At Least Five Police Officers Killed by Snipers During Dallas Protest

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Fox News. President Barack Obama called the shootings in Dallas that left five police officers dead and several others wounded during a protest against police on Friday a “vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement” . . .

Dallas Police Chief David Brown said earlier Friday that it was ”our assumption” that four suspects were working together with rifles, triangulating at different positions.” He had no information on a possible motive or the identities of any of the suspects. He also noted that police were not completely certain that every suspect was in custody.

Brown also said authorities had earlier taken a woman into custody near the garage. Two men were also being questioned after police pursued their vehicle away from downtown onto Interstate 35.

A fourth man was in an hours-long standoff with police. He was firing at officers and around 2:15 a.m. local time and told police “the end is coming.” He later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to KDFW-TV. Police were sweeping the area for possible explosives.

Late Thursday, Brown confirmed the four fatalities — three Dallas PD officers and one transit officer — and said seven other officers and one civilian were wounded in the shooting. Three of the injured officers reportedly were in critical condition and two others were in surgery. The Dallas Police Association confirmed a fifth officer had died in a Tweet early Friday. (Read more from “At Least Five Police Officers Killed by Snipers During Dallas Protest” HERE)

_____________________________________

Woman Streams Aftermath of Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting

By Eliott C. McLaughlin. As Philando Castile’s head slumps backward while he lies dying next to her, Diamond Reynolds looks into the camera and explains a Minnesota police officer just shot her fiancé four times.

The nation is, by now, accustomed to grainy cell phone videos of officer-involved shootings, but this footage from Falcon Heights, outside Minneapolis, is something different, more visceral: a woman live-streaming a shooting’s aftermath with the police officer a few feet away, his gun still trained on her bloody fiancé.

“He let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm,” Reynolds said as she broadcast the details of Wednesday’s evening shooting on Facebook. (Read more from “Woman Streams Aftermath of Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Some Key Facts About Three of This Week’s Police Shootings

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This week, three police shootings of black citizens in Baton Rouge, Brooklyn and Minnesota have sparked protest both locally and nationally. Here are some key facts about each.

Brooklyn

On Monday, according to surveillance cited by “sources,” Delrawn Small attacked off-duty police officer Wayne Isaacs in Brooklyn over what has been described as “road rage.” Small allegedly walked up to Isaacs’ car and began punching him in the face as the officer sat. Isaacs, who is also black, took two punches before shooting Small.

According to news reports, Small was in a vehicle with his girlfriend, their infant child, and her two teenage daughters. He ignored his girlfriend’s admonitions not to confront Isaacs. One report indicates the altercation occurred because Small thought Isaacs cut him off, and at a red light got out of his vehicle. His girlfriend allegedly told police Small had three drinks at a BBQ, and had a temper.

Isaacs was treated for minor injuries and released from a hospital.

Members of Small’s family say they want justice. His brother asked, “When is it going to stop?” and his niece said she would “hunt” Isaacs down. The state is investigating the shooting, while police say they are confident Isaacs acted appropriately.

A nearby store owner said his video surveillance shows Small went after Isaacs, “punching the s&%t” out of him with “haymaker” punches.

One man, however, says Isaacs was at fault. He described both Isaacs and Small both out of their vehicles and yelling at each other after the vehicles nearly struck each other. “He just shot [Small] right there on the street,” said Lloyd Banks.

Small’s record included 19 arrests and three jail terms, and he finished parole for assault in 2013.

Isaacs was one of several officers accused of false arrest in 2014, during which time the suspect was struck on multiple occasions. The case was settled. The plaintiff in that case said one officer called him a derogatory racial term. The Stream was not able to immediately determine whether Isaacs was one of the officers who struck the plaintiff, or made the derogatory comment.

Baton Rouge

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, police got an anonymous call to go to Abdullah Muflahi’s Triple S Food Mart because a man in a red shirt allegedly threatened the caller with a gun.

Video shows two white police officers grabbing Alton Sterling, throwing him to the ground, and pinning him. They ordered him to not move, and then once yelled, “He’s got a gun.” Sterling appeared to continue struggling, and one of the officers pulled his weapon and ordered Sterling to hold still. A few moments later, an officer fired several shots, killing Sterling.

Sterling had a weapon in his pocket, taken out by police after he was killed.

The convenience store owner has given surveillance footage to police, claiming the two officers “murdered” Sterling. He said Sterling had been outside of his store for years, selling CDs, and doing nothing wrong. The owner also said Sterling had the weapon because he had been robbed.

Officers say their body cameras fell off during the altercation. Original video, which has now gone public, was provided by two bystanders as or after officers took Sterling down. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights department is investigating the shooting.

Sterling’s record does not appear to have been known to the officers who responded to the anonymous call. According to Heavy.com, the record includes, but is not limited to, impregnating a 14-year old girl when he was 20, resulting in being placed on the sex offender list.

Sterling, who was 37 at the time of his death, had also grappled an officer in 2009, been accused of domestic violence and was accused of breaking into at least two women’s apartments. He was convicted at least twice on domestic violence charges, as well as simple assault. He was also on record as having possessed illegal drugs, and of changing his address without notification, a violation of state law for sex offenders.

Baton Rouge police were accused of racist and unnecessarily violent behavior by out-of-state officers who came to the city to help after Hurricane Katrina. ABC News reports that there was already significant racial tension in the city, between black residents and police.

Some have pointed to the record of one of the officers who was involved in Sterling’s death, Howie Lake. Lake and five other officers were placed on administrative leave after chasing a domestic violence suspect who eventually crashed a vehicle and exchanged gunfire with police. Lake and the other officer on-scene with Sterling had each received a departmental award in 2015.

Minnesota

Also on Wednesday, a Falcon Heights, Minnesota, police officer shot and killed Philando Castile after pulling him over for a broken tail light. According to The Washington Post, Castile was with his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds and her daughter. They were pulled over in the St. Paul suburb and the officer told Castile to get his license and registration.

According to Reynolds, Castile told the as-yet-unidentified officer that he had a firearm as he reached for his pocket to get his wallet. The officer yelled “Don’t move” and opened fire. At that point, Reynolds began recording Castile bleeding from wounds from which he would later die.

Governor Mark Dayton has asked the White House to have the Department of Justice investigate, which FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday would happen. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is already investigating the shooting, which Dayton theorized on Thursday was partly based upon “racism.”

Castile’s mother and Reynolds said he had a license for his weapon. In her video, Reynolds says, “He let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm.”

As she was telling the story, the officer, identified by Reynolds as “Chinese,” yelled at her to “keep your hands where they are.”

“I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hands up,” yelled the officer, to which Reynolds said, “You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license.”

“But how can you not move when you’re reaching for license and registration?” Reynolds asked. “It’s either you want my hands in the air or you want my identification.” As Castile slumped over, she said, “Oh, my God. Please don’t tell me he’s dead. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.”

The interim police chief for the department, Sergeant Jon Mangseth, told reporters that “We haven’t had an officer-involved shooting in 30 years or more. I’d have to go back in the history books, to tell you the truth.”

“It’s shocking,” said Mangseth, according to The Washington Post. “It’s not something that occurs in this area often.” He went on to say more information would be released “as we learn it.”

Commenting on Castile’s death, National Review Online Editor Charles Cooke pointed to Minnesota law, which says that concealed carry permit holders, which Castile was, are only obligated to inform of their being armed if specifically asked. “Moreover, in no state is the mere act of carrying a firearm sufficient justification for a police officer to open fire,” wrote Cooke, who was careful to note that “the Devil will remain in the details” of what happened, and whether the officer will be found justified in killing Castile.

The Star-Tribune reports that Castille had been found guilty of 31 misdemeanors, all related to driving. He had worked for the St. Paul Public School District for 14 years. (For more from the author of “Some Key Facts About Three of This Week’s Police Shootings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Department Reveals Its Response to FBI’s Clinton Investigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Days after the FBI announced its recommendation following an investigation into presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, what was on its face good news for the former secretary of state has since offered her critics more reason to oppose her.

FBI Director James Comey this week revealed the bureau would not recommend an indictment against Clinton for her use of a private email server while conducting official State Department business. The announcement, however, was preceded by a thorough denouncement of her careless and potentially dangerous behavior.

While her surrogates focus on the story’s silver lining, Clinton’s detractors remind voters of the dark cloud of corruption and incompetence they say plague her public record. According to recent reports, the executive department she once led apparently has some questions of its own in the wake of the FBI’s investigation.

State Department spokesman John Kirby released a statement on Thursday announcing an internal investigation into Clinton’s email use has been relaunched.

“Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement,” he advised, “the State Department intends to conduct its internal review. Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations.”

The departmental investigation’s scope, reports indicate, will include whether Clinton and/or her closest aides mishandled classified data. No end date has been set for the review, which Kirby explained could result in “administrative sanctions” against State Department officials involved in any wrongdoing.

Top Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are among those being named as likely to be of particular interest to department investigators. (For more from the author of “State Department Reveals Its Response to FBI’s Clinton Investigation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cruz Makes Announcement After Meeting With Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, announced on Thursday that he has accepted presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s invitation to speak at the Republican National Convention later this month.

“We had a positive and productive meeting this morning with Donald Trump. Donald asked me to speak at the Republican convention and I told him I’d be happy to do so,” Cruz told reporters.

The Texas senator added that there was no discussion of an endorsement during that meeting.

Asked by a reporter what he would speak about at the convention, Cruz responded, “I’m going to urge Americans to get back to the Constitution to change the path we’re on: eight failed years of the Obama/Clinton economy; eight failed years of a presidency disregarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights; eight failed years of a commander-in-chief not protecting American and keeping us safe from radical Islamic terrorism. It’s time for that to end.”

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said of the meeting, “There was no discussion of any endorsement. Mr. Trump asked Sen. Cruz to speak at the Republican convention, and Sen. Cruz said he would be happy to do so. Mr. Trump also asked Sen. Cruz for his counsel on future judicial nominations, and Cruz responded he would continue to do everything he can to help ensure principled constitutionalists on the courts.”

RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who was in attendance when the two met, told Fox News, “I’ll just say they had a good conversation, and it was very polite and cordial and normal. I know they’re working on details.”

As the two became the last viable Republican presidential candidates standing in the spring, the rivalry between them became particularly personal, with Trump referring to Cruz as “Lying Ted” and Cruz describing his foe as a “sniveling coward.”

In March, following Trump re-tweeting an unflattering picture of Cruz’s wife, Heidi, and threatening to “spill the beans” about her, the Texas senator indicated that he was not likely to endorse Trump. “I don’t make a habit of supporting people who attack my wife and my family,” he said.

CNN contributor and former Cruz communications staffer Amanda Carpenter tweeted regarding the Thursday meeting:

Trump also met with some 200 Republican members of Congress on Thursday. House Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted a statement following the meeting, which reads, in part, “It’s clear that our party is committed to defeating Hillary Clinton and Democrats this fall. We had a great meeting, and I appreciate Donald Trump taking the time to speak with House Republicans…”

(For more from the author of “Cruz Makes Announcement After Meeting With Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Benghazi Doesn’t Matter, What Does?

/0 Comments/in , /by

For me, these names matter: Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to Libya, Sean Smith, career diplomat, Glen Doherty, former Navy SEAL, and Tyrone Woods, former Navy SEAL. All died in the service of the United States. They left behind loved ones who are owed the truth, and the sincere support of a grateful nation. But are we grateful?

In the last few days much of what I have heard has been disgusting. Comments like “it’s over” or “it is merely a partisan ploy to keep Hillary from the White House” or “mistakes happen in war, let’s move on.”

I’m not sure what makes me sicker; the notion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama allowed a US ambassador and the brave Americans protecting him to die. Or the notion that both of them, Hillary especially, tried to cover up the mistakes, and activities that allowed Americans to be slaughtered, just to protect their campaigns, and legacy. Or the recognition my fellow citizens and much of the media are willingly providing political cover, excuses and support for Hillary Clinton – just so their candidate can win the presidency.

To be sure, there were lots of mistakes made – from the Arab Spring to the disastrous efforts at nation building in Libya. But at the end of the day, leaders must always be mindful these immortal words of the late, great, Harry Truman, “the buck stops here” For better or worse, whether complicit, or buffoonery, knowing, or not, the captain of the ship, or leader of the enterprise is always responsible, and in this case, it was President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Watching CNN broadcast Congressmen presenting the final Benghazi report, you would think the investigation concluded without key revelations or damaging evidence how badly our leaders failed those they swore to protect – fellow Americans. The ticker tape message floating across the bottom of the CNN screen seemed designed to mislead; it conveyed all was well for Hillary and no new discoveries found against her. Beyond dishonest and biased reporting – shameful is a good word – is the callous disregard for their fellow citizens who were murdered, and their families.

It is more clear than ever that the media are so “in the tank” for Hillary that they will abandon any semblance of journalistic ethics to twist, obfuscate, refuse to report or spin whatever it takes to help her win. And hell be damned to the families of those who died in Benghazi; they are inconvenient truths, mere stepping stones to be kicked aside on the campaign trail. CNN isn’t alone. The major newspapers and other broadcast media, as well as social media, are all doing the same thing. The democrat message machine is in full production trying to taint the Congressional Report as partisan, unfair, untrue, while providing all loyal party members brooms to sweep the entire affair under the rug.

As sickening and unpatriotic, and despicable as these behaviors are from DNC party members, politicians, and the media, what is by far the worse insult of all is reading some of the partisan, hateful, toxic online comments people – potentially our coworkers and neighbors – have written in response to the Benghazi Report; one especially stabs the heart – “Perhaps Ambassador Stevens got reckless.” Even Hillary on her most ruthless day would not utter such a comment, yet one of her devotees felt no such inhibition of conscience, morality, or soul.

The sad reality is quite simple – many Americans just don’t give a damn that 4 of their fellow citizens died in an environment our leaders helped create, representing us, our nation, our culture, and were abandoned at the altar of political expedience, left to die at in the fires and bullets sent by savage radical Islamists. As long as these Hillary and democrat partisans get to cheer on their candidate, enjoy whatever entitlements, bragging rights, largess, or patronage such loyalty earns, nothing else matters. Don’t get in their way with details like fellow countrymen getting assassinated.

Which begs the question – who are we as a society? If a significant proportion of our fellow citizens readily, unapologetically, dare I suggest happily will ignore, overlook or dismiss such a disastrous example of poor US leadership, resulting in the completely unnecessary death of people just trying to serve their country, what does it say about us? Is there anything redeemable about us? Is there anything salvageable in our social compact? That there are in our midst a large number of people and their enterprises who would sacrifice their neighbors, their human decency, their morality, their humanity, and their patriotism, to ensure their candidate wins an election, it is a stunning indictment of our nation, and a bad omen for our future. What rewards await such base behaviors? A bigger welfare check? Bragging rights? Political influence?

If Benghazi doesn’t matter, what does? (For more from the author of “If Benghazi Doesn’t Matter, What Does?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You Can Thank These 20 Republicans for Loretta Lynch

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This was a bad week for justice and the rule of law.

Tuesday, FBI Director Comey made his official recommendation to not bring charges against Hillary Clinton and subsequently on Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch accepted that recommendation. She then made the official announcement that the Department of Justice is closing its investigation into Clinton’s emails.

As Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin explained Tuesday, a special prosecutor should’ve been appointed from the beginning because the Obama administration, and Obama’s appointee Loretta Lynch, never intended to prosecute Clinton.

Lynch’s private meeting at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport with former President Bill Clinton combined with the mounting evidence against Hillary that is continually being swept under the rug only affirms the special treatment and consideration Hillary has received.

But how did Loretta Lynch become America’s top cop, albeit a corrupt one, with a GOP controlled Senate?

Republicans had to vote for her, of course.

So who were the Republicans who voted to advance Lynch’s nomination to final confirmation? They were:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. (F, 19%)

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. (F, 34%)

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. (F, 43%)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. (F, 27%)

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. (F, 27%)

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine (F, 12%)

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 47%)

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas (F, 46%)

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 50%)

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. (F, 47%)

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. (F,33%)

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah (F, 37%)

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. (D, 60%)

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. (F, 19%)

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 44%)

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio (F, 49%)

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (F, 55%)

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D. (F, 33%)

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. (F, 48%)

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. (F, 33%)

These 20 Republicans were instrumental in the confirmation process of an Attorney General who has let Hillary Clinton off the hook. Justice won’t find Clinton in a court of law. But perhaps it will find her, and the Republicans who confirmed the AG that let her off, at the ballot box. (For more from the author of “You Can Thank These 20 Republicans for Loretta Lynch” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s DOJ Flushes Gender Sanity Down the Toilet

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our country is filled with young Muslims attempting to join foreign terror networks. Our communities are full of criminal aliens and are also experiencing an uptick in violent crime. One would think the Department of Justice would be stretched thin and fully consumed by the endless criminal cases related to national security and public safety. Yet, in May the Justice Department focused its attention against the sovereign state of North Carolina and sued them for recognizing only those with male plumbing parts as males. Now, in their alacrity to get this issue settled, they have filed a motion for an injunction against HB2, the law that prevents local governments from allowing men into private female dressing rooms and bathrooms.

The day after Independence Day, DOJ Civil Rights attorneys filed a motion for an injunction with the Middle District of North Carolina. First, it’s worth noting that this motion is full of inaccuracies about HB2, as noted at length by local activist A.P. Dillon on her blog, such as its claim that the law requires someone to produce a birth certificate in order to use a public restroom. More importantly, this motion is built upon a legal theory that should raise the hair on anyone’s neck. The motion asserts that HB2’s dictates that only someone with a penis use the men’s room and one with lady parts use the lady’s room “impermissibly discriminates against transgender individuals based on sex stereotypes.”

Folks, pinch yourself for a minute and realize that this is not an Onion article or April Fool’s joke. Typically, I like to use absurd analogies to illustrate absurdities taking place in our government, but I can’t quite conjure up a metaphor that is more radical and absurd than the reality of our Justice Department codifying the most grotesque contortion of natural law and biology into law. One might offer the analogy of a white person claiming to be black for the purpose of obtaining affirmative action benefits (in itself unconstitutional), but trans-racism is not nearly as absurd as transgenderism. A white male has a lot more in common biologically with a black man than he does with a white female.

Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, why can’t any male say they feel like a woman for the purpose of obtaining a spot on a girls’ sports team? Or taking this to other areas of law, why can’t a non-lawyer say they feel like a lawyer today and be eligible to run for Attorney General or a judge in a given state? Why can’t I tell the cops in Maryland that I feel like I have a concealed carriers’ license and carry a gun in the [not so] Free State? Remember, as absurd as these suggestions sound, nothing is as immutable as sexuality.

Several former DOJ attorneys, including a former supervisor, also pointed out another disturbing observation. One of the attorneys who signed onto this lawsuit is Sean Keveney, who, from what I was told, was one of the few conservatives left at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. One source told me that Keveney “wouldn’t have ever attached his name to something so despicable and contrary to his values as a transgender case built on a frivolous legal theory, but when you are around these people long enough, it looks like you lose your moral compass.” There was no reason for Keveney to lend his name to this lawsuit if he hadn’t begun drinking the Kool-Aid. This is the frog in the boiling water theory. No matter how extreme and destructive the legal profession becomes, even conservatives will acclimate themselves to the new “climate” and shred natural law, federalism, and bedrock values of civilization, much less a modicum of jurisprudence.

There are also a couple of other important observations worth mentioning:

DOJ purposely shopped this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which has two Obama appointees. The original issue began in Charlotte, which is in the Western District and the capital is in the Eastern District. The Eastern District is also home to North Carolina State University, but they deliberately chose to go after the University of North Carolina, which is in the Middle District. What this shows is that there are enough lower courts that will agree to the most extreme legal theories of the Left that they always have a venue to enjoin every single common sense conservative law in every state. In this case, once they get a liberal district judge, it’s smooth sailing to the insufferable Fourth Circuit, which has already codified transgenderism. If you think merely adding one more conservative to the Supreme Court will solve our judicial problems, you are not paying attention.

The DOJ is going after a state for defining the most immutable nature of biology, but refuses to prosecute local officials who flagrantly violate immigration law, the one area of policy that was designed to be under federal control. Yesterday, all but two Democrats (who merely came along for the ride) voted to punish sanctuary cities.

Senate Republicans just debated the Justice Department funding bill on the Senate floor. Although they offered an entire week of debate over Democrat gun proposals, they found no time to vote on an amendment barring DOJ funds for any lawsuit against North Carolina.

When the colonial states agreed to declare independence from King George, could they ever have envisioned joining a federal union that would impose gender-bending tyranny on them, which violates the most literal sense of natural law of nature’s God? The ongoing social transformation without representation makes taxation without representation appear trivial. (For more from the author of “Obama’s DOJ Flushes Gender Sanity Down the Toilet” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ted Cruz’s Fight to Protect the Internet From Authoritarian Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration’s decision to give up U.S. control of regulating the internet is likely illegal, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said.

“The Obama administration does not have the authorization from Congress,” Cruz said Thursday, speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on internet freedom. “And yet they are endeavoring to give away this valuable, critical property. To give it away with no authorization at all. That ought to trouble all of us.”

The Texas Republican added:

We built the internet and America maintains it as free for all. We don’t use it in an imperialist manner to impose our views on others. We maintain it as an oasis of freedom.

Time is running out for Cruz, however, in what he considers his fight to keep the internet free from censorship by less-open foreign countries.

In June, Cruz introduced a bill that would keep the U.S. Commerce Department in an oversight role of the body that assigns internet names and addresses. That body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is a nonprofit organization that gives out domain names and numbers for the internet.

A domain name is the address of a person or an organization online. So when someone types dailysignal.com, he or she is brought to The Daily Signal website and not an imposter. One of ICANN’s responsibilities is to ensure that a specific domain name is not assigned to multiple organizations.

At issue is whether the U.S. should give up its role in overseeing ICANN. Supporters of the move say it is symbolic and that no single government or organization should have that much power over the internet. Cruz and other opponents say the move is too risky and that authoritarian regimes could gain influence over how the internet works.

Since ICANN’s creation in 1998, it has operated under a contract with a Commerce Department entity called the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

With the department’s advice, ICANN has carried out so-called Internet Assigned Names Authority functions under the zero-cost contract. These functions include assigning domain names. Prior to 1998, one University of California computer scientist carried out these functions.

From the beginning, the United States has planned to transition oversight of ICANN from the Commerce Department to some sort of international body.

The contract between the Commerce Department and ICANN was set to expire in 2015, but the department delayed the move. That transition is now scheduled to begin in September.

Cruz wants to stop that transition altogether. In the event at The Heritage Foundation, he made the case for his bill.

“When it comes to basic principles of freedom, letting people speak online without being censored—that ought to bring everyone together,” he said.

Cruz addressed young Americans specifically, saying this issue is of critical importance:

But young people, we’re talking about the ability of the next generation and generations to come to speak your mind without the government giving prior approval.

The Protecting Internet Freedom Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and James Lankford, R-Okla., would prevent the U.S. from giving up oversight of ICANN unless Congress passes legislation specifically authorizing the transition. A companion bill in the House was introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis.

The Cruz bill cites Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive power to makes rules concerning the territory and property of the United States. The domain names .gov and .mil are property of the United States, and Cruz says they should remain under the control of the U.S. government.

Brett Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation’s Jay Kingham fellow in international regulatory affairs, testified on this issue in May before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Schaefer discussed the uncertainty surrounding the new ICANN structure. Schaefer said the U.S. should retain some oversight until ICANN can prove the new plan will work smoothly. He testified:

To that end, I recommend a ‘soft extension’ of the existing contractual relationship—one that allows ICANN two years to demonstrate that the new procedures it is putting in place actually work to hold the corporation accountable. The transition to a multistakeholder global system is too important to get wrong and too important to rush.

Schaefer took part in a panel discussion following Cruz’s remarks at Heritage, joined by Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom; tech lawyers Paul McGrady and Philip Corwin; and Jonathan Zuck, president of the App Association.

A 2-year-old fact sheet on the ICANN website answers basic questions about the transition.

“This announcement does not affect internet users and their use of the internet,” it says. “However, all internet users have a stake in how the internet is run, and it is therefore important to get involved.”

Supporters of the transition say it is mostly symbolic. The U.S. government needs to cut its ties to ICANN, the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial:

But keeping the Commerce Department’s nominal role in domain names would only encourage other governments to remake the internet to their liking, either through technological barriers or through intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations. If it truly loves the open internet, Congress will let it go.

Cruz’s bill was referred June 8 to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Unless it or similar legislation passes and is signed by President Obama, the transition will begin Sept. 30. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz’s Fight to Protect the Internet From Authoritarian Regimes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian TV Shows U.S. Diplomat Decked by Embassy Policeman

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russian television broadcast footage of a policeman tackling a man the report said was an undercover CIA agent trying to enter the U.S. embassy in Moscow without identifying himself.

In the grainy, approximately 15-second clip, the man exits a taxi and is almost immediately tackled by a policeman who emerges from a guard box and wrestles him to the ground. In the ensuing struggle, the man manages to push himself through a door into the embassy compound, while the officer attempts to pin him down.

The incident, which took place at night on June 6, was caught on a security camera, according to the report shown Thursday on Russia’s NTV channel. The channel didn’t describe how it obtained the footage.

Russian-U.S. relations have deteriorated to a level not seen since the Cold War as the two powers find themselves on opposite sides of conflicts from Ukraine to Syria. In a sign of worsening ties, Moscow and Washington are boosting troop levels that face off against each other on Russia’s borders with the Baltic states, which are all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Read more from “Russian TV Shows U.S. Diplomat Decked by Embassy Policeman” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why You Should Read ‘Out-Of-Date’ History Books

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the long Independence Day weekend, the Washington Free Beacon published an essay by Waller Newell calling for renewed attention for what he calls the Next Best Books. These are works of history or literature that, while you wouldn’t file them away in the canon with books by Plato or Shakespeare or Hegel, nevertheless ought to have some claim on our lasting attention. Books by authors like Solzhenitsyn or Tuchman or Ortega y Gasset can help readers, especially younger readers, develop their political and psychological instincts, educating them about human nature, about greatness and great evil, and about what is required for a free society to endure.

Concluding that the universities have fallen down on this job, among so many others, Newell provided a provocative list of 15 history books “to get the ball rolling.” The earliest among them, Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, was published beginning in 1776; the most recent, Bernard Lewis’s Crisis of Islam, appeared in 2003. Most of the volumes are products of the mid-twentieth century, with books by Churchill, Robert Conquest, and Karl Polyani among them.

Given that these are histories rather than, say, novels, an obvious objection arises: aren’t most of these books a little, well, out of date? If we really want young people to understand why the Roman Empire fell apart, is a book written during the decade America fought for its independence really the best place to look? If Rome’s transition from self-governing republic to monarchic empire seems important for students to understand, what utility could be found in Ronald Syme’s The Roman Revolution, originally published in in 1939?

The same objection could be applied to most of the books on this list, or any similar list. In the years since these volumes have been published, hasn’t there been important new research that later authors have usefully synthesized? And even if the books have certain superficial charms that haven’t been improved upon—the rich skill of Barbara Tuchman’s prose, for example—a now half-century-old account of the start of World War One by definition cannot include the latest developments in the scholarship pertaining to that period of history, right? Not to mention the latest developments in our understanding of history or politics or human nature in a broader way! So, superficial appeal or antiquarian affectations aside … why bother?

Here’s why. The strongest point that can be made in favor of systematically preferring more recent histories to their predecessors is that later writers have access to more and better data. That later writers know more facts is generally true—though not universally, and certainly not before the era of modern western scholarship. (An interesting feature of medieval Arabic histories of the origins of Islam is that the later histories indeed tend to be longer than the earlier ones—chock full of inventions and fabrications that were passed off as discoveries.) But the flaw in this argument is the assumption that the main reason to read history is to determine the facts of the period in question to the greatest degree possible—to learn what really happened, or what von Ranke called wie es eigentlich gewesen (which sounds much more impressive). (Read more from “Why You Should Read ‘Out-Of-Date’ History Books” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.