Ted Cruz also to take establishment advice


Dr. Harold Pease - Contributing Columnist



No one is informed enough to do it all. “So tell us who will tell you what to do.” Ted Cruz did just this March 17, submitting a list of 23 persons as his national security team to advise him giving some preference to Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew McCarthy, former U. S. Attorney, and Jim Talent, former Missouri Senator. Problem is, Elliott Abrams is a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a high profile position in the organization, and is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. Insider Elliott Abrams was an assistant secretary of state to Ronald Reagan and a deputy national security advisor to George W. Bush. So much for Cruz not using the “Washington Cartel.”

Cruz went on to announce the rest of his team, 20 others to advise him, two of which, Stewart R. Baker and Michael Pillsbury, are also Council on Foreign Relations members. Baker served as assistant secretary for policy at Department of Human Services and as general counsel of NSA. Pillsbury was a Reagan campaign advisor in 1980 and served as assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning. He is also author of three books on China.

Cruz said of the 23 proposed advisors, three of which are CFR members (13 percent), “I am honored and humbled to have a range of respected voices willing to offer their best advice. These are trusted friends who will form a core of our broader national security team.”

All this after Donald Trump admitted two weeks previously that he too had selected the most establishment group in America to advise him. It appears now that all three of those who would advise him, Richard Haass, John M. “Jack” Keane and Jack Howard Jacobs are CFR members. Insider Haass has been CFR president the past 13 years. Trump did release five additional names on March 21, of which only Carter Page is CFR.

Thus far Trump’s CFR advisors are four of eight or 50 percent, with the organization president involved personally. So far the establishment group least influences Cruz at 13 percent, all specializing in foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s long standing affection for the organization, and her husband and daughter’s membership in, plus her previously stated admission of having Haass as a key advisor as Secretary of State, show us that the “establishment” would retain strong influence in her administration. None of these candidates are non-establishment.

Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, page 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, page 188, wrote “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.

I have told my students for over 30 years that the next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China will be from this organization, as will a third of his/her cabinet. Not might be!! Will be!! Also no one gets to be president without CFR approval. No exception! We get to choose which one of their approved party finalists we want, but the first election is theirs. I make the same prediction today for whoever replaces Barack Obama as president.

Such has been the case since its Wall Street creators J.P. Morgan, Colonel Edward M. House, Elihu Root and other internationalists in 1921, founded the Council on Foreign Relations. It is the special interest group of Wall Street, supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, is “considered throughout the world to be the unofficial mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Few important initiatives in U.S. policy have not been first outlined in articles in this publication,” says political scientist Thomas R. Dye.

So why support a Cruz presidency if he too has establishment influence? He is the only presidential candidate in this election year cycle that has publically condemned the CFR. He recently called it “a pit of vipers” and a “pernicious nest of snakes.”

It might be useful to compare his CFR influence (13 percent) against that of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney whose 20 person pre-election advisory list, more than half of whom, eleven to be exact, were members of the elite, semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations — the most establishment organization in American history. For decades the CFR has been the special interest group, “think tank” if you prefer, that provides a majority of the “experts” in every administration, Democrat or Republican. It is our shadow government.

Perhaps we have reached the time when the cancer cannot be fully removed from the body and Cruz is attempting to minimize the “pit of vipers” as much as is possible. Certainly the CFR is most passionate about foreign policy than any other policy area. Cruz may see flexibility in the other areas if he gives on this one. Two factors remain in his favor. The dislike between he and the establishment is real and he remains the most likely to problem solve with the Constitution.

To read more of Dr. Harold Pease’s weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

http://harlandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/web1_Harold-Pease-4.jpg

Dr. Harold Pease

Contributing Columnist

comments powered by Disqus