Hillary Clinton’s election defeat had many pundits declaring the Clinton era finally over. But a series of meetings with key Democratic donors and leaders – combined with still-fawning press coverage and even a quirky social media project driven by a longtime aide – are raising questions about what’s next.
A return to the speaking circuit? Advocacy work? Assuming the role of elder stateswoman? Or even, a 2020 presidential run?
“I think if she wants to run again, and my guess is she probably does, because they always do, then yes I think she’s doing a good job laying the groundwork,” Brad Bannon, Democratic strategist and CEO of Bannon Communications Research, told FoxNews.com.
A third presidential run — after two grueling campaigns that both ended in defeat to a rival political sensation who captured the imagination of voters — could be a stretch for the former secretary of state, senator and first lady.
But after a brief period of reclusion, Clinton is slowly but surely appearing more in public, and in ways that indicate a political and public future of some sort. (Read more from “WHAT’S IN HILLARY’S FUTURE? Latest Moves Indicate She Won’t Fade Away Quietly After Election Loss” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25982302985_7cf1db94e3_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 21:18:072016-12-09 21:18:07WHAT’S IN HILLARY’S FUTURE? Latest Moves Indicate She Won’t Fade Away Quietly After Election Loss
The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Post said intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
The officials described the individuals as people known to the intelligence community who were part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and reduce Clinton’s chances of winning the election.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Post said the official had been briefed on an intelligence presentation made by the Central Intelligence Agency to key U.S. senators behind closed-doors last week. (Read more from “CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2000px-Flag_of_the_United_States_Central_Intelligence_Agency.svg_.png12002000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 21:10:522016-12-09 21:10:52CIA Says Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win White House
Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA is by far his best non-security domestic policy pick. Choosing the man who led the battles against the EPA’s lawless regulations to head that very agency is every bit as sweet as choosing Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) to clean out the Department of Justice. There is no doubt that Pruitt will bring game-changing reforms to the culture of the EPA, and refuse to enforce any regulations that reach beyond the scope of their statutory authority.
There’s just one problem. Any loyal reader of Conservative Review can already guess it. If left unchecked by Congress, environmental legal defense groups, in conjunction with the lower courts, will essentially require Pruitt to enforce many of the regulations Obama implemented with lawless discretion.
Broken and hypocritical rules for standing in court
For much of Obama’s presidency, conservatives were on offense in the courts as sued Obama for legislating from the executive branch in an attempt to crush power plants and manufacturing. Scott Pruitt was a leader in pushing back against Obama’s overreach. Now the Left will turn the tables on him and we will be exclusively on defense in the courts.
Well, don’t liberals have the same right to sue Pruitt’s EPA policies as Pruitt did during the Obama administration?
This is where the rules of standing have been bastardized over the years, and have essentially turned the federal judiciary into an imperial super legislature.
Nobody can argue that power plants and manufacturers shouldn’t get standing in a court to sue when the executive branch promulgates regulations without statutory authority. If there is ever a legitimate “case or controversy” with established injury-in-fact to the aggrieved party, it is those industries who face wholesale collapse resulting from EPA regulations. In fact, interpreting the laws passed by Congress on behalf of aggrieved parties in the face of lawless administrative fiat — rather than vetoing legislation and redefining the Constitution — is quintessentially the business of the courts.
Contrast this with the environmental legal defense groups that launch class action suits simply because they stand in opposition to the ideology of those in power. Even though there is no established personalized injury, they seek to enact cap-and-trade style policies without passing a bill in Congress. When Democrats are in power, these groups work together with the agency. When conservatives are in power, however, these same groups get the courts to do their bidding against the will of the agency. They should never have standing in court to simply oppose policies they disagree with when agencies are following the letter of the law. Yet, in the ‘70s, the Supreme Court began overturning settled law regarding the rules of standing and essentially granted any third party ideological group standing to sue against the lack of overzealous environment regulations.
Unless Congress reins in the rules of standing, the bottomless pit of moneyed organizations on the Left will sue Pruitt for not enforcing the endless Obama-era edicts. They will largely succeed for a number of reasons. As we’ve noted many times, the lower courts are a dumpster fire and it will take years to clean them out, if ever. In particular, the critical D.C. Circuit is a disaster — with an 11-1 liberal majority on the district level (among non-senior judges) and at least a 7-4 liberal majority at the appellate level. We will find that a court system so committed to the “Chevron doctrine” — which proscribes broad deference to agencies that regulate beyond the scope of congressional authority — will suddenly become heavy-handed enforcers of laws that never passed Congress against the wishes of the agency.
Even if we win a few defensive victories in the courts, there is no limit to the number of avenues that the Left can use to attack a conservative EPA on every facet of environmental regulation policy. The victories are usually narrowly tailored to each circumstance, giving the Left more bites at the apple.
Further complicating things for Pruitt is Massachusetts v. EPA. Another lawless 5-4 decision from Anthony Kennedy in which he ruled states can get standing to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide — even though no such law passed Congress — the grievance is speculative and political, and the ability to redress it is even more notional. This ruling occurred at the end of the Bush Administration and will come back to haunt us as blue states file endless lawsuits. This is very different from what Pruitt did when he was protecting states from economic collapse stemming from regulations that never passed Congress. Again, the key element is what the text of the law actually says and the nature of the grievance for standing.
Over the years, the courts have always blocked out conservatives from obtaining standing in court to sue when agencies are not following the letter of the law. At the same time, they grant left-wing groups standing to sue in matters such as a monument of the Ten Commandments, where there is no tangible injury whatsoever. This is why courts have consistently prevented law enforcement, states, and taxpayers from suing the administration for not enforcing unambiguous congressional immigration laws, even as their communities and jurisdictions are flooded with crime and the fiscal drain of importing criminal aliens. Those grievances are always deemed “speculative,” while the global warming groups get standing without question.
Consequently, the courts will be the last stand for the Left when it comes to pushing for cap-and-trade and amnesty. They already have the votes in the lower courts to push their agenda.
As always, Congress is king
To that end, Congress must rein in the ability of the legal profession to enact judicial regulations in place of Obama’s administrate regulations. As we’ve noted many times, with few exceptions, the courts only have jurisdiction over the subject-matter granted to them by Congress. The power of the courts to engage in judicial review over agency regulatory policy comes from Sections 701-706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Congress must revise 5 U.S.C. § 702 to raise the threshold for injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability as it relates to third party groups suing for non-economic or phony economic grievances.
In addition, Congress can pass a bill making it clear that the EPA has no authority under existing law to regulate carbon dioxide or promulgate any of Obama’s rules, such as the mercury, Boiler MACT, and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) rules. Congress should also place a provision in the April budget bill prohibiting any funding for the EPA to enact those regulations.
With the courts out of the way, Pruitt can be let loose to systemically reform the entire agency. Much like with Jeff Sessions, the confirmation of Scott Pruitt is all hands on deck for conservatives. (For more from the author of “Pruitt Will Be Game Changer at EPA … If Congress Protects Him From Courts” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Environmental_Protection_Agency_logo.png899825Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 21:05:312016-12-09 21:05:31Pruitt Will Be Game Changer at EPA … If Congress Protects Him From Courts
And let’s not even get started on the rampant, systemic vote fraud and the fact that untold millions of illegal aliens and dead citizens are stealing the American franchise. My guess? An accurate ecount of legitimate voters would reveal a Trump landslide. (For more from the author of “HEY: The Electoral College Worked!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_8567813820_2-3.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 20:56:032016-12-09 21:21:49HEY: The Electoral College Worked!
On his radio program Friday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin ripped into reports that Ronna Romney McDaniel, Mitt Romney’s niece, is on the verge of being picked by Trump as chair of the Republican National Committee. Trump’s preference for chair would still need to be voted on by the full committee.
Mark lit into the pick and the outsized influence Reince Priebus is having on the Trump transition.
Listen:
Levin discussed how Priebus and Trump made a deal back at the Republican National Convention. Priebus got almost dictatorial control over the Committee, and Trump stopped a conscience vote on the floor. I wrote extensively about this back in July.
Before closing with a rebuke of the number of Goldman Sachs employees in the administration, Levin said, “We are draining the swamp with the swamp monsters.”
The new boss seems to be acting a lot like the old bosses lately. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/16501780668_ddc64019e8_b-1.jpg6831024kfranceshttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkfrances2016-12-09 20:47:532016-12-09 20:47:53Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!’
Donald Trump is taking quite a bit of flak for appointing Goldman Sachs President and Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn to be his National Economic Council Director.
BREAKING: President-elect Trump picks Goldman Sachs president & COO Gary Cohn to be National Economic Council Director – @NBCNews
Cohn marks the fourth Goldman Sachs appointment into the administration. He joins 17-year Goldman Sachs veteran Steve Mnuchin, who was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, and former Goldman Sachs investment banker and managing partner Steven K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, in the cabinet. Also, Anthony Scaramucci, who spent seven years at Goldman Sachs, is advising the president-elect on the transition team.
This coziness with Goldman Sachs stands in stark contrast to statements President-elect Trump made on the campaign trail. Trump pointedly attacked rival Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) repeatedly on the issue of Cruz’s connections to the financial giant. Cruz’s wife Heidi is a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Is Cruz honest? He is in bed w/ Wall St. & is funded by Goldman Sachs/Citi, low interest loans. No legal disclosure & never sold off assets.
“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” Trump once said. “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton.”
Despite all that rhetoric blasting Goldman Sachs, Trump has not hesitated to move Goldman Sachs alumni into positions of power in his administration. Several people have picked up on the hypocrisy.
Trump attacked wall street, attacked Cruz on Goldman Sachs relationship, attacked Clinton on same, now surrounds himself with Goldman Sachs.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/19587034648_cdb91f7ebf_b-3.jpg6831024kfranceshttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkfrances2016-12-09 20:43:162016-12-09 20:43:16Trump Used to Hate Goldman Sachs. What Happened?
I’m a military guy. I joined because of 9/11 and served two deployments. America is worth fighting for and there are many reasons why.
One of the lessons reinforced by my military service is that life is our first freedom. Without it, no other right has value.
The protection of life — regardless of its circumstance — is therefore a moral and righteous cause, and America’s birth gave us a built-in solution.
Remember, life gives value to all other rights. Before we understand free speech and prosperity from free markets, we must have life. Life gives everything context and meaning. This is the frame all conservatives must adopt. And they must (courageously) adopt it now.
Congress missed the opportunity to value life when it passed the Continuing Resolution (HR 2028) yesterday.
Let facts be submitted to a candid world …
American tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood. The group provides abortions-on-demand on an industrial scale. Abortion — if done as intended — ends life in the womb. Abortion doesn’t just take life, it kills the context of life.
Politicians hide this truth with gamesmanship, legalism, fake statesmanship, and false equivalencies. They use well-developed tactics to obfuscate the truth: that all taxpaying Americans give money to kill babies.
When you hear, “we’ll pass this so we can get other things done,” that’s nothing more than gamesmanship.
And when politicians try this, “the CR specifically says no money for abortions,” that’s legalism.
My favorite is, “this bill has some good and some bad things, but I’m satisfied we have a good deal.” That’s fake statesmanship.
And lastly, “we have to avoid a government shutdown.” That’s a false equivalent.
The power of the purse is America’s built-in solution for defending life. All revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, as only Congress has the power to tax. The federal government can only spend money when Congress authorizes it.
Congress is the first and last body responsible for your taxes paying for abortions. Imagine an abortionist cutting the tiny limbs of a recoiling baby in the womb. Congress could do that to money for Planned Parenthood.
Congress can abort Planned Parenthood.
The Constitution is a weapon for defending life. We must wield it without apology. When Congress funds all of the government in a mega-spend-fund-everything bill — like continuing resolutions — it does not protect life as long as your money funds abortions.
Every politician swears the exact same oath as every military officer. Google it. There are some powerful ideas in it. The reason is that the men and women who represent us in Congress should be held to the same standard as the men and women who fight and die on the battlefield, because they both are in the business of defending life and giving context to all other rights.
The difference is that the military doesn’t make excuses when it comes to matters of life and death.
Politicians do. (For more from the author of “Congress Just Missed Its Chance to Starve the Planned Parenthood Beast” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5460076551_dc575113ec_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 20:32:292016-12-09 20:32:29Congress Just Missed Its Chance to Starve the Planned Parenthood Beast
Speaking on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Hillary Clinton warned of “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” Coming from a very different perspective, Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke claimed on Fox News that “fake news” was created by the liberal media, beginning with the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” propaganda in the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. Clarke pointed directly to the New York Times and the Washington Post in allegedly spreading this “fake news.”
In reality, I believe that “fake news” is far more pervasive than we realize, for the following reasons.
1. Headlines are often fake.
I used to assume (wrongly so) that a headline was simply a short (even if sensational) summary of an important news item, but in many cases today, headlines now put a slant (often a misleading slant) on the news being reported.
To cite a recent (and highly relevant) example, on Thursday, the Drudge Report featured as its main story, “BITTER HILLARY BLAMES ‘FAKE NEWS’,” suggesting that Hillary directly blamed her defeat on “fake news.”
The Drudge headline was linked to an article on The Hill titled “Clinton blasts ‘epidemic’ of fake news,” yet nowhere did that article state that a “bitter Hillary” directly blamed fake news for her defeat. Instead, the article quoted her as saying that “it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” also stating, “This isn’t about politics or partisanship … Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”
She was apparently referring to an incident this week in which“a gunman entered a pizzeria in Washington that was at the center of a false viral conspiracy theory that alleged it was home to a pedophilia ring operated by Clinton and her inner circle.”
The Hill article did note that “some Democrats have argued the spread of anti-Clinton fake news online contributed to her electoral loss to Donald Trump,” but nowhere did it state that a bitter Hillary blamed this for her defeat, which was clearly implied by Drudge. Yet how many millions of Drudge readers even bothered to read the article carefully, let alone listen to the whole speech?
2. News articles often put their own slant on speeches and events.
During the Republican primaries, Jeb Bush was giving a talk to a small group of supporters, and after making a point he thought was important, he then suggested with a smile that it would be a good moment for applause. I watched the video and thought it was a cute moment — I looked at it through the perspective of a public speaker myself — and I asked my wife Nancy to watch it as well. She too thought it was cute rather than embarrassing.
But quite a few media outlets reported on poor Jeb’s embarrassing moment, supplying their interpretation of the facts rather than simply reporting the news — really, there was nothing to report — meaning that readers who did not watch the video would likely draw a very different conclusion from those who viewed the video for themselves. This too is “fake news.”
3. We are so used to getting our news through biased media outlets and opinion commentaries that we fail to use a good filter.
A few years ago, my radio producer handed me an article during my live, daily talk show, documenting how Ann Coulter had made a comment on a major news network that would be considered extreme even for her. It so caught my attention that I talked about it during my next segment, only to find out that my producer had been duped by a false website (something he is always on the lookout for) and that I had not spotted the deception either.
It’s one thing, though, to be duped by intentionally fake, satirical news sites, like The Onion, which proudly (and facetiously) calls itself “America’s Finest News Source,” or the Christian site The Babylon Bee, which bills itself as “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire,” perhaps to help its all-too-gullible Christian readers.
It’s another thing not to realize that the news as reported by Breitbart is often quite different than the news as reported by the Huffington Post (the two websites sometimes appear to be operating in alternative universes) or to fail to remember that many articles on these news sites are often opinion pieces which, by design, offer the commentator’s particular bias.
What this means is that we need a “hermeneutic of suspicion” (to use the phrase of a biblical scholar, meaning, that we ought to read some things with a level of suspicion), doing our best to get our facts in order before repeating them or forming opinions based on them. It also means that we should recognize which websites and news sources tend to be most reliable, giving more weight to what they have to say.
Most of all, it means that in this era of sound bites and memes, we need to learn to think again — that’s right, we need to learn how to engage our brains in focused thinking and reasoning — rather than merely repeating what our favorite website or commentator or reporter has to say.
I can assure you that it’s well worth the effort. (For more from the author of “‘Fake News’ Is Far More Pervasive Than We Realize” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/social-media-419944_960_720.png720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 20:03:482016-12-09 20:03:48‘Fake News’ Is Far More Pervasive Than We Realize
Right now, before he takes office, President-elect Trump can do more than Barack Obama accomplished in eight years, and send a message to radical Islamists around the world that “America is back.” Here’s how:
The Republic of Sudan has been dominated by a brutal, autocratic regime since 1989. The ruling National Congress Party (NCP), which was formally called the “National Islamic Front,” is led by President Omar al Bashir, the only sitting president under indictment by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Unpunished Author of Anti-Christian Genocide
Bashir’s human rights track record is abysmal. Not only is he the main culprit in the 23-year genocidal war against South Sudan, which killed more than 2 million indigenous Christian and animists and displaced another 5 million from their homes. Bashir is also the architect of the infamous Darfur Genocide. More recently in 2011, Bashir has taken his brutal tactics to the contested Nuba mountain and Blue Nile regions where a total blockade, combined with an aerial terror campaign which targets civilians, is threatening 2 million more lives.
Bashir’s government is on the verge of bankruptcy, with a suffocating debt of more than $60 billion which it cannot repay. Sudan’s currency has collapsed, there are shortages everywhere, and recent “austerity measures” have led to thousands of Sudanese taking to the streets in protest. More than a half-dozen opposition political parties have called for Bashir to step aside and allow for multi-party elections.
America Can Stop Sudan’s Islamists without Firing a Shot
For Bashir to avoid a total collapse of his government, he desperately needs to “normalize” relations with the U.S. (and consequently with the international community). The U.S. has economically kept Bashir’s government at arm’s length.
In 1997, the Clinton Administration slapped Sudan with economic sanctions, which were later expanded under President George W. Bush. Following 9/11, the Bush administration played a key role in helping to facilitate the end of conflict in what is now South Sudan, and the Nuba mountains region in the north. The genocide in Darfur was largely neglected, but a young Senator from Illinois pledged to address it by ratcheting up sanctions, and putting a robust UN force on the ground to stop the killing.
That young senator was later elected president, and proceeded to do next to nothing.
Obama Abandoned Sudan’s Helpless Civilians
President Obama’s Sudan policy has been one of moral abdication and abandonment. Sudan expert Eric Reeves summed it up by saying that Obama “has offered Sudan nothing but hypocrisy and bad faith. His shame will far outlive his presidency.”
Due to America’s abdication of its critical role in pressuring Bashir to stop targeting and persecuting ethnic and religious minorities, Sudan has continued its cycle of endless internal wars, massive humanitarian crises, and destabilization of the whole region.
In the contested areas of the Nuba mountains and the Blue Nile, Bashir’s government has doubled down on its policy to Islamicize all of Sudan. Since 2011, it has blockaded Christian regions. Journalists are prohibited. The Nuba, which is home to Sudan’s largest Christian community, has especially been hit hard by ground attacks and aerial terror, which targets market places, schools, hospitals, and churches.
The brazen war crimes Bashir continues to commit have brought new charges by Amnesty International of the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, sees almost daily routine abuses such as seizing newspaper runs, shutting down broadcasting networks, arbitrary arrests, tortures, detentions, mysterious disappearances and deaths.
Obama Played Footsie with Islamists
Yet the U.S. State Department continues to flirt with the NCP, softening sanctions, and publicly praising the regime for its cooperation in “sharing intelligence” to fight the war on terror. But there is very little evidence to show that Sudan has provided much more than useless “faux intelligence,” even as it continues to harbor and host many of the allies and assets of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Khartoum!
Philosophically and practically, the NCP elite is comprised of the same stripe of extreme Islamist radicals we are up against in Syria and Iraq. Sudan’s recent decision to break with Iran and pursue closer engagement with Saudi Arabia was motivated primarily by finances, netting Bashir $5 billion in military aid and another $10 billion in direct investment.
Sudan has been a hot-house, incubating extremism since its independence in 1955. The only real difference between ISIS and Bashir’s NCP regime is that Sudan has a seat at the UN. Religious persecution and the aerial terror campaign against Darfur, plus the Nuba and Blue Nile regions, were among the stated reasons for President Bush’s decision to continue sanctions against Sudan.
Christians Rotting in Sudan’s Jails
Right now, four Christians are languishing in a Sudan prison under false charges of espionage, intelligence gathering, war against the state, and several other manufactured “crimes.” At least five of the charges carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Two of the men are Nuba pastors. One is a Darfur convert. The last is a European missionary and aid worker.
Petr Jasek has been separated from his family for one year. He was arrested a full year ago, on December 9th, 2015, while on a trip to visit with Sudanese Christians to offer medical and other humanitarian assistance. The other prisoners were apparently detained and jailed for meeting and speaking freely with Mr. Jasek about the oppression and persecutions they had experienced at the hands of their own government. Jasek spent eight months in prison before he was even brought to court, in clear violation of Sudanese law.
Another reason Sudan is targeting Jasek is for his work as a humanitarian and past affiliation with two American charities which have been active in providing humanitarian assistance to the Nuba people: Voice of the Martyrs and Persecution Project Foundation.
American Volunteers are Making a Difference
U.S. organizations and citizens have played a major role in thwarting Bashir’s effort to (in his words) “take out the garbage” in the Nuba region. The main doctor at the primary referral hospital in the Nuba is celebrated American missionary Tom Catena. The primary embedded news source in the Nuba was founded by American missionary and former Samaritan’s Purse field director Ryan Boyette, who led the effort to rebuild more than 200 Nuba churches destroyed by Bashir’s forced Islamization and Arabization policies.
All of these organizations are collectively supported by millions of Americans. While the Obama Administration has been playing diplomatic footsie with Islamists in Sudan and around the world, millions of private Americans have been confronting extremism through compassion towards its victims.
Trump Can Face Down Extremists and be a Hero
President-elect Trump has a real opportunity to bring American policy towards Islamists in line with the actions and desires of the American people, and his campaign promises to take on the forces of radical Islam.
And this worries President Bashir. Consequently, he’s turned on the charm and tried to flatter President Trump:
[W]e can deal with double-faced people, but here we have a person with a clear line … I am convinced that it will be much easier to deal with Trump than with others because he is a straightforward person.
Bashir is right that President-elect Trump is a straightforward person. And America has endured eight years of morally confused, counter-productive, and indecisive weakness in dealing with radical Islam. We desperately need a leader who can tell the good guys from the villains.
Lets hope that under a bold new Trump Administration, America will take the lead again in standing against terrorism and suppression of religious freedom and basic human rights.
America must no longer deal with Islamist bullies as the moral equivalent of normal, democratic leaders. President-elect Trump should send a firm message to President Bashir: “Thanks for the compliments. You’re right: I will draw the line. And you are on the wrong side of it. America is an ally of all those who struggle for the same basic freedoms of worship, association and expression that every American enjoys. Our friendship is with the victims of oppression, and not the perpetrators of war crimes and genocide.”
Trump should not entertain talk of “normalized relations” while Sudan continues to be led by a step-child of the Muslim Brotherhood, a man who is one of the oldest allies of international terror — who wages terror against his own people, and colludes with those who practice it abroad.
A strong message to the Sudanese government even before Trump takes office could set many prisoners free, including Mr. Jasek, and put Islamists around the world on notice that America is back.
This is Mr. Trump’s “Iran Hostage Moment” and he should seize it. (For more from the author of “Sudan: Trump’s Iran Hostage Moment” please click HERE)
Just a few weeks ago, President-elect Donald Trump said, “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
And I absolutely agree. Since 2007, I’ve been fighting to end the dangerous existence of sanctuary cities by introducing legislation every Congress.
During the Obama administration’s tenure, over 300 cities—including my hometown of New Orleans—have provided safe haven for illegal immigrants, and at least 170,000 convicted criminal illegal immigrants who have been ordered to be deported remain at-large.
But now, I’m extremely optimistic the U.S. will soon make real efforts to end sanctuary cities under the leadership of Trump.
Sanctuary cities are dangerous and counterproductive to both law enforcement efforts and reducing illegal immigration.
Ending these policies is not so much about imposing new and burdensome immigration laws, as about simple enforcement of our current laws and ensuring local law enforcement jurisdictions work collaboratively with federal immigration authorities when they come across criminal illegal immigrants.
After the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco in April 2015, there has been growing momentum to end dangerous sanctuary city policies. She is far from being the only victim of a crime committed by a criminal illegal immigrant.
In LaPlace, Louisiana, this past August, three people were killed and dozens of others were injured when Denis Yasmir Amaya Rodriguez, an illegal immigrant, crashed a bus full of volunteers on their way to assist folks impacted by our recent 1,000-year flooding event. And this accident could have absolutely been prevented.
My hometown of New Orleans has been operating as a sanctuary city for several months now, having implemented regulations in February that bar New Orleans police officers from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status and then sharing that information with federal authorities.
It wasn’t until late September—due to much pressure from myself and others—that local officials made a small step toward complying with my request to reverse the city’s policy, but even now the city of New Orleans is not in complete compliance with federal law.
This policy is in direct conflict with federal law and is simply unacceptable. Worse still, these cities are actively releasing criminal illegal immigrants back into our communities instead of working with federal officials to deport them or lock them up.
I’ve offered several pieces of legislation that tackle this problem head on. My bill with the most traction is the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.
Until we end all dangerous and illegal sanctuary city policies—which I am confident will happen sooner than later—the obvious first step is to enact tangible penalties for those cities refusing to comply with federal immigration laws, like limiting the flow of billions of federal taxpayer dollars.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to reward these jurisdictions with federal funding when they are in clear violation of the law and are actually making our communities more dangerous rather than safer. Falling short of enforcing our laws designed to protect innocent American civilian lives is an absolute nonstarter.
Stopping these illegal policies and assuring safety for every American has to be an absolute top priority for the new Congress and president. America spoke clearly in November that the days of turning a blind eye to criminal illegal immigrants and similar misguided policies is over.
I am very eager to see Trump putting an end to dangerous sanctuary cities as soon as possible in the new year. (For more from the author of “How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_25218642186-2.jpg20293044Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 19:49:192016-12-09 19:49:19How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities
