Iran Will Be the Big Winner of U.S. Syria Withdrawal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Defense Secretary Mattis never wavered on continuing the Obama administration’s short-sighted “only ISIS” strategy in Syria. And now Iran will emerge as the big winner of the Trump administration’s decision to fully withdraw troops and personnel from Syria.

On Wednesday morning, the Trump administration announced that the United States has almost completed its mission against the Islamic State terrorist group and will now “transition to the next phase of this campaign,” which appears to be a full withdrawal from Syria.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to observers of the U.S. strategy in Syria, headed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, which entirely ignored Iran’s expansion into the region. The “only ISIS” strategy pursued by the Defense Department under both the Obama and Trump administrations essentially paved the way for Iran and allowed the terrorist regime to connect its land and air bridge from Tehran to Beirut.

ISIS’ “caliphate” has indeed been obliterated. The jihadi group struggles to hold the large swaths of territory it controlled when President Trump came into office. Over the course of the year, the narrow focus of the U.S. strategy in Syria has largely failed to protect U.S. strategic interests in the region and has only emboldened other adversarial actors such as Turkey and Russia.

In recent months, there were signs of momentum for a strategic recalibration before the president pulled the plug on the Syria mission. In September, national security adviser John Bolton highlighted the important mission of denying the nuclear-aspiring Iranian regime’s expansion throughout the Middle East.

“We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” Bolton proclaimed while in New York for the U.N. General Assembly. This came on the heels of statements from Secretary of State Pompeo stressing the need to counter Iran.

Yet Secretary Mattis dismissed the idea shortly thereafter, reiterating his stance that U.S. troops were in Syria with the sole mission to take out ISIS.

“Right now our troops inside Syria are there for one purpose, and that’s under the U.N. authorization about defeating ISIS,” Mattis responded.

Secretary Mattis continued to strongly insist that the U.S. must remain in Syria in perpetuity until ISIS is completely defeated, which is largely an impossible logistical task. This approach created the groundwork for another endless engagement in a foreign war zone akin to the war in Afghanistan. And it was Mattis’s narrowly focused articulation of the war that ultimately led to the withdrawal of the U.S. presence in Syria. President Trump was told that we were there solely to defeat ISIS. He then concluded, given the approach presented to him by Mattis, that ISIS’ downfall can now allow us to withdraw from the region.

The Mattis-led U.S. strategy in Syria empowered Iran, Russia, and Turkey at the expense of our allies. A full withdrawal from the country will now accelerate that process. The Department of Defense and the bipartisan foreign policy class are infuriated by the decision to withdraw from Syria, but given their failed strategic approach to the region, they only have themselves to blame for the president’s decision to end the mission. (For more from the author of “Iran Will Be the Big Winner of U.S. Syria Withdrawal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The New York Times. . .That includes Planned Parenthood, which has been accused of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.

In interviews and legal documents, women at Planned Parenthood and other organizations with a feminist bent described discrimination that violated federal or state laws — managers considering pregnancy in hiring decisions, for example, or denying rest breaks recommended by a doctor. . .

At Natera, which sells genetic tests for pregnant women, two former employees, Melissa Blain Johnson and Judit Rigo, said they were demoted while on maternity leave. Ms. Johnson, who has sued Natera, also said that she was left feeling like a “guinea pig” when her boss suggested that she and another pregnant employee pose as patients and get genetically tested by a rival company. (Read more from “Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Planned Parenthood Employees Accuse Organization of Mistreating Pregnant Workers

By The Hill. Former and current Planned Parenthood employees accuse the women’s health organization of mistreating its pregnant workers in a New York Times investigation published Thursday.

The Times interviewed more than a dozen current and former employees who said Planned Parenthood discriminated against workers when they became pregnant and that some offices fostered a culture that discouraged workers from becoming pregnant. . .

“It was looked down upon for you to get pregnant,” Carolina Delgado, who worked in the Planned Parenthood Miami office until 2012, told the newspaper. “I don’t think that any supervisor had to literally say it for us to feel it.”

One former Planned Parenthood hiring manager who worked in California told the Times that she witnessed supervisors declining to promote certain employees depending on whether they were likely to get pregnant.

The Times said that 49 of the organization’s 55 regional offices do not offer paid maternity leave. (Read more from “Planned Parenthood Employees Accuse Organization of Mistreating Pregnant Workers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Will Not Sign Spending Bill Without Wall Funding, After Conservatives Fought

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., said Thursday President Trump has told lawmakers he will not sign the Senate continuing resolution without border wall funding.

House conservatives have led the fight to help Trump keep his promise and fight for a wall.

Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said Thursday that now is the time to fight for President Donald Trump’s border wall, even if that means shutting down the government.

Speaking on Fox News, Meadows said that the American people believe that President Trump is receiving “bad advice” to sign a continuing resolution to fund the government through February without funding the wall. He urged Trump to veto any spending bill that doesn’t fund the wall.

“They know that he’s promised not once, not twice, but three different times that he would get border wall funding, and here we are about to punt,” Meadows said. “And I would argue it’s not a punt. A punt actually helps improve the field advantage. This is a fumble, and we need to make sure that the president stays firm.”

Meadows said that Congress failed in the first two years of Trump’s presidency to keep Republican promises on border security and the wall. He added that House conservatives want to vote on a bill appropriating $5 billion for the down payment on a border wall, but that House leadership has not moved on passing wall funding out of the House.

He dismissed concerns over a government shutdown, noting that the vast majority of the government’s essential functions will remain operational.

“If we’re not going to fight now, when are we going to fight?” Meadows said. “Are we suggesting that when the Democrats have control in February that somehow our position is going to improve? There’s no one in the West Wing that believes that. There’s no one on main street that believes that, and quite frankly now is the time to fight.” (Read more from “Trump Will Not Sign Spending Bill Without Wall Funding, After Conservatives Fought” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Approves Spending Bill With Border Wall Funding

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House of Representatives approved a spending bill Thursday that includes $5.7 billion to build President Trump’s proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed by a vote of 217-185, with no Democratic “yeas.” The legislation now heads to the Senate.

Among those who voted for the bill were the members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

“Republicans in Congress have continually told the American people that we would fight for wall funding, and today the House of Representatives took its first step toward fulfilling that promise,” the group said in a statement after the vote. “The Senate must follow our lead. It’s time we do what we said and work with President Trump and the American people to secure our borders.”

The Freedom Caucus introduced an amendment Wednesday night and gave a series of impassioned speeches about how the president had a duty to keep his promise to the American people. To have border security, the likes of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, they had to fund the wall. He called it “common sense.” . . .

Considering Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi already insisted, in front of cameras at the White House last week, they are not paying for the border wall, we seem to be heading toward a partial government shutdown. The deadline is Friday.

(Read more from “House Approves Spending Bill With Border Wall Funding” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kasich Shows His Hypocrisy on the Second Amendment

/0 Comments/in , /by

Outgoing Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich says he’s a Second Amendment guy, but he’s vetoing the latest gun bill, which included permitting off-duty officers to carry concealed firearms and placing tougher punishments of illegal straw purchasers, because a provision would have shifted the burden of proof in self-defense shootings. As of now, in Ohio, the shooter has to prove he or she legally acted in self-defense. Pro-gun rights groups say Ohio is the only state in the country that follows this protocol in these incidents.The Columbus Dispatchadded that Kasich was irritated that the legislature couldn’t come up with bipartisan red flag laws, which the governor said was scuttled over “rotten, stinking politics.” The fight isn’t over. There probably is going to be a veto override vote after Christmas:

Saying that signing a gun rights measure “would be detrimental to the safety of all of our citizens,” Gov. John Kasich vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have shifted the burden of proof in self-defense cases.

“I’m a Second Amendment guy. I also believe there are some important restrictions we need to place on the Second Amendment,” the outgoing governor told the Columbus Metropolitan Club earlier Wednesday.

The move sets up a potential veto override showdown when lawmakers return for rare post-Christmas sessions. Legislators also may seek to override potential vetoes of bills that grant pay raises to state and local elected officials, and one or two abortion-related measures, including the “heartbeat” bill. Any of those vetoes are expected Thursday or Friday.

Kasich expressed disappointment the legislature didn’t come close to approving changes proposed by a bipartisan group he formed, including a “red flag” law that would allow a judge to temporarily seize weapons of a gun owner suspected of being a threat to themselves or others.

(Read more from “Kasich Shows His Hypocrisy on the Second Amendment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

John McCain Associate Gave Dossier to Buzzfeed

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Daily Caller. A longtime associate of late Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain provided a copy of the infamous Steele dossier to BuzzFeed News, according to an explosive court filing released Wednesday.

David Kramer, a former State Department official who was an executive at the McCain Institute, met on Dec. 29, 2016 with BuzzFeed reporter Ken Bensinger, according to a filing submitted Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.

BuzzFeed published the dossier, which was authored by former British spy Christopher Steele, on Jan. 10, 2017.

The disclosure was made as part of a final report ahead of Ungaro’s ruling in favor of BuzzFeed in a defamation lawsuit.

The revelation that Kramer was BuzzFeed’s source settles one of the main mysteries of the dossier, which alleges a vast conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government to influence the 2016 election. (Read more from “John McCain Associate Gave Dossier to Buzzfeed” HERE)

__________________________________________________

‘Fair Report Privilege’: Judge Backs BuzzFeed in Russian’s Lawsuit Over Steele Dossier

By RT. A federal judge in Florida ruled for BuzzFeed in a defamation lawsuit brought by a Russian internet entrepreneur accused of hacking the Democratic Party in the salacious Steele dossier that was published by the outlet.

Because BuzzFeed did not attest to the truth of the allegations contained in the dossier and published the documents in their entirety, the outlet is protected under the doctrine of fair report privilege, US District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled on Wednesday in Miami.

“The privilege exists to protect the media while they gather the information needed for the public to exercise effective oversight of the government,” Ungaro wrote in her decision. “The privilege protects the media even when they report on official action that the government would like to keep secret.”

A filing submitted with the judge’s ruling revealed that David Kramer, a longtime associate of the late Senator John McCain, gave the dossier to BuzzFeed reporter Ken Bensinger. Kramer also advised McCain to share the report with the CIA and FBI. (Read more from “‘Fair Report Privilege’: Judge Backs BuzzFeed in Russian’s Lawsuit Over Steele Dossier” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why President Trump Is Right To Consider Pardoning Green Beret Matthew Golsteyn

/0 Comments/in , /by

All too predictably, The New York Times is hyperbolically criticizing President Donald Trump for saying that he would review the case of Maj. Matthew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret accused of killing an Afghan man in 2010. The New York Times called Trump “impulsive” and accused him of exercising “undue command influence.” But Golsteyn’s case is exactly the situation for which the presidential pardon must be considered. . .

Golsteyn’s involvement in the man’s murder first came to light when he interviewed for a job at the CIA. As part of his application, he was asked to identify any illegal acts or indiscretions in which he may have participated. His confession led to an investigation resulting in withholding Golsteyn’s employment with the CIA, but without charges being brought against him. . .

But then there’s the rule of law, above which none of us can be placed. Golsteyn was given specific orders. He is part of the greatest fighting force in the world, a fighting force whose greatness proceeds from its soldiers’ discipline, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the chain of command. It is not up to Golsteyn to decide who lives and who dies. No man should have that kind of unfettered authority. He is a soldier, and his job is to follow orders, to carry out his mission faithfully, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and, by extension, its laws.

According to the information available, Golsteyn broke the law then made the unforced error of brazenly bringing attention to that fact through a national television broadcast. Unquestionably, there is much more evidence to be uncovered, some of it potentially exculpatory, but if the facts stand as they are, and if there is nothing more of substance to consider, Golsteyn’s choice stood outside of the boundaries of the law, and he must be held to account.

But there are times when the law is too harsh; times when society’s punishment is either illogical or inappropriate for the circumstances. Under these conditions, an escape clause must be configured. Alexander Hamilton said it best, as he so often does, in The Federalist Number 74, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” (Read more from “Why President Trump Is Right To Consider Pardoning Green Beret Matthew Golsteyn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Evidence Coming out of the Flynn Case Makes Mueller Look Worse and Worse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As Michael Flynn stood for sentencing Tuesday, you could imagine the special counsel attorneys audibly exhale in relief as he declined to withdraw his guilty plea. Until that moment, it was an open question whether Judge Emmet Sullivan would excuse the government’s now apparent misconduct.

Instead, the judge blasted Flynn for “selling out” his country and wondered whether a “treason” charge might have been considered at some point. The Federalist’s Sean Davis hypothesized that the judge was frustrated by the Flynn team attempting to have his cake and eat it too. If Flynn wanted to attack the government’s abuse of constitutional rights, fine—then withdraw the plea. If not, then drop it. . .

Flynn is a big boy with big boy attorneys. He’s the only one who can legally object to the mishandling of his case, and he chose not to do so. But as Americans, we should nevertheless be concerned. . .

Flynn entered his guilty plea on November 30, 2017. Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted Flynn’s plea, mysteriously recused himself approximately one week later. Then, in March of 2018, newly public Strzok texts revealed one possible explanation for the mysterious recusal: the new texts showed Strzok was so friendly with Contreras that Strzok wondered whether there might be a conflict of interest for the judge to rule upon warrant applications involving Strzok. Since Strzok was the key witness in the Flynn lying case, some have speculated that Contreras was ordered off the case.

We’ve also known for some time that McCabe had a vendetta against Flynn because Flynn helped a woman accusing McCabe of retaliating for a discrimination complaint. What Flynn may not have known at the time he entered the plea is the government’s case relied on McCabe’s reliability. (Read more from “The Evidence Coming out of the Flynn Case Makes Mueller Look Worse and Worse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why It’s Not Discrimination for Christian Agencies to Only Recruit Christian Foster and Adoptive Parents

/0 Comments/in , /by

In October, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that claims to be founded on Jewish values, accused South Carolina’s Miracle Hill foster care agency of discrimination for exclusively serving Christian parents. The ADL blasted Miracle Hill’s action of recruiting only Christian foster care parents as “immoral” and “deeply disturbing.”

But the ADL forgets that, for more than a century, American Jewish organizations have placed Jewish children with Jewish families. During World War II, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the German Jewish Children’s Aid Society (GJCAS) helped Jewish orphans fleeing Nazi persecution find homes with Jewish families in the United States. Five decades later, as Jewish orphans fled the Soviet Union, Jewish organizations in the United States helped them find Jewish homes. This was not a story about discrimination, it was about preservation—of shared traditions, history, and values.

Rather than honor these traditions, the ADL has joined the American left’s ongoing crusade to eradicate faith from our nation’s foster care and adoption agencies. In Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services is desperately fighting the city for the right to continue to serve children without sacrificing its Catholic principles. In Buffalo, New York, Catholic Charities was forced to end its adoption services because of its practice of placing a child only with both a mom and a dad. . .

The ADL thinks that publicly funding faith-based adoption agencies violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but it is wrong. Although the First Amendment prohibits any “establishment of religion,” its framers never thought that providing funding to religious organizations on the same basis as to secular organizations would count as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Indeed, the Supreme Court held in Trinity Lutheran that the government may fund religious organizations on equal footing with secular ones without running afoul of the establishment clause.

What this case is really about is the free exercise of religion under our laws. That is why faith-based agencies like Miracle Hill need President Trump and the Department of Health and Human Services to implement regulations that support one of our most cherished founding principles: religious freedom. (Read more from “Why It’s Not Discrimination for Christian Agencies to Only Recruit Christian Foster and Adoptive Parents” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOMBSHELL: Democrats Used ‘Similarly Deceptive Tactics’ in Senate Race as Russians Used in 2016 Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daily Wire. A new bombshell report released on Wednesday night alleges that Democrats used “similarly deceptive tactics” in the Alabama Senate race last year as Russia used in the 2016 elections.

“The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore,” The New York Times reported.

The Times notes that the methods implored by Democrats concern some who fear that they “taint elections in the United States.”

“The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore,” The Times continued. “It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.”

The New York Times obtained an internal report on the Democrat’s operation, which stated it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.” (Read more from “BOMBSHELL: Democrats Used ‘Similarly Deceptive Tactics’ in Senate Race as Russians Used in 2016 Election” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

By The New York Times. As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Read more from “Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.