A Proper American Response to Chinese Aggression and Humiliation

Upon entering office, President Obama fought a nomenclature battle with the Bush administration over China. “Strategic competitor” became “strategic partner.” The “Strategic Economic Dialogue,” critically, became the “Strategic AND Economic Dialogue.” Despite this lunacy and China’s flagrant disrespect for Obama, our China policy did not change all that much from President Bush’s. Yes, Obama’s fecklessness accelerated the downward trajectory of our position in Asia, but that trajectory was already plunging. Presidents Bush and Obama share the same affliction: muddling our economic and security interests. The muddle results in China’s regional security provocations going unchallenged, and the reasons why are linked.

Firstly, administrations fail to respond to China’s security transgression for fear that it will damage our economics interests. It is a perverse, defensive form of mercantilism. Secondly, we have a bad habit of reaching for economic sanctions as part of our toolkit for responding to security threats.

For both of these reasons, China’s security transgressions should only beget security responses.

Why? Because economic sanctions tend to boomerang back on us and act as a regressive tax on the middle class. We may not like it, but American and Chinese economic interests align more often than not. We and the global economy need a healthy Chinese economy (and vice versa). Most of what we would sanction are things that we buy or need for manufacturing inputs. That spells inflation here and less competitive manufacturing and exports. Imagine Chrysler sales if the Detroit automakers’ vehicles suddenly cost more than a Mercedes. And that is before Chinese retaliation or a move in the value of the dollar.

The other big reason Chinese security violations should be met with a security response is the empty nature of our economic threats. Policy makers usually figure out that economic threats will hurt U.S. consumers and consequently back down. We end up looking feckless, and China’s security challenges go unanswered.

When China tests us, we need a firm response. Failure to do so just invites more antics from Beijing, and we look like, well, Obama.

During his last trip to China the Chinese gratuitously snubbed Obama by making him deplane “from the ass end of the plane.” China likewise set the tone in 2010 in Copenhagen when the they sent a junior official to negotiate with Obama. After making the president wait for hours, Obama met with the waterboy.

China has stolen the files of millions of Americans, including me. Maybe the government passed China a stern note, but as far as I could tell the only administration response was to give me a subscription to an identity monitoring service … as if China using my credit card numbers is the worry.

Similarly, when China established an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea in November 2013, Obama’s silence was deafening. China made a naked attempt at a territory grab that could restrict trade routes, freedom of navigation, and pit our ally Japan against China. Obama flew one unarmed B52 sortie through the area and then advised U.S. airlines to comply with China’s demands.

So when China began building islands in the South China Sea and claiming new territory, it correctly assumed a weak U.S. response would follow.

Each of these events had an appropriate rejoinder. Obama should have refused the meeting with the junior official in Copenhagen and ignored China’s demands to deplane from the back of Air Force One. Why did he follow small orders from Beijing’s communist leadership? The ADIZ and the South China Sea situations placed China’s credibility in our hands, but we did not use that leverage. We should have regularly sent planes and ships through the territory China claimed. When China did not back up their threats of force (and they would not have), we could have advertised it.

It should trouble us that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump want to lead with an economic and not a security response. They thunder about economic reprisal, but, should they be elected, will almost certainly back down. Clinton has adopted Sen. Schumer, R-N.Y. (F, 2%) and Donald Trump’s currency manipulation hobbyhorse (which, by the way, is wildly inaccurate), and Trump has his trade war threat. Both are terrible ideas, though does anyone doubt that they will get left on the cutting room floor after November? To be sure, both belong on the floor, but we should worry that — in the midst of the flip-flops — we will once again fail to respond to China.

China presents a security challenge for us in Asia, but we must better relearn how to respond. Our reflexive grasp for economic responses creates threats from which we must eventually climb down or, if followed through on, would significantly harm the U.S. economy. The Chinese must be overjoyed at economic threats because they must know we do not mean it. China sees the American presence in the region as limiting its geopolitical rise, but the zero-sum thinking stops there. Economically they need us, and we need them. While no politician, especially Trump and Clinton, will say that in our populist moment, failure to do so merely aids China. (For more from the author of “A Proper American Response to Chinese Aggression and Humiliation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server

Communications from President Barack Obama have been discovered among those in the cache of emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The emails show that during the time Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, was secretary of state in Obama’s first term, Obama used a phony name when he was emailing Clinton and other officials.

The latest disclosure came in 189 pages of documents released Friday by the FBI.

The FBI has been investigating Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state. Although the FBI said Clinton has been careless in handling classified information, she was not charged with breaking any laws. The FBI has been issuing reports from its investigation.

The FBI report includes an interview with Clinton aide Huma Abedin in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama. However, Abedin did not recognize the sender’s name.

The report explained what happened next.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed, ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

The contents of the emails between Obama and Clinton have not been made public by the State Department, which has cited “presidential communications privilege,” to hide the communications from the Freedom of Information Act.

The FBI report does not provide details about the emails between Clinton and Obama.

The report is the first clear evidence that Obama used Clinton’s unsecured email server to communicate with his secretary of state.

The FBI earlier revealed Clinton had relied on others’ judgment to not send her classified material during email correspondences.

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

The information revealed Friday includes the FBI interviews with a number of individuals, including Clinton aides Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”

Friday’s reports also covered interviews with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director; Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton technology aide; Monica Hanley, a Clinton aide; and Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante.

Interviews were also released from FBI sessions with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA acting director Mike Morell, State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and other officials. (For more from the author of “FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US

Despite the fact it’s illegal, further proof that the Obama administration is not opposed to moving inmates from Guantanamo Bay’s military detention facility to U.S. soil was confirmed this week.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt disclosed the Pentagon spent federal dollars to scope out Fort Leavenworth — where the Department of Defense’s only maximum security prison is located — as a potential site to house former Gitmo detainees,” the Topeka-Capital Journal’s Justin Wingerter reports.

“As time runs out for the Obama administration to make good on its promise to close Guantanamo, this document raises new concerns for those who object to bringing detainees to the U.S. mainland,” Schmidt said after his office discovered the Pentagon’s actions through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Schmidt’s office underwent a 10-month battle with the DOD over the FOIA request.

However, bringing Gitmo inmates to the U.S. is illegal and prohibited by federal law. Additionally, multiple members in Congress have emphasized it will continue to remain illegal.

“After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe. And he doesn’t seem interested in continuing to try,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan R-Wis., (F, 53%) said in a statement in February after Obama confirmed his intentions to close the facility in Cuba.

“His proposal fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility. Congress has left no room for confusion. It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.”

Questions regarding the transference of remaining Guantanamo detainees have been rekindled. Just this month, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. (A, 96%), reintroduced a proposal halting detainees to be transferred to U.S. soil. This resolution was first introduced in February and is now gaining support from 50 Republican House members.

Similar to Kansas residents near Fort Leavenworth, the issue is relevant for Duncan and his district, since another potential U.S. site for the detainees is the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

“No state should be a terrorist dumping ground. I know the people of South Carolina are vehemently opposed to this plan,” Duncan said in a statement. “If brought to a city like Charleston, the community would immediately become a high priority terrorist target where millions of tourists travel every year to visit. In fact, any community forced illegal to house these notorious terrorists would be at risk.”

Currently, there are 61 detainees remaining at the Gitmo facility; Obama said earlier this month 20 of those are approved for transfer.

It’s important to note 66 percent of Americans are opposed to closing the facility, according to a Gallup poll from June.

Americans are concerned about former terrorists on the loose, and Obama should be, too. (For more from the author of “Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte

Spotted at Ginny Meerman-Lee’s place:

1. There’s a Black President
2. There’s a Black Congressman
3. There’s a Black Mayor
4. There’s a Black District Attorney
5. There’s a Black Chief of Police
6. The officer involved in the shooting was Black
7. The victim perp was Black

So whose fault is it when the perp gets taken out?

Oh, that’s right. The era of racial healing instigated by Barack Hussein Soetero Dunham Obama is truly remarkable.

Fundamentally transformed, alright. (For more from the author of “THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway

In his final address to the United Nations as president of the United States, President Obama said “we have to open our hearts” in welcoming refugees all around the world, and that “we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard.” Further, Obama said that “we have to have the empathy to see ourselves” in the plight of refugees, and that in welcoming refugees, “our world will be more secure.”

Oh, really?

Obama’s address at the U.N. comes on the heels of a slew of terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey this past weekend. Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist responsible for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, was originally from Afghanistan. Dahir Adan, who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall on Saturday, was a Somali immigrant and a suspected ISIS recruit. Both terrorists came to the United States as children.

Despite questions about the vetting process for refugees, the Obama administration is seeking to increase the America’s cap of refugees next year to 110,000, from 85,000 this year. As Conservative Review recently reported, the administration has already surpassed its target number for Syrian refugees this year by about 3,000, for a total of 13,000 refugees from Syria. More than 98 percent of these Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslim, while just 0.4 percent of them are Christian.

A new Rasmussen poll conducted after the weekend terrorist attacks shows that almost half of likely American voters do not want to let in any more refugees to the United States and 62 percent “believe that increasing the number of Middle Eastern and African refugees next year poses an increased national security risk to the United States.” Further,

Voters were similarly opposed and concerned about the national security threat of bringing Syrian refugees here this year, but Obama did it anyway, citing humanitarian concerns and the pressures these immigrants were putting on our European allies. The administration even sped the vetting process for these refugees in order to hit the president’s goal of bringing at least 10,000 here in 2016.

If President Obama is so intent on welcoming poorly-vetted refugees from ISIS-controlled regions into the United States, perhaps he should consider welcoming a few into his new home next year when he leaves office. (For more from the author of “Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address

It was hard to pick only three of the worst lies from Barack Obama’s speech today, but we did it.


Remember when Barack Obama said Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans, that was right before women and children became suicide bombers. He’s still saying it and it’s patently untrue.

The Breitbart London editor picked up this massive lie by Barack Obama. He actually lied to the UN with statistics that directly contradict those of the UN. He’s lied to them before. Take the lie about the video causing the Benghazi “protest”.


Globalist Obama just plain lied about poverty in the U.S.

During his speech, the president said, “Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.”

It’s an absolutely provable lie. Poverty Levels Under Barack Obama SKYROCKET To 50-Year Record High, as The Washington Times reported,


Obama thinks he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis. He’s made it worse. Look at how much the Iranians respect us now – constantly harassing our ships. We sure taught them.

His opening paragraph was a massive lie but my favorite was him saying he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis with diplomacy.

“From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.”

The Iranian nuclear deal guarantees Iran will have the bomb and he sent them billions in wire transfers to help them proliferate and lied about it. How is that strengthening the nonproliferation regime?

Barack Obama doesn’t believe in the United States or any sovereign nation, he believes in globalism. He wants to redistribute our wealth throughout the world and the other nations will readily take it but if he thinks dictators will give up their little fiefdoms, he’s truly insane.

The entire speech proves he lives in an alternative universe. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


President Obama Continues to Divide Americans

It is no secret that America is deeply divided today, due in no small part to the words and actions of our president. Unfortunately, rather than drawing us together as we approach the 2016 elections, President Obama continues to divide us.

First, there was his appeal to African Americans, insinuating that if they didn’t get out and vote (meaning for Hillary Clinton) it would be a personal insult to him and a blemish on his legacy.

Next, there was his claim that the only reason Americans would not vote for Hillary was that they were sexist, not wanting a woman to lead the country, a woman who, in his eyes, was infinitely more qualified to be president than Donald Trump.

As reported by the UK’s Independent, “During an impassioned speech to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, an organisation that carries out research on issues affecting African-Americans, Mr Obama said it would be an ‘insult to his legacy’ if the black community voted for Donald Trump — or refrained from voting at all — in the upcoming election.”

The president said, “I will consider it a personal insult — an insult to my legacy — if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election.

“You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote.”

So, black Americans who choose not to vote because they cannot, in good conscience, back either candidate, or worse still, black Americans who have had it with Democratic policies and feel that Trump is their better choice, are personally insulting the president.

And what about the many black Americans who are disillusioned with the president himself? Perhaps they’re not thinking about a sendoff. Perhaps they’re thinking about change. And perhaps the insult is in the president’s comments, as if this is all about race, not policy, as if Americans need to vote based on skin color rather than character and policy. How utterly divisive.

Viewed in that light, President Obama’s comments are borderline racist (or even blatantly racist).

Shades of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” category!

As for dividing on gender lines, Breitbart reports that, “President Barack Obama suggested at a New York fundraiser that American society is sexist, which is why Hillary Clinton is struggling to beat Donald Trump in the polls.”

He said, “There’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president — that we as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women. And it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly, and that expresses itself in all sorts of ways.”

And in the president’s judgment, while the election looks to be close, it ought not be, since Hillary is so much more qualified than Trump: “She’s been in the room where it happens, repeatedly. And her judgment has been unerring, and she has been disciplined, and she has been extraordinarily effective in every job that she’s had.”

Once again, this is a divisive tactic and a slam on the American people. Of course there are abundant reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of course there are abundant reasons to distrust her integrity, to question her honesty, to lack confidence in her ability to lead — and none of this has anything to do with her being a woman. It has to do with who she is (or is perceived to be) as a politician, as a leader, as a human being.

We could just as easily argue that the reason people hate Trump is because he’s a man. After all, look at all the deals he has made! Why would anyone vote against him unless they were sexist? That would be an equally ridiculous argument, yet it is an argument (in reverse) that the president is making.

And does President Obama really believe that if we had the equivalent of a Margaret Thatcher running against the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter that Americans would not overwhelmingly vote for Thatcher just as they voted for Reagan?

The reality is that many Americans of all colors and sexes have strong reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton (or even to sit out the presidential election entirely). It is a terrible shame that our president chooses to make this a matter of race and sex.

He is, sadly, proving to be divisive to the end. (For more from the author of “President Obama Continues to Divide Americans” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Despite Weekend Terror Attacks, Obama Wants to Increase Syrian Refugee Resettlement

With the nation reeling from three terrorist attacks this weekend in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, President Obama will host a “Leaders’ Summit on Refugees” Tuesday at the United Nations. In June, the White House gave a preview of what Obama plans to ask for:

“[A]t least a 30 percent increase in financing for global appeals and international humanitarian organizations; to double the global number of resettled refugees and those afforded other legal channels of admission; and to increase the number of refugees worldwide in school by one million, and the number of refugees granted the legal right to work by one million.”

At the refugee summit on Monday — the U.N. General Assembly’s first-ever summit on “Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants” — the Associated Press reports, “[A]t least 45 countries are expected to make pledges that are in line with U.S. goals of increasing humanitarian aid by $3 billion, doubling resettlement and increasing access to education for 1 million youngsters and access to employment for another million of the displaced.”

Just last week, the Obama administration proposed to increase the number of refugees — particularly from Syria — into the United States next fiscal year, reported.

The administration is set to surpass its target number for Syrian refugees this year by about 3,000, for a total of about 13,000 refugees from Syria. More than 98 percent of the Syrian refugees let into the United States this year are Sunni Muslim, while the massively underrepresented Christian community makes up just 0.4 percent. (For more from the author of “Despite Weekend Terror Attacks, Obama Wants to Increase Syrian Refugee Resettlement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


7 Weeks Before Election, Republicans Help Advance Another Obama Judicial Nominee

As President Barack Obama’s time in office nears its end, the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced another one of his judicial nominees toward a lifetime post. She may not get to the finish line, though.

While the Senate has entered that part of the political calendar when confirmations traditionally halt, the Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted 13-7 to advance the nomination of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The cadence of judicial nominations customarily follows what’s known as the Thurmond-Leahy rule. The rule, a longstanding gentleman’s agreement among senators, prohibits confirmations of new judgeships in the months before a presidential election.

Even though Koh has advanced out of committee, it’s not clear the Californian will receive a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. Republicans could be sending the nomination out of committee halfheartedly, in an effort to appease the left while running out the clock before the Nov. 8 elections.

Still, Democrats seem intent on getting Koh confirmed regardless of the Thurmond rule.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has shepherded Koh’s nomination from the beginning. Before Thursday’s vote, the California senator heralded the judge as “a nominee with very strong, impeccable credentials, and a distinguished track record.”

But when a Republican was last in the White House, Democrats demanded observation of the Thurmond rule. Insisting the rule was apolitical, they pushed to apply it before both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

“Not reflecting on any single judicial nominee or that person’s qualifications,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in October of 2004, “it has been a practice and tradition in the Senate that in a presidential election year, we suspend the approval of federal judges after the nominating convention of a major party.”

This year’s Republican National Convention ended July 21.

Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted to advance Koh’s nomination. Three Republicans joined them: Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

While Koh’s nomination is out of committee, she is not guaranteed a confirmation vote on the floor before the next president enters the White House on Jan. 20.

Before voting for Koh, Grassley made clear his support was only to “move her nomination out of this committee” and was without “any commitment about a floor vote.”

“Passing out of committee is only a first step,” a GOP Senate aide said of Koh’s prospects for confirmation, telling The Daily Signal that “it remains to be seen what, if anything, will happen.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a committee member who opposed the nomination, predicted a floor vote isn’t on the horizon.

“I don’t think we will see any more [judicial] confirmations this fall, certainly not before recess,” Sessions told The Daily Signal. “That’s just the way it’s always been. We will let the election move forward, and then confirmations will move depending on the outcome.”

Koh, the first federal district judge of Korean descent, is the fourth of Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals still awaiting a confirmation vote in the Senate.

The committee advanced another nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Donald Schott, by a nearly identical 13-7 vote June 16. Like Koh, he has not been added to the Senate’s calendar for a vote.

If confirmed, Koh would be another feather in Obama’s already-bristling judicial cap. In almost eight years, Obama has transformed the federal judiciary, appointing two Supreme Court justices, 55 appeals court judges, and 268 district court judges.

But after a bruising confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, it would be difficult for Koh to add her name to that list. The judge’s judicial philosophy opened her up to broadsides from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., as well as Grassley.

While attending Harvard Law School, Koh wrote in its Women’s Law Journal that “minority judges still need to maintain the disguise of ‘objectivity’” in order to be taken seriously in the legal world.

“Yes, [a minority judge] is going to identify with [minorities’] experiences,” Koh wrote in 1991, “but she can’t ‘admit’ this. We’ve got to get more clever and say, look, we’re just as neutral as any 60-year-old white man.”

Pushed by Grassley for an explanation of that statement, Koh, 48, said she no longer subscribes to those views and that her experience after law school taught her that judges “must be fair and impartial to all parties in all cases.”

“I made that statement as a first-year law student 26 years ago,” she said. “I completely disagree with it.”.

After graduating law school in 1993, Koh worked as a public prosecutor and in private practice before Obama appointed her in 2010 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Senate confirmed her unanimously for that post.

Koh’s track record could prove a stumbling block, though.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, opposed Koh’s nomination because of her decision in a 2015 case involving the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. She ruled that the government must get a warrant before collecting data generated by mobile devices.

Ahead of the committee’s vote, Cornyn criticized her decision as “an example of judicial activism” that contradicted established law.

“Judges should not be policymakers,” Cornyn said, “substituting their views for those of the elected representatives of the American people—that would be Congress—and the written Constitution.” (For more from the author of “7 Weeks Before Election, Republicans Help Advance Another Obama Judicial Nominee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Who Was the First ‘Birther’?

Donald Trump was wise not to take the advice of some of his staff and political allies by apologizing to Barack Obama for questioning his eligibility for the presidency and, yes, even whether he was born in the U.S.

Trump was hardly the first “birther.” Neither was I. Nor was my colleague Jerome Corsi. And neither was Hillary Clinton.

That honor belongs to one person and one person alone – Barack Obama.

Obama went to extreme lengths to conceal his past. And, indeed, if he was born in the U.S. and was eligible to serve as president, he certainly did his best to create the mystery that led to the question being asked.

Years earlier, he billed himself as having been born in Kenya. (Read more from “Who Was the First ‘Birther’?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.