must also ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.”

This helps me with Ted Cruz, as I’ve been losing faith in him a bit. It’s nice to see him standing up for the rights of ALL American citizens. Now, if only some people in the conservative movement would follow his lead.

Overall, this amendment is for the better, as it strikes down the governments ability to indefinitely detain citizens, which as stated above, is already unconstitutional, but with how the Supreme Court is, and how screwed up things are in general in Washington DC, there was little hope then for it to be struck down in court, and if it was, well, the government wouldn’t accept the ruling.

I really hope this amendment passes, and I would hope you do too.

Vote On TPP Shows Whose Paying Attention In GOP

jeff-sessionsThere were 5 Republicans who voted against giving the President Fast-Track Authority on the big, secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. These 5 are a mixture from the GOP, not being solely from the liberty or establishment parts of the Party. But I think a big ‘Thank You’ is in order for them. They voted against something that most of their counterparts thought was a good thing, or they could still control. In reality, they ceded their authority and control over it last night.

Take this tweet for example. I was in a twitter conversation last night, and the guy said the following:

I replied with a simple question.

To which, he responded:

To me, I see one thing. I see someone not paying enough attention and trying to figure what’s in the bill before they support it. The TPP isn’t about free trade. We live in the Obama Administration. Think about it. He is no friend of free trade, whether at home or abroad. This shouldn’t be hard to figure out. Put 2 and 2 together. Free trade isn’t the answer here. It’s corporatism. Plain and simple. The five Republicans who voted against it were:

  • Collins (ME)
  • Lee (UT)
  • Paul (KY)
  • Sessions (AL)
  • Shelby (AL)

Note that Senator’s Cruz, Rubio, and Graham all supported it. My guess is that they didn’t read it. We already can tell Ted didn’t, as when he was asked about where he stood with the TPP, he responded in support of it by saying that he likes free trade. Again, this deal has nothing to do with free trade, which means Cruz isn’t doing his job, which isn’t a surprise really.

This is where Cruz goes wrong. The video isn’t that long.

Cruz is proving himself to be more and more anti-liberty than he originally was. That, and he isn’t doing well with his job. Not being in the Senate to vote on things is bad enough, but it doesn’t even look like you’re trying to read things that are being read too. Come on Ted, you should know better than this. You need to get your butt in gear. Seriously.

Believe I’m wrong? Have a look for yourself.

 

voting-record

Open Letter To Ted Cruz

Dear Ted Cruz,

You’ve been one of the best people the liberty movement has had in the Senate, alongside Rand Paul and Mike Lee and a few others whom I’d consider are in good standing with the liberty movement. I’ve been following you since your campaign for Senate. You’ve been a vocal supporter of freedom in many area’s, and while we may not agree on everything, I will thank you for the good work you have done.

That being said, I take issue with some recent comments you made. These comments revolve around the Trans-Pacific Partnership which is being presented to Congress. For those of you who have not seen them, then watch this:

Cruz said that he is all for giving the President Fast-Track Authority on the TPP, and I take big issue with that.

For those of you who do not know, Fast-Track Authority would mean that the TPP goes to Congress for an up or down vote. No amendments can be made, and no discussion will be heard. This is something that I would find to be a bad thing, and an abdication of a power held by the Congress to the President.

Mr. Cruz, you’re giving me the impretion that the Obama Administration has the ability to negotiate a free trade agreement with other countries. Assuming the Obama Administration has the capabilities of even understanding free trade is a mistake. We have had 6 years to see just how much the Administration believes in “free trade”, and believing in their capabilities to negotiate a free trade agreement with other countries is telling me that you’re either not paying attention to what is going on in your job, or wanting to go along with crony capitalism, which is what this trade deal seems to be about.

This deal has been sealed away from the public view, and I don’t believe that most will ever even read it, or even hear about it. The secrecy in this trade deal is concerning. If the Administration is being so secretive about it, then that tells most that there is something they want to hide from the American people. I will not assume that you have taken the time to go to the Trade Representatives building, and go to the secret room where you can read this like Rand Paul has. He read it, and he is opposing Fast-Track Authority. I wonder if you had read it, if you’d be for it. To quote your colleague in the Senate,

… but I hate giving up power. We give up so much power from Congress to the presidency, and with them being so secretive on the treaty, it just concerns me what’s in the treaty,” he said.

So you support free trade. That’s great, Senator Cruz. I do too, but this deal is not about free trade. This deal is about secrecy, and I would bet that this deal is about crony capitalism. Nothing that I have seen tells me that this trade deal is a good thing, and I would urge you to go and read this deal if you have not. I would urge you to consult with Senator Paul, or even Senator Sessions on the trade deal. Heck, you could even talk to Carly Fiorina, who has come out firmly agains the TPP. Ask them why they stand where they do, and then take some time to reflect.

Please, I know you’re on the campaign trail. I know you’re devoting time to that, but please remember that your first duty is to the people who elected you to the Senate. Your duty is to representing them first. Your job is important, which is why the citizens of Texas put you in the Senate. Don’t let them down. Do your job. Read the bills that come in. Don’t miss your votes. Pay attention. That’s all I ask.