Conservative Groups Warn of Obama’s ‘Midnight Litigation’ Against US Business

Conservative and pro-business groups warn that the Obama administration may pursue legal action to enforce some of its thousands of new “job crushing” regulations before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.

Regulations promulgated in “the waning days” of President Barack Obama’s lame-duck administration could constrain the new Trump administration, the coalition of groups warned Vice President-elect Mike Pence in a letter dated Dec. 28.

“Because of this concern, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which provides Congress procedural tools to disapprove expeditiously these last-ditch midnight regulations,” the letter says.

The Congressional Review Act could address regulations put in place by the Obama administration since June 3. However, the law can’t prevent so-called “midnight litigation” launched by the executive branch to enforce those regulations.

The Obama administration issued 3,852 new federal regulations during 2016, according to a new analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, first reported Friday by the Washington Examiner.

The letter from conservative activists and business leaders says:

It has come to our attention that a number of departments and independent agencies are working furiously behind closed doors to bring significant, legally tenuous litigation against American business interests before Jan. 20, 2017. Doing so will saddle the Trump administration with having to litigate cases based on job-crushing liberal legal theories.

Inauguration Day, when Trump is sworn in as president, is Jan. 20.

Signers of the letter include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; Ken Blackwell, chairman of Constitution Congress; and Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The signatories represent 29 organizations, including Frontiers of Freedom, the Heartland Institute, and Liberty Counsel.

The letter warns Pence, a former congressman and governor of Indiana who is well-liked by conservatives, that the new administration should review any litigation to enforce the recent regulations.

“Should the Obama administration bring nonroutine, last minute, legally unorthodox midnight litigation, your administration should not hesitate to withdraw immediately from that litigation,” the letter to Pence states.

Such last-minute litigation could hurt job growth, the letter says.

John R. Smith, the chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, wrote in an op-ed for BizPac Review:

The lame-duck Obama administration has launched a mad scramble to throw up as many hurdles, and to plant as many last-minute landmines as possible against the new American president. In his final days of office, Barack Obama has initiated a major flurry of new executive orders, directives and regulations, thousands of them, that he is piling into the federal books.

Frontiers of Freedom, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting traditional American values, circulated the letter.

“Everything should be suspect,” George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, told The Daily Caller News Foundation, referring to the Obama administration’s final gush of regulations. (For more from the author of “Conservative Groups Warn of Obama’s ‘Midnight Litigation’ Against US Business” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Actions Against Russia Are ‘Too Little, Too Late’

President Barack Obama on Thursday took steps to retaliate against Russia for what he called “aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at our election.”

Obama’s actions include sanctioning Russian intelligence agencies and individuals as well as expelling 35 Russian government officials from the United States.

“These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government,” Obama said in a statement, “and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

The Daily Signal asked Luke Coffey, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, about Obama’s actions. Here are his answers to our questions.

Some in the media are saying Russian hacking helped Donald Trump win the election against Hillary Clinton. Is there any truth to that?

Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election because the American people rejected her progressive vision of America and the idea of another four years of Obama’s failed policies. She alone is responsible for her defeat.

Russia’s actions are indeed alarming, and they must be taken seriously. Russia has a proven track record of taking an interest in the internal events and election processes of NATO member countries.

In this case, the forensic evidence released by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI is detailed and persuasive in showing Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee. So Russian denials are not credible.

However, it should be noted that there is no evidence of any interference in the voting and ballot counting processes.

Obama took new measures Thursday to retaliate. What will those measures achieve?

Obama’s announcement of sanctions against sections of Russia’s intelligence community and expelling 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. is welcome but long overdue. This is too little, too late.

[Russian President Vladimir] Putin respects two things: strength and consistency. Over the past eight years, Obama has shown neither of these traits. This is why Russia felt confident enough to take the actions that it did.

What steps should Congress and the White House take to investigate the extent of Russia’s actions?

Any investigation into this matter needs to be independent, bipartisan, and given enough time to do a comprehensive job. Obama’s rushed internal review lacks creditability.

The U.S. has military superiority over Russia, but technology has become more important than ever to our national security. Just how serious is the cyberthreat from Russia?

As The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength states, “Russia seeks to maximize its strategic position in the world at the expense of the United States,” maintains “incredibly advanced” cyberwarfare capabilities, and assesses “the overall threat from Russia as ‘aggressive’ and ‘formidable.’”

The U.S. intelligence community has continued to serve us skillfully and often gallantly to keep all Americans safe 24/7. That needs to be a priority now and in the future. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Actions Against Russia Are ‘Too Little, Too Late'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Foundation CEO Mysteriously Missing; Massive Conspiracy of Silence by Mainstream Media

Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation CEO from 2013 until 2015, has apparently been missing since October. His absence has fueled speculations in the blogosphere but so far has been ignored by the media.

Some speculate, with good reason, that Braverman may have gone into hiding after an email mentioning his name was released by Wikileaks on October 22 of this year. In the March 2015 email exchange, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Clinton campaign manager and confidant John Podesta there was a mole within the Clinton Foundation. Podesta in his reply told Tanden the mole was Braverman.

Braverman had abruptly resigned from the Clinton Foundation shortly before this email exchange took place. And then, after the email exchange was made public by Wikileaks, Braverman vanished from the public eye.

This seems like a story that someone might want to report.

The last evidence of Braverman’s public activity was October 12, when he posted his last tweet on Twitter. (Usually he tweets about once a month. His “husband,” Neil Brown, hasn’t tweeted since August, although he rarely tweets.) I left a voicemail on Braverman’s personal phone and sent him an email, but received no response. He is still listed as a lecturer at Yale University and, contrary to some reports, there is a record of his lectures going back several years. I contacted the press office and Braverman’s department at Yale and received no response.

Braverman, the Podesta Leaks and the Clinton Foundation

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told The Daily Mail that Podesta’s emails were leaked to the organization by a disgruntled insider, not the Russians. Consequently, there are suspicions it may have been Braverman. (Though some of the Podesta emails are dated after Braverman’s tenure with the foundation, if he had Podesta’s password, he could still have accessed his email after leaving.)

Re: Tweet from @JoeNBC
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-03-08 19:48
Subject: Re: Tweet from @JoeNBC

Holy Moses.
Sent from my iPhone> On Mar 8, 2015, at 5:23 PM, John Podesta wrote:
>
> Eric Braverman
>
> JP
> –Sent from my iPad–
> [email protected]
> For scheduling: [email protected]
>
>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Neera Tanden wrote:
>>
>> @JoeNBC: A source close to the Clintons tell @ron_fournier to “follow the money” and find the real HRC scandal. https://t.co/lPTQY0L0o4
>>
>> I’m hoping someone is keeping tabs on Doug Band. Quote in here is from someone who worked in Clinton Foundation.

Politico ran a long story about Braverman’s ouster in 2015. Based on email correspondence released by Wikileaks, Braverman was apparently hired by Chelsea Clinton to clean up the corruption in the foundation, but then forced out of the foundation by longtime Clinton loyalists; sources say Podesta made him a target.

In 2011, Podesta’s leaked emails show that Chelsea was aggressively calling for an internal investigation. For example, former President Bill Clinton had raised over $1 billion though the foundation to rebuild 100 villages in India, but only $53 million was spent on the project. Also, Braverman resigned at the time Hillary was arranging one of her notorious “pay to play” deals with foreign leaders: a $12 million contribution from the king of Morocco in exchange for giving a speech.

#Where’s Eric: Did Braverman Request Asylum From the Russians?

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-2-08-48-pm-1024x760

So far Braverman’s apparent disappearance has only been discussed by bloggers and fringe websites, which often mix the fact that he has gone silent with other unconfirmed claims. For instance, the site WhatDoesItMean.com reported that Braverman requested asylum in Russia on October 23. The information apparently came from a Russian blogger, who reported it in a rambling blog post on LiveLeak.

That’s pretty thin evidence. Moreover, WhatDoesItMean.com is known for posting questionable news stories. The left-leaning, myth-debunking site Snopes labeled the news site’s account of Braverman as false, but based its judgment on the fact that website publishes false stories. Aside from this circular argument, Snopes provides no independent evidence for its judgment. I contacted the Russian embassy and received no response. So at the moment, the claim that Braverman requested asylum from the Russians is an unconfirmed rumor.

#Where’sEric: Could Braverman be in FBI Protective Custody?

There are also rumors that Braverman is in FBI protective custody, perhaps in exchange for testifying against the Clintons. Sources within the FBI have said it is likely there will be indictments handed down over the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes. Senior FBI officials told CNN that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation had never ended and is still ongoing. According to The Daily Caller News Foundation, that probe now involves as many as five FBI bureaus across the country: New York, Little Rock, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Miami.

Would the FBI have hustled Braverman to safety once it was known Podesta had pegged him as a mole? This theory seems plausible, given what we know. But there is still no independent evidence of it.

All Questions, No Answers

If Braverman is in hiding to protect his life, is it because he leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks, and/or is he preparing to testify against the Clintons? The one thing we know is that Braverman has disappeared from the public eye, and that neither he, his “husband” Neil Brown, nor his family, nor his Yale employers, has made a single public statement to dispel the speculations. (For more from the author of “Clinton Foundation CEO Mysteriously Missing; Massive Conspiracy of Silence by Mainstream Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Final, Most Shameful, Legacy Moment

The audience — overwhelmingly Jewish, passionately pro-Israel and supremely gullible — applauded wildly. Four years later — his last election behind him, with a month to go in office and with no need to fool Jew or gentile again — Obama took the measure of Israel’s back and slid a knife into it.

People don’t quite understand the damage done to Israel by the U.S. abstention that permitted passage of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel over settlements. The administration pretends this is nothing but a restatement of long-standing U.S. opposition to settlements.

Nonsense. For the last 35 years, every administration, including a re-election-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis . . .

The peace parameters enunciated so ostentatiously by Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday are nearly identical to the Clinton parameters that Yasser Arafat was offered and rejected in 2000 and that Abbas was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Abbas, too, walked away . . .

The administration claims a kind of passive innocence on the text of the resolution, as if it had come upon it at the last moment. We are to believe that the ostensible sponsors — New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and a Venezuela that cannot provide its own people with toilet paper, let alone food — had for months been sweating the details of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. (Read more from “Obama’s Final, Most Shameful, Legacy Moment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Ex-Gay Christian Says It Was Easier to Leave Homosexuality Than to Change His Diet

A man named Eric posted this on my Facebook page, and it was heartbreaking to read.

I have struggled with weight problems for years and it’s catching up with me. On December 5th I spent time in the E.R. due to dangerously high blood pressure. They’re still working on getting the right combo of drugs to get it under control. I am morbidly obese and it is a matter of life and death.

Some of you reading this can relate to Eric’s situation — the fear of imminent heart failure; the knowledge that you are killing yourself with your diet; the hope that doctors can help you but the guilt that you have brought this on yourself. …

But what can you do? You’ve tried every diet you know, you’ve confessed the sin of gluttony or unhealthy eating to the Lord a thousand times over, and still, you’re overweight — grossly overweight — and now it’s threatening your health.

Eric then said this:

I left homosexuality behind 6 years ago. That was SO much easier than getting my weight under control. I do understand being isolated from life due to weight. It’s more than just what people think. It is a physical bondage that fatigues and makes just fitting in a chair difficult. Other than learning about God’s word and knowing Jesus there is nothing I want more than to be healthy.

These are strong words: It was SO much easier to leave homosexuality than to get his weight under control. That is saying a lot.

I know many people who have struggled with same-sex attraction, some experiencing instantaneous, miraculous transformation, others working for years to see those attractions gradually diminish, and still others fighting for decades to see change without any success.

Yet Eric says that leaving homosexuality, obviously by God’s grace, was so much easier than changing his relationship to food.

When God set me free from heavy drug use in 1971 at the age of 16 (including shooting heroin), I couldn’t relate to those who would say, “I’m a recovering drug addict.”

For me, that was a thing of the past, someone who I used to be, and it had no bearing on my life after that. To this day, I do not think of myself as a recovering drug addict.

But when it comes to food, I live as if I’m a recovering food addict. In fact, one of the first chapters in my new book Breaking the Stronghold of Food (written together with my wife Nancy), is entitled, “Confessions of a Recovering Food Addict.”And even though I’ve been totally free from food addictions since late August, 2014, when my lifestyle transformation began, I live as if one wrong bite could set me back. Why play with fire?

After all, illegal drugs do not play a regular role in our lives — in other words, when I quit getting high in 1971, I cut off contact with that old part of my life — but when it comes to food, we need it to live, and we are constantly surrounded by unhealthy food choices.

As someone on the road constantly — traveling 30 hours straight on overseas flights, at endless airports and hotels, being taken out to restaurants all the time — I know how easy it would be to fall back into my old lifestyle. That’s why I don’t make any exceptions to my healthy eating. I recognize that the Lord has given me grace, and I know that one misstep could open the door to another and then another. I do not take my freedom for granted!

Getting back to our friend Eric, for whom I ask you to pray, he wrote this at the end of his post, explaining that there was one more reason he was ordering our new book, and for him, it was another reason to get healthy: “the morbidly obese make poor witnesses for Christ.”

Nancy and I really do understand how difficult the battles are (we’re totally candid in the book, and you’ll laugh — or sigh — at some of our stories), and that’s why there’s not an ounce of condemnation in anything we write.

We don’t want to beat you up, we want to help you out, and we’re convinced that if the Lord could help us, with all our bad eating habits and food addictions, He can help anyone. (For the record, according to recognized weight standards, which are probably a little too generous, we were both obese in the past.)

So, if you find yourself struggling with unhealthy eating habits or food addictions, even if you’re not overweight, there is a solid, lasting way out. And if you’re obese or morbidly obese, all the more are these promises for you. Even when it comes to food, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36). There is a better way! (For more from the author of “An Ex-Gay Christian Says It Was Easier to Leave Homosexuality Than to Change His Diet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Celebrates His Newest Monuments by Tweeting out Pictures of the Wrong National Park

The White House took to Twitter Wednesday to promote President Barack Obama’s latest monument designations in the Western U.S., but its tweet had a picture of a completely different national park.

Obama created the Bears Ears and Gold Butte national monuments, but it’s Wednesday tweet included a picture of the Three Gossips at Arches National Park that was created in 1929.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch’s staff noticed the mistake and unleashed a storm of tweets criticizing the Obama administration’s error. Hatch is not a fan of Obama’s unilateral creation of national monuments in Utah and Nevada.

Arches National Park was redesignated as a national park in 1971 and is about a two-and-a-half hour drive to the newly created Bears Ears National Monument, but the two federal parks have very distinct geological features.

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz joined in mocking the White House for using the wrong picture to announce the creation of Bears Ears National Monument.

(Read more from “Obama Celebrates His Newest Monuments by Tweeting out Pictures of the Wrong National Park” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Enormous Opportunity of Trump’s Presidency

In 2016, the American people voted to change the direction of our country. They elected a new president and vice president. They returned Republican majorities to Congress with a two-year probation period to show we can deliver results.

This election cycle and its outcome were a loud message to the Washington establishment. In 2017, it’s my resolution to continue working to ensure that message translates into real results.

That means keeping our promises and making tough decisions.

For the last seven years, Georgians and Americans across the country struggled to cope with the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. It’s time for bold changes that will get our economy growing again, and get Americans working again. The policy prescriptions of the Obama years failed.

President-elect Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office are an enormous moment of opportunity to begin turning the page.

We need to put patients in charge of their health care choices with a free-market solution that increases access and lowers the overall spiraling costs of health care, which Obamacare did nothing to address.

We need to undo the regulatory regime and scale back the power of unelected bureaucrats. Let’s start with the Environmental Protection Agency’s onerous Waters of the U.S. Act and Clean Power Plan, things we know are crushing farmers, land owners, and small businesses right here in Georgia.

We need to begin dramatically reforming and simplifying our tax code. We can start by doing away with the repatriation tax, which has locked trillions of dollars in overseas profits out of our economy.

We also finally need to unleash our full domestic energy potential, starting with simply approving the Keystone XL pipeline, something both Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress support.

Both political parties are to blame for both the crisis we face today and Washington’s lack of results. The lessons of 2016, and the failures of the last seven years, must not be forgotten in 2017.

In 2017, politicians in Washington must be ready to say, “we cannot afford it.” The national debt surpassed $19 trillion earlier this year. Unless we change course, it will rise to nearly $30 trillion over the next decade. The debt crisis is here, and we must not wait any longer to acknowledge and deal with that economic reality.

In 2017, we have to restore America’s role as a global leader. President Barack Obama’s failed foreign policy created a void of American leadership. Largely as a result, the world is more dangerous than it has ever been in my lifetime. We have to develop a real strategy to defeat ISIS and deal with the multitude of threats we face from all corners of the globe.

In 2017, we need to advance conservative ideas and principles. We will nominate and confirm a judge to the Supreme Court. Whomever he or she will be, they must stand steadfast in support of the United States Constitution and our founding principles of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty.

This is not about securing the legacy of another career politician. The American people demanded real change in the way Washington does business. Come January, an outsider businessman who is listening to the people will be in the White House.

That’s just the first step. Trump is surrounding himself with a dream team of policy experts, many of whom have spent their careers outside of the Washington bubble.

The people of Georgia elected me to do all I can to change the direction of our country. Working with Trump and his capable team, we now have an enormous moment of opportunity to really begin doing so. I’m excited to get to work. (For more from the author of “The Enormous Opportunity of Trump’s Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How States Could Restrict Use of Food Stamps in Trump Era

Officials in at least two states are preparing to ask the new Trump administration for approval to prohibit use of food stamps to buy junk food and candy—a restriction the Obama administration has opposed.

At least 25 states already prohibit welfare recipients from using Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to pay for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, lottery tickets, guns, or adult venues.

But heading into 2017, states such as Maine and Arkansas are looking to go further.

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services plans to submit a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture as soon as Donald Trump is sworn in as president Jan. 20. If approved, it would allow the state to prohibit food stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy sugary items such as candy and soda.

“We want to have it on their desks as soon as possible,” Mary Mayhew, commissioner of Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, told The Daily Signal, adding:

What an individual with their own money that they earned chooses to buy is their prerogative. What a program known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance—that is taxpayer funded—supports should be restricted and directed based upon the policy intent of the program.

In Arkansas, state Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, has filed a bill in the state House of Representatives to restrict the use of food stamps to “food products and beverages that have sufficient nutritional value.”

“People can go buy Red Bull with food stamps,” Bentley said, “and that’s not encouraging health.”

Maine’s health and human services agency submitted a waiver request to the federal government last year that would have allowed it to ban the purchase of junk food with food stamps.

But the Agriculture Department ultimately denied Maine’s request. The federal government has yet to approve a waiver for any state looking to further restrict food stamp purchases.

Still, the rejection hasn’t deterred Mayhew, who hopes that the Trump administration will be more willing to accept changes to the food stamp program.

“I hope that this will be met with more common sense than it has in the past that a program known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance will put the emphasis back on nutrition in the development of policies and will support an effort by Maine to ban soda and candy to be able to be purchased with food stamps,” Mayhew said.

In Arkansas, Bentley’s bill doesn’t specify which foods and beverages would be prohibited—the state Department of Human Services is tasked with compiling a list—but she told the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that chips, soda, and candy would be among the items banned.

The bill also instructs the Arkansas Department of Human Services to pursue a waiver from the federal government.

In an interview with Arkansas’ KFSM-TV, Bentley said:

We have a large amount of food stamps in our state, but yet we have the highest rate of senior hunger and hunger for kids. So obviously, the food isn’t headed in the right direction. I want it to be used for food at the table, and to feed kids.

Officials in both Maine and Arkansas said junk food bans would curb each state’s obesity rates, hold down Medicaid costs, and help ensure food stamp recipients use the food stamp program as intended.

Maine’s Medicaid program spent more than $1.5 million from October 2014 to October 2015 on medical claims related to obesity, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

In Arkansas, Medicaid and Medicare finance nearly 40 percent of the state’s $1.25 billion in obesity-related medical costs, according to a 2015 report issued by the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute.

“Everyone understands that soda and candy have no nutritional value and therefore don’t have any place in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” Mayhew said.

At least nine states—California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont—have requested waivers from the federal government or called on Congress to allow states to ban junk food purchases with food stamps.

But none has been successful so far.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, said that under the Obama administration, the “general operating principle” has been to deny attempts by states to lessen the number of participants in the food stamp program, known as SNAP.

Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the number of those receiving SNAP benefits increased from 32 million to nearly 45 million by January 2016, according to the Agriculture Department.

“Waivers have revolved around ‘How do we make it as easy as possible to get people on the program?’” Archambault told The Daily Signal, describing the Obama administration’s approach.

Mayhew agreed.

“When states like Maine were seeking commonsense reform or the authority to manage the program in keeping with its focus and with a commonsense approach, those efforts were continually thwarted by the federal government,” she said. “There have been constant roadblocks thrown up by this administration.”

But following the Nov. 8 elections, which saw Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate as well as retake the White House, there could be movement on the federal level.

Some on Capitol Hill talk about moving a welfare reform bill in 2017 or 2018, Archambault said, which could set up a “robust discussion” surrounding the rules for various welfare programs, including food stamps.

“Some of these early requests for waivers could set the stage for a bigger discussion in Congress in terms of changing the rules and funding the programs,” he said, “and that would change the playing field.”

Though it’s possible states could see changes to the food stamp program in the Trump administration, questions remain.

“It’s a brave new world here with a new administration coming in, but with that does come some question marks,” Archambault said. “There’s pent-up demand at the state level to request flexibility, and we’ll have to wait and see.” (For more from the author of “How States Could Restrict Use of Food Stamps in Trump Era” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Will Meet With Intelligence Leaders About Russia

President-elect Donald Trump will meet with the Intelligence Community next week to discuss Russian interference in the election, he said in a vaguely worded statement issued Thursday evening that did not mention sanctions announced by President Obama earlier that day.

“It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things,” Trump wrote in the brief statement. “Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week in order to be updated on the facts of this situation.”

The statement did not define “this situation,” but the transition team earlier in the day had promised a response to the announced sanctions would be forthcoming.

Trump has repeatedly denied any Russian involvement in the hacks of the Democratic party that intelligence officials have said were an attempt to “interfere” in the U.S. election.

He has characterized any reports to that effect as an attempt by Democrats to delegitimize his election. (Read more from “Trump Says He Will Meet With Intelligence Leaders About Russia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bundy Militants ‘Locked and Loaded’ After Obama Monument Push

Anti-government militants erupted with fury and calls for an armed uprising after President Obama designated a new national monument in Nevada that includes the site of the infamous Bundy Ranch standoff between right-wing agitators and federal agents.

Members of the self-styled militias that swarmed to the aid of Cliven Bundy outside of Las Vegas in 2014 — and who later joined the rancher’s sons to seize a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon — said they were readying for another showdown. Obama’s move on Wednesday to protect 300,000 acres of federal land around Gold Butte, close to the Bundy ranch, comes as two dozen people await trials for their roles in the Nevada and Oregon standoffs, which emboldened right-wing militants across America and became a powerful symbol of anti-government sentiment.

“Get your gear ready,” wrote Jon Ritzheimer, one of the men who used handguns and assault rifles to hole up in Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for 41 days last year. “Obama just designated the Bundy Ranch a national monument.”

Others with ties to patriot groups and militia movements online responded with a bit more force. “Locked and loaded ready to go,” wrote Chris Border, a member of the Cliven Bundy’s Army! Facebook group, which boasts more than 2,000 members. “Tired of this crap and time to do something.”

Whether the tough talk turns into another armed confrontation remains to be seen. “So far it’s just been a lot of posturing,” JJ MacNab, an expert on anti-government extremism in the U.S. and author of the upcoming book “The Seditionists,” told Vocativ. “But members of these groups are looking for something to happen. They don’t really care what it is.” (Read more from “Bundy Militants ‘Locked and Loaded’ After Obama Monument Push” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.