Trump Not Moving Our Embassy to Jerusalem — Yet

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m not the least bit surprised that President Trump signed the waiver to delay moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, as each of our presidents has done since 1995. I’m disappointed, because he made such a point of this during the campaign, assuring us that he would be the man to make this momentous move. But I’m not surprised.

We’ve had indications that he was waffling on this for several weeks now. Plus, a move like this is easier said than done.

Still, there’s reason for hope in the midst of the disappointment.

Trump is Committed to Israel’s Well-Being

First, as a White House official emphasized, “It’s a question of when, not if.”

Yes, “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

This is positive. I don’t recall past presidents making this point so emphatically. We will move the embassy, just not yet.

Second, sources indicate that Trump actually yelled at Palestinian President Abbas when they met during the president’s Middle East trip. This led to several minutes of stunned silence on the Palestinian side. “You tricked me in D.C.!”, Trump is reported to have said. “You talked there about your commitment to peace, but the Israelis showed me your involvement in incitement [against Israel].”

This too would indicate that President Trump is striking a very different tone than his predecessors.

Third, there was no indication that the president put heavy pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu when they met, telling him he would have to make major sacrifices, or else. Certainly, there was talk of making concessions for peace. But again, we have no indication that Trump tried to force Netanyahu’s hand on any major issues.

That could explain why Israel’s official response to the announcement that relocating the embassy had been postponed was muted: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

Of course, Israel reiterated that “the American embassy, like the embassies of all countries with whom we have diplomatic relations, should be in Jerusalem, our eternal capital.” But the statement itself expresses only mild disappointment, given Trump’s clear commitment to Israel’s well-being.

Will There Ever be a Good Time to Move the Embassy?

The real problem, however, is this. A White House official explained that, “In timing such a move, [the president] will seek to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Unfortunately, moving the embassy to Jerusalem will always be a point of contention with the Palestinians and the larger Muslim world. As noted in Israel’s statement, “Maintaining embassies outside the capital drives peace further away by helping keep alive the Palestinian fantasy that the Jewish people and the Jewish state have no connection to Jerusalem.”

Why keep this fantasy alive? The Palestinians are totally dependent on America to help broker peace negotiations. And at some point, they will have to accept that our embassy will be in Jerusalem. Why not make the move now, while also affirming to the Palestinians our commitment to work for their best interests as well?

As I (along with others) suggested previously, nothing is stopping us from moving the embassy to West Jerusalem. Even Russia recognizes this as Israel’s capital (while claiming that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state). We can make this move without making a final determination about a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. (Obviously, I don’t believe there is any historic Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem. But again, that can be a subject for later talks.)

The Camp David Accords are almost 40 years old (signed in September, 1978). The Oslo Accords are nearly 25 years old (signed September, 1993). Does President Trump really think that by not moving our embassy to Jerusalem now, we will be able to move the peace process forward? And can he really imagine that there will be some magic, opportune time to make the move in the future?

I’m thankful that President Trump is showing himself to be a true friend of Israel. He is holding the Palestinians’ feet to the fire over terrorism and he has reaffirmed his commitment to stand with the Jewish State. I would just urge him once again to do what no other president has done.

Mr. Trump, be the man who made the move.

As I wrote last month, I’ll write again: History will smile on you for it. (For more from the author of “Trump Not Moving Our Embassy to Jerusalem — Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Illegally Spied on Americans for Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once top-secret documents reveal that the Obama administratipn routinely violated Americans’ privacy while conducting “overseas” surveillance over the past five years. John Solomon and Sara Carter at Circa obtained a ruling issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 26 denouncing the practice. The FISA court is the secret judicial body that oversees surveillance.

The court learned that the NSA was conducting large numbers of prohibited searches of databases. The administration did not disclose the surveillance until then. It had to do that to meet a court deadline for renewing surveillance authorities. The requirement is part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The Circa expose found that more than 5 percent of the upstream searches violated data privacy safeguards. The Obama administration had said it would follow those safeguards in 2011. Instead, surveillance increased by 300 percent.

Defying a Court Ruling

This increase defied a 2011 FISA court ruling. The court said the NSA had to find ways to limit what it collects and how long the data is kept. The FISA court realized at the time the collection was a problem. Searches were being done for the names of U.S. citizens in the databases.

The FISA court also revised the rules that year to prohibit these types of searches without a warrant. Nor longer could intelligence agencies search on an American’s email address or phone number. But the practice continued to occur after 2011. Not just a few times, but routinely and extensively. Some of those searches took place from the White House. Two years later, Edward Snowden disclosed the surveillance.

The FISA court accused the NSA of “an institutional lack of candor.” The ruling called the searches a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” The monitoring required no warrant, reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Without those checks, the agency pursued an unconstitutional search and seizure. Part of the opinion, which would have revealed the full extent of the surveillance, was blacked out.

In a responsive notice filed January 3, 2017, the NSA claimed the thousands of improper searches were due to “human error” and “system design issues.”

In April, the director of National Intelligence issued a report on the intelligence community’s use of data gathering techniques and compliance with the FISA process. In 2016, there were 5,288 occasions where the NSA searched for an American in its database. This was a slight increase over the number of those searches in 2015.

Upstream and Downstream Data Collection

However, searches for the metadata of known Americans more than tripled between 2013 and 2016. Searches increased from 9,500 in 2013 to 30,355 in 2016. That was the year the Obama administration may have spied on the Trump campaign,

Section 702 of FISA authorizes both “upstream” and “downstream” collection of data. Upstream refers to data moving through massive data highways within the U.S. Downstream collection snags data as it’s leaving the country. About 9 percent of the data NSA collects comes from upstream searches. In the process of collecting emails, the NSA sweeps up large numbers of emails. They are then stored in vast databases.

The surveillance is for monitoring foreign agents outside of the U.S. (The FBI is responsible for monitoring foreign agents within the U.S.) The FISA court requires “minimization” procedures. This means “masking” the identify of any American incidentally monitored.

The masked version is what is shared with other intelligence agencies. Intelligence official may unmask the name if he thinks he needs to do so to understand the data better.

Unmasking increased at the end of the Obama administration. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice was caught lying about her involvement in unmasking Trump campaign officials. She refuses to testify to Congress about it.

Congress passed The USA Freedom Act in 2016 to curtail bulk surveillance. But in 2016, the NSA collected 151 million phone records.

The FISA court also had harsh words for the FBI. This is due to the agency disclosing raw surveillance data to sectors of its bureaucracy “largely staffed by private contractors.” It went “went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.” The bureau discontinued the practice on April 18, 2016.

Where to Go From Here

The NSA decided on March 20 that it will no longer monitor communications of people who merely mention a foreign intelligence target. Instead, the agency will limit collection to communications between someone and a target. The agency asserts it will delete “the vast majority” of the information it collected through the previous method. The change was announced publicly on April 28, two days after the FISA court’s ruling.

Civil liberties hawkSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said if this information is accurate, this story “will dwarf all other stories.” It constitutes “an enormous abuse of power.”

The watch dog organization Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DOJ and the NSA requesting records relating to the unmasking of Trump campaign officials, including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s involvement. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Illegally Spied on Americans for Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kathy Griffin, Cheap Grace, and the Mechanisms of Evil

/0 Comments/in , /by

Kathy Griffin is messing with me. I was all set to write a column about the “rush to forgiveness.” Now she has gone and short-circuited that by retracting her apology, like a bratty, defiant first-grader. But I won’t let that stop me. I’ll just add more at the end.

Surely you’ve seen Kathy Griffin’s wannabe ISIS photo. Maybe you’ve seen her hard-to-watch, traumatized video message of apology. Stunned by the backlash against her “let’s behead the president” photo stunt, Griffin seemed chastened and sorry. Not as sorry as Mel Gibson seemed after his drunken, anti-Semitic rant a decade ago. But sorry enough for some.

Online commentators who’d given no sign of forgiving Gibson for an intoxicated outburst treated Griffin very differently. They demanded that the rest of us accept her apology and move on. Presumably, we should accept her back into the charmed circle of highly-paid celebrities and cultural commentators after that apology. Because, you know, hosting TV specials is a basic human right. Even when you’ve worked for weeks on thinking through and preparing an image that encourages the ISIS-style execution of a U.S. president.

Meanwhile, Gibson (who suffers from bipolar disorder) is still amassing particles of forgiveness for something hateful he said while blind drunk. Double standards, anyone?

Sex Abuse and the Rush to Forgiveness

Some made Christian arguments for why we should take Griffin’s sorrow at face value and accept it. That’s what really bothered me. Mostly because I’m watching Netflix’s powerful series The Keepers (my full review runs next week). It covers the clerical sex abuse crisis among Catholics. I have read deeply and widely about that crisis, and learned about one of the key reasons that child rapists were set loose and allowed to rape again: Cheap grace and rushed forgiveness.

Clerics who’d used the confessional, or counseling sessions, or other positions of trust to prey on vulnerable teens hid behind that “cheap grace.” And often it worked. They’d combine a trip to confession, a crying jag in the bishop’s office, and a couple of months in “counseling.” That’s the modern version of a penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Then voila! They were ready to coach middle school wrestling teams again. To take boys on camping trips to the woods. To counsel fatherless tweens. If they fell again, they repented again, and pretty soon they were in a position to blackmail the bishops who’d rushed to forgive and forget.

Lest you think this is a Catholic problem: Some Western European countries are letting Muslim immigrants who left their countries to go fight for ISIS return and go back on welfare. Read those words again, one by one.

“Penitent” Nazis at Nuremburg

Clearly what these authorities are offering is not Christian forgiveness. It is a despicable liberal caricature of the Gospel. It’s Christian charity watered down to homeopathic doses. When God forgives a murderer, that shouldn’t get him out of jail time, or even death row. The chaplains at Nuremburg made that clear to the Nazi war criminals who bared their souls. Some even repented. That didn’t spare them the noose. Nor should it have.

God can afford to wipe our sins away and offer us a clean slate. He has several attributes which none of us (not even wealthy, liberal bishops or Scandinavian socialist bureaucrats) can boast:

Perfect knowledge. So He can read a sinner’s heart, and see if he’s sincere. (We can’t.)

Infinite power. So He can give a sinner more grace if he needs it and will accept it. (We really can’t.)

Eternal life, impassibility, and limitless resources. No sinner can really harm God. In one sense they can harm Jesus, Who eternally hangs on the Cross for our sins. But Jesus accepted that. He is willing and able to take it. (We can’t. If someone molests our son, or even loots our retirement account, those losses are irreparable.)

We have none of those divine attributes. Pretending we do is a piece of arrogant hubris. If some sociopath with a track record of lying and stealing claims that he found Jesus, that’s great for him. Pray that it’s true. But if you hire him to run your non-profit’s finances, you are worse than a fool. You’re reckless. And that’s a sin. Likewise, no child molester, however penitent, should ever be left near children. And no terrorist should ever leave prison.

What Griffin Should Have Done

Nor should we welcome back a public figure who has mocked the victims of terrorism to play at killing the president of the United States. The right thing for Griffin to do would have been to discreetly contact the families of Jewish journalists or Middle Eastern Christians — people who died in the same gruesome way she depicted in her Trump murder fantasy. She should have begged their forgiveness, both privately and publicly. Then she should have done long years of work for victims of terrorism. Pro bono. Zero salary. She should have worked at Krispy Kreme if necessary, purging in the sweat of her brow over hot grease her arrogance and malice.

Instead, she chose to playact. Her “apology,” we now know, was fake. She was stunned by the damage her career might suffer from her sadistic photo stunt. So like a chastened narcissist, she tried to manipulate us. She apologized to her fans — not to family victims of terrorists. Not to President Trump and his family. Not to millions of voters and her fellow citizens.

And now she has taken all of it back. Now she’s posing as the “victim” of “bullying.” At the hands of the people she victimized. Because they dared, dared to push back. To criticize her for , in effect, endorsing the murder of the president.

Beware of Griffinophobia

Words almost fail me. Has Griffin read the playbook of the Council on American-Islamic Relations? You know, the people who greet each terrorist attack with a solemn warning against Islamophobia? Will we soon hear of people losing their jobs because they indulged in Griffinophobia?

Even more, Griffin is enacting, within a single week, the arc of the LGBT movement’s attack on biblical Christianity.

Gay church activists use Christian mercy as the thin end of the wedge. They accuse those who guard against acceptance of sexual sin of being Pharisees. Of wanting to stone the adulteress whom Jesus Himself is sheltering. Of pride and hardness of heart. If they prevail and get some ministries approved that are more “accepting” of their tendencies, it never, never stops there.

Soon enough, those ministries have dropped talk of sin and forgiveness. They outright affirm the sexual practices that biblical Christians must condemn. (Meetings of the Catholic pro-gay ministry Dignity became “meat markets” for gays who weren’t even Catholic.)

LGBT activists target and try to marginalize any Christians who resist them — including genuinely penitent souls who suffer with same-sex attraction. It’s exactly as if pushy Jose Cuervo pitchmen took over an AA meeting — to mock, denounce, and exclude those who insist on remaining sober. I have seen these activists pull this off again and again in Catholic circles. They have conquered most Mainline Protestant churches. And they’re coming for the Evangelicals.

Griffin sniffed the air, and realized that she could get away with all of this. That she could cast herself as the victim in this farce, and become the most hardcore icon of anti-Trump “resistance.” She may even be elected as the next Democratic senator from the State of California.

But still, she has done us a favor. She has given us all a lesson in the mechanisms of evil. This is how hard it really is to repent. This is how ugly unrepented sin becomes when it festers. This is why the Son of God Himself had to hang up there on that cross. (For more from the author of “Kathy Griffin, Cheap Grace, and the Mechanisms of Evil” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Effort to Allow Transgenders in the Military Faces ‘Indefinite Delay’

/0 Comments/in , /by

An Obama administration effort to allow transgender citizens to serve in the U.S. military is undergoing an intense review by the Pentagon, Military Times reports.

Former President Barack Obama’s directive was issued in June 2016 and gave the services exactly one year to craft policy implementation. The Army and Marine Corps are reportedly the most resistant to the policy’s implementation, and the policy is reportedly now in a period of indefinite delay. The objections however appear to stem from logistical rather than idealogical concerns.

The logistical concerns include a lack of funding for upgraded group showers and changes to service-member’s living quarters. Military officials indicated to Military Times that a host of other procedural issues stood in the way of the policy’s implementation. “It’s not that we’re unsupportive or unwilling to implement it; just that there were administrative matters to be addressed,” the official clarified.

The delay was on full display after two cadets at U.S. service academies were not allowed to commission in their gender identity because no official policy guidance has been issued. One of the cadets from the Air Force Academy is being recommended for appointment to the Air Force civil service, where they can serve as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense. (Read more from “Report: Effort to Allow Transgenders in the Military Faces ‘Indefinite Delay'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Plot ‘Revolution’ to Circumvent Trump’s Paris Decision

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democratic officials have vowed to implement the goals of the Paris climate agreement, despite President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the accord Thursday.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed to issue an executive order soon to honor the goals of the Paris accord, including to keep future global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

“On behalf of the people of New York City, and alongside mayors across the country, I am committing to honor the goals of the Paris Agreement with an Executive Order in the coming days, so our city can remain a home for generations to come,” DeBlasio said in a statement Thursday.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto also vowed to follow the “guidelines” of the Paris Agreement, although he gave no specifics.

Democratic governors of California, New York, and Washington also announced the creation of the United States Climate Alliance. Govs. Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, and Jay Inslee all vowed to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

“We will not ignore the science and reality of climate change, which is why I am also signing an Executive Order confirming New York’s leadership role in protecting our citizens, our environment, and our planet,” Cuomo said.

“If the president is going to be AWOL in this profoundly important human endeavor, then California and other states will step up,” Brown said.

It’s part of what former Vice President Al Gore is calling the “clean energy revolution” that would be crippled by pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Gore said “no single person” can stop the “revolution”—that apparently needs a lot of political will to further.

San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer circulated an email petition Thursday, calling on supporters to “urge your governor to fulfill the commitment your state has already made to meet our Paris targets: Go to 100 percent renewable energy.”

“It’s now up to states, cities, and local communities to pick up the mantle of leadership and take the actions necessary to protect our children and leave them a better world,” Steyer wrote in the email blast. (For more from the author of “Democrats Plot ‘Revolution’ to Circumvent Trump’s Paris Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

China Is ‘Sticking’ to the Paris Agreement in Name Only, Its Plans Show a Much Different Intent

/0 Comments/in , /by

As President Donald Trump prepared to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the media is rife with stories about how China pledged to fully implement its global warming pledge.

China did vow to keep its Paris Agreement commitments, but that won’t really mean much given it pledged to increase greenhouse gas emissions for the foreseeable future.

The New York Times reported Chinese Premier Li Keqiang vowed Thursday that “his country remained committed to the fight against climate change and to participating in international efforts for a greener world.”

Two days earlier, the Times reported China was “poised to take the lead on climate,” and it’s more likely we’ll see “China pushing the United States to meet its commitments and try to live up to the letter and spirit of the 2015 Paris Agreement, even if Mr. Trump has signaled he has no intention of doing so.”

Environmentalists and Democratic politicians used the talking point as well. They argue the U.S. has ceded leadership on global warming to China. (Read more from “China Is ‘Sticking’ to the Paris Agreement in Name Only, Its Plans Show a Much Different Intent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Drones Are About to Revolutionize Our World. This Bill Will Let America Lead the Drone Economy.

/0 Comments/in , /by

The last decade has seen a boom in recreational drone usage, as hundreds of thousands of law-abiding hobby pilots have taken to the skies with enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, enterprising individuals are continually dreaming up new commercial uses for drone technology.

Unmanned craft have already been used for aerial photography, helping realtors sell homes, and helping property owners identify roof damage. Amazon has developed drones capable of delivering its packages. One California-based company, Zipline, is using drones to transport life-saving medical supplies in Rwanda.

And the innovation is just beginning.

Drones may one day be used for infrastructure inspection, to transport life-saving devices to people across the country, or even to help local police track down fugitives.

These services will undoubtedly deliver countless benefits to society, but increased drone usage will also bring with it new and complex challenges.

How should drones be integrated into the national airspace system while preserving the integrity and safety of manned aviation? How should conflicts between drone operators and landowners be addressed?

Should responsibility for setting the rules of the road in the low-altitude airspace rest chiefly with the Federal Aviation Administration, or with state and local governments?

This issue calls for sweeping legislation to lay the groundwork for the changes that are coming. That legislation has now arrived.

The Drone Federalism Act

Earlier this week, Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced the Drone Federalism Act. This bipartisan bill lays out a bold new framework for federal regulation of the burgeoning drone industry.

The bill takes a novel approach, recognizing and balancing the interests of federal officials in maintaining airspace safety with the responsibility of local and state governments in policing conduct within and among their communities, and with private property owners who may not be keen on drones routinely buzzing their backyards.

To this end, the Drone Federalism Act affirms the federal interest in FAA regulation of the national airspace and interstate commerce, manned aviation, and all drone activity in the airspace above federal property.

Outside of these restrictions, the bill vests in state, local, and tribal governments the power to “issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation” of drones when flown “below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure.”

These could include speed limits, the establishment of acceptable hours of operation, and demarcating drone-free zones around “schools, parks, roadways, bridges, or other public or private property.”

The bill would also guarantee federal recognition of airspace property rights.

Common law once granted an absolute right to the airspace above private property, but this archaic understanding was rendered obsolete by the rise of manned aviation. Homeowners no longer own everything “up to the heavens,” as the ancient “ad coelum” doctrine provided.

In United States v. Causby (1946), though, the Supreme Court held that homeowners do own “at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use.”

The “exclusive control of the immediate reaches” of the atmosphere above private land was recognized as essential, or “buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run.”

In language borrowed directly from Causby, the Drone Federalism Act affirms a property interest in the “immediate reaches of the airspace above property.”

If passed, property ownership would include 200 feet of airspace above private land and any structure on it, and the FAA would be prohibited from promulgating any rule authorizing “operation of a civil unmanned aircraft” within that space without the owner’s permission.

These provisions would ensure that the FAA cannot simply designate a low-altitude corridor for drone commerce without first addressing the concerns of the landowners directly affected by such activity.

As Cotton put it, “This bill will return power to regulate everyday drone use to the proper level, states and local communities.”

This makes sense for a host of reasons. Most issues that are likely to arise in low-altitude drone operations—trespass and nuisance complaints, flights over public land, and night flying, for example—are inherently local matters, and responses to them should reflect local preferences.

Town councils and local zoning boards will be better positioned than federal regulators to develop responsive and robust policies that suit the needs and preferences of their citizens.

But federal officials do have unparalleled expertise in the aviation field that they can bring to the table to assist city, state, and tribal governments in developing their regulatory approaches to drones.

To that end, the Drone Federalism Act mandates that the FAA establish pilot programs with 10 local, state, and tribal governments of varying size and “intended approach to regulation” in order to provide “technical assistance” and to “coordinate efforts with respect to the enforcement of regulations relating to the operation” of drones in those jurisdictions.

The Drone Federalism Act also guarantees state, local, and tribal governments a seat at the table in the ongoing NASA-led effort to develop an unmanned aircraft traffic management system, a drone analog to the air traffic control system used for manned aviation.

An Overbearing FAA

In contrast to the federalism-based approach envisioned in the Drone Federalism Act, the FAA has for the last decade asserted that drones fall almost exclusively within the confines of its authority.

Consequently, in the FAA’s view, local communities would have virtually no control over how drones interact with, and affect, their own local affairs.

Imagine a small township having to petition the federal Department of Transportation every time it wanted to change a speed limit, install a speed bump, or designate a “no parking” zone.

The result would be a needless slowing of basic decision-making that is inherently local. In the low-altitude airspace, total federal preemption would produce the same result for drones.

Nevertheless, some advocate that federalism has no place in the regulation of drones because it may produce a “patchwork” of state and local laws that vary by jurisdiction. More efficient development and deployment of drone technology, they argue, would be facilitated by providing a single set of national rules.

In reality, the reverse has been true. The FAA’s control over this field has, in fact, proven to be a hindrance to these services.

Drone companies have moved their development operations overseas, where governments have been more inviting and more robust in establishing flexible rules that allow them to operate. Chinese drone manufacturers dominate global markets.

A New Direction

The Drone Federalism Act proposes to chart a new course, one that guarantees the safety of the national airspace system without compromising the traditional right of states and localities to police the conduct that takes place within their own communities.

States will be free to compete with one another to create inviting conditions that attract drone businesses, much as states do today when they offer competitive tax rates and regulatory environments meant to lure job-creating industries.

But the Drone Federalism Act will not throw open the doors to the Wild West. This process will be guided by the FAA, which will provide big-picture guidance and retain firm control of the navigable airspace.

The FAA has full authority to provide for the safety of manned aviation, including promulgating rules governing drone activity below 200 feet where conflicts may emerge between drones and manned aircraft.

This authority, stemming from section 40103 of Title 49, would allow federal regulators to secure airspace around airports, as well as military training routes and other federal facilities.

The bill also empowers the FAA to set “regulations or standards related to civil unmanned aircraft systems,” which could include safety standards and technology mandates needed to comply with any future unmanned aircraft traffic management system.

Citizens will benefit, not only as revolutionary drone technologies come to market more quickly, but from the federal guarantee of airspace property rights above their homes.

Technological development and economic advancement do not require us to forfeit basic rights, or principles like federalism that help to maintain them.

The federalism-based approach envisioned in the Drone Federalism Act is precisely the approach America needs, and it has won the support of the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of State Aviation Officials.

Congress would be wise to consider such reforms. (For more from the author of “Drones Are About to Revolutionize Our World. This Bill Will Let America Lead the Drone Economy.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

May Jobs Report Leaves the US Begging for Economic Reforms

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the month of June now here, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its jobs report for the month of May. The picture isn’t too bright.

The report showed tepid economic growth with an increase of 138,000 jobs, down from 174,000 new jobs in April. That number is combined with another drop in the unemployment rate from 4.4 to 4.3 percent—the lowest rate since May of 2001.

Although the number of jobs created is lower than experts predicted, the Trump administration will no doubt take credit for gains in critical sectors of the economy, including mining, which added nearly 50,000 jobs after hitting a low last fall.

Long-term unemployment is down by 187,000 since the President Donald Trump took office.

While the U-3 unemployment rate is near record lows in recent history, the alternative measure of the unemployment rate, the U-6 number (measuring total unemployed, plus those marginally attached to the labor force, part-timers, and those who have given up looking for work), has also fallen from 9.7 percent in May of 2016 to 8.4 percent.

The largest gains in jobs came from professional and business services (38,000 jobs), health care (24,000 jobs), food service and drinking places (30,000 jobs), and mining/support for mining (7,000 jobs). Meanwhile, government jobs dropped by 9,000.

On a more troubling note, the labor force participation rate continued to be stagnant, and even showed a slight decline of 0.2 percentage points to 62.7 percent, which is largely responsible for the falling unemployment numbers.

This means that nearly 95 million people are not seeing enough of a motivation to get back in the job market—even though many companies are desperately looking for people to fill empty positions.

One factor for the low labor force participation rate can be linked to slower wage growth. The report found that average hourly earnings rose at an annual rate of 2.5 percent. This rate has gone unchanged since late 2015.

The stagnant nature of the economy in this report shows the continued need for pro-growth solutions.

There’s no question that we should applaud Trump for having the fortitude to stand up to the world and lead by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. This will, no doubt, create more jobs and be a catalyst to further expand our energy exploration.

But executive action is not enough.

We need fundamental tax reform, the repeal of Obamacare—which continues to make hiring difficult for small businesses—and a serious reform of our welfare system, which rewards able-bodied people for not working and swelled to historic levels under the Obama administration.

If we are going to continue to grow our economy and create jobs that pull people back into the workforce, it is imperative that Congress work with the White House to pass meaningful reforms.

If Congress needs a leader to follow, it need look no further than Thursday’s speech in the White House Rose Garden. (For more from the author of “May Jobs Report Leaves the US Begging for Economic Reforms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Goes Full Jackass in Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Barack Obama just couldn’t help himself. As President Donald Trump took steps to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, undoing one of Obama’s most egregious executive overreaches, the former president released a statement criticizing Trump.

“The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created,” Obama said. “But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way …”

“The absence of American leadership”? Really, Mr. Obama?

Let’s talk about the absence of American leadership the voters just freed themselves from after eight years of Obama’s pathetic presidency.

Under President Obama’s absent economic leadership, the U.S. economy stalled at an anemic 1.9 percent growth rate from which the economy finally seems to be emerging under President Trump.

Under President Obama’s absent health care leadership, premiums skyrocketed because Obamacare’s market-distorting policies saw favorable health insurance plans disappear from countless American workers and families.

Under President Obama’s absent leadership abroad, America’s enemies were emboldened. The Middle East became more dangerous with the rise of ISIS. Iran is in open violation of the nuclear deal Obama negotiated. Between apology tours, crossed red lines, and the hollowing out of the American military, Obama’s foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster.

What successes can Obama claim? In his statement Thursday, the former president cites his past negotiations on the Paris accord as “principled American leadership.” His negotiations would have bound America to a jobs-killing, economy-constraining, wealth-redistributing deal — all without the consent of Congress.

President Trump provided real American leadership Thursday by putting the good of American citizens above the demands of Big Business and foreign bureaucrats. The American people don’t need Obama inserting himself into Trump’s successes to undermine the current, relevant president with the former, irrelevant president’s foolish left-wing talking points. (For more from the author of “Obama Goes Full Jackass in Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obscene Immigration Policy Gets Cop Fired for Enforcing the Law

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A police officer in Minnesota has been fired after simply asking a question about a suspect’s legal status. But were the policies that led to his termination really in the best interests of the people he was trying to protect and serve?

Here’s how it went down, according to Fox, earlier this month. An officer with the Minnesota Transit Police confronted a man suspected of fare dodging on a Minneapolis commuter train:

After the exchange with the transit officer, the passenger, Ariel Vences-Lopez, 23, was arrested for fare evasion and was taken to the Hennepin County jail in Minneapolis. He was eventually placed on a detainer for immigration violations, the Star Tribune reported.

The incident occurred May 14 and was captured on cellphone video. The officer is seen asking Vences-Lopez for a government-issued ID after an apparent ticket dispute. When Vences-Lopez shook his head, the officer asks: “Are you here illegally?”

A now-viral video captured by a bystander shows a portion of the incident, after which Vences-Lopez was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is now scheduled for deportation to Mexico.

Now, that officer is out of a job, according to a statement from the Metro Transit Police Department, as the city has barred law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status since 2003.

A lengthy Facebook explains that, since the incident, the department’s policy was subsequently updated to “ensure equal enforcement of the law and equal service to all persons regardless of their immigration status” and states that the agency is “working to reestablish the trust that was broken by this isolated incident.”

But wouldn’t equal application of the law include enforcing the law on people whose immigration status is outside that law? David Ray, communications director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says so.

“It’s in the best interest of the American people if state and local cops and federal immigration officials can work in tandem to help control illegal immigration,” he tells CR. And at the end of the day, what’s standing in the way of the American people’s best interests are policies like that in Minneapolis, which, Ray says, is “wrong-headed and undermines public safety.”

While his organization does not comment on specific cases, “as it’s likely all of the facts have yet to come out,” the officer clearly did the people of Minneapolis a big favor by taking steps to identify an illegal alien who, for reasons unknown to us, was immediately flagged for removal by ICE. (For more from the author of “Obscene Immigration Policy Gets Cop Fired for Enforcing the Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.