Faux Life? Why a Texas ‘Pro-Life’ Org Fought a Dismemberment Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

A proposed law to stop a gruesome abortion procedure has made its way through the Texas state legislature, but it is running into some surprising opposition from an organization that bills itself as pro-life.

A provision to ban the performance of dismemberment (also known as D&E and D&X) abortions, except in the case of a “medical emergency,” passed the state senate back in March and the House on Friday.

However, some of the opposition to the bill’s passage might surprise anyone not familiar with abortion politics in the Lone Star State. While pushback from major pro-abortion groups is to be expected, one pro-life group has been actively campaigning against the measure. Texas Alliance for Life, and its executive director, Joe Pojman, spent months leading up to the final House vote, recommending that the legislature reject the ban on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

For reference, this is exactly what happens during a dismemberment abortion:

During one of these procedures, the preborn child is ripped apart in utero before being pulled out through the birth canal piece-by-piece.

But efforts to ban the practice have been thus far opposed by Pojman’s group, which sent out a letter to state legislators urging them to vote against the measure.

Furthermore, for an organization that is dedicated to “protect[ing] innocent human life from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means,” Texas Alliance for Life stood alone in its opposition to the bill, as several other pro-life organizations lined up behind the legislation.

If the measure were to become law, the letter speculates to lawmakers, “it would not survive a federal court challenge” because of rulings in previous cases, even though the ruling would occur in the 5th Circuit (which is perhaps the most friendly court in the federal system because of its makeup).

Empower Texans, a conservative state-level grassroots organization, explains on its website that Texas Alliance for Life’s Joe Pojman testified on the bill before the committee in February, and recommended that the legislature not pass it, alongside activists from the National Abortion Rights Action League, better known as NARAL.

“Pojman’s remarks today plant dangerous land mines in the way of any legal strategy to defend SB 415 if it passes and is challenged in court,” said Tony McDonald, Empower Texans’ general counsel, at the time. “Abortion groups will use Pojman’s testimony as a ‘confession’ that SB 415 is so ‘extreme’ that even pro-life groups are opposing it.”

And that very thing happened at the 11th hour.

Prior to the vote on Friday, Jessica Farrar, a staunchly pro-abortion Democrat state representative, invoked Pojman’s testimony while speaking in against the provision, which was attached as an amendment to a larger legislative package, on the House floor.

“Are you aware that Texas Alliance for Life testified against this bill in the senate committee?” Farrar publicly asked of Republican Representative Stephanie Klick, contending that the measure was “unconstitutional.”

Pojman responded to Empower Texans’ claims, calling them inaccurate and saying that his testimony was “on” the bill and that he did not take a side (before diving into his reasons for not supporting the bill).

Texas Right to Life Legislative Director John Seago disputes the assertions, however, saying that they are based on what he calls a “fundamental flaw their assessment of the policy” that runs parallel to many pro-abortion criticism of the legislation.

Counter to such judicial concerns, the prevailing reasoning among many pro-life advocates in favor of outlawing the procedure argues that – since the legislation bans a procedure outright – it would fall in line with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling that upheld the 2003 national partial-birth abortion ban, off of which Seago says the current language in Austin is based.

“[Opponents] have read the bill and understand the bill to be prohibiting all D+E abortions,” Seago told Conservative Review. “That is a gross mischaracterization of the bill, just like the partial birth abortion ban doesn’t prohibit all late abortions; it prohibits one specific procedure.”

“Some pro-lifers are worried about going to court,” he says, admitting that any such litigation is a gamble on some level. “But we understand, the pro-life movement lives in the shadow of Roe v. Wade and the only way we’re going to take down this legal edifice is by working in the courts,” like it did with the partial-birth ban.

“That doesn’t worry us,” Seago said. “That’s how the movement has to move forward.”

“I can’t understand TAL’s objections to a dismemberment ban — I don’t get it at all,” says JoAnn Fleming, executive director of Grassroots America, who has been a conservative activist in Texas for over 20 years.

“I’ve seen the objection about how the court will unravel it and this, that and the other, that and the other,” she adds, but “If we have to fight for life in the courts, then we simply take the fight to the courts. We don’t withdraw from that fight just because we might have to do battle in court.”

To Pojman’s assertions that the current legislation will not save any lives in effect, Seago points to similar criticisms made about the partial birth debate and of pain-capable bills, which have both proven to decrease abortion rates.

However, critics say aren’t surprised by TAL’s opposition to the ban, as they say the group has previously fought to either dilute or otherwise obfuscate pro-life legislation in the state. Republican Representative and Texas Freedom Caucus member Matt Rinaldi claims that the group has sought to water down other legislation before, such as the original version of a 2011 sonogram bill.

“They’ll pick bills [to support] that don’t really accomplish much,” explains Rinaldi. “They act as a cover group for leadership in killing pro-life reforms.”

Rinaldi tells Conservative Review that he views Texas Alliance’s efforts to weaken or oppose stronger pro-life bills as “disgusting,” mainly because they are supported by funds from pro-life donors.

“Their donors and supports don’t realize that they’re being had,” Rinaldi said. “I think it’s despicable.”

Responding to Rinaldi’s statements, Pojman put forward TAL’s list of legislative priorities this session, calling the agenda both “aggressive and substantive.”

“Our goal is to protect unborn children from abortions throughout pregnancy,” reads an emailed statement from Pojman to Conservative Review. “However, we do not recommend that the Legislature pass the dismemberment ban this session because it will not sustain an inevitable court challenge. There are not sufficient votes on the US Supreme Court to uphold it.”

Meanwhile, the group’s critics say, the organization also provides cover for establishment Republicans who would rather not take the heat for voting in favor of stronger pro-life legislation, but still want to don a pro-life mantle come election time.

Chronicling documented financial exchange between House leadership and TAL, Empower Texans’ executive director Michael Q. Sullivan wrote in a 2015 op-ed at Breitbart News that the group’s rhetoric about the pro-life bona fides of certain members of the legislative leadership – most notably state Speaker Joe Straus – did an “about face” following a large influx of cash to the nonprofit’s political action committee. Pojman responded to Sullivan, calling the assertions “misinformation.”

Disagreements over how to best protect the unborn, however, are not specific to a few policy groups in the Lone Star State nor a single dismemberment bill, Seago told CR. Rather, they are endemic of a tactical split in the pro-life movement as a whole.

Whereas some pro-life organizations develop their political priorities based on where the movement needs to go, he says, “Unfortunately, all I’ve seen some pro-life groups in Texas and other states do is show up and see what the politicians give them” and then tout those items as priorities.

“You can’t just give [elected officials] cover,” Seago says against this approach. “The pro-life movement really has to objectively determine where we need to go and then hold our politicians accountable.” (For more from the author of “Faux Life? Why a Texas ‘Pro-Life’ Org Fought a Dismemberment Ban” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Newt Gingrich Spreads Seth Rich Murder Theory

/0 Comments/in , /by

Newt Gingrich claimed that a Democratic National Committee staffer “apparently was assassinated” after “having given WikiLeaks something like … 53,000 [DNC] emails and 17,000 attachments.” But there’s no evidence for his claim.

The former Republican House speaker is spreading a conspiracy theory about the killing of Seth Rich, who was shot to death in Washington, D.C., in the early morning hours of July 10, 2016, in what local police have described as a likely botched robbery.

The unsubstantiated claim about Rich’s murder got legs recently after Fox 5 in Washington, D.C., reported — and a day later largely retracted — that the FBI completed a forensic report on Rich’s computer and found that he had transferred 44,053 DNC emails and 17,761 attachments to WikiLeaks.

Fox 5 aired those details on the morning of May 16, based on the work of a private investigator, Rod Wheeler, who was hired by a third party with the consent of Rich’s family. But later that evening, Wheeler told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that he had no evidence that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks.

“Maybe it is related to the DNC. We don’t know that. We don’t know that for sure,” Wheeler told Hannity. “It could have been a botched robbery.” (Read more from “Newt Gingrich Spreads Seth Rich Murder Theory” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: China Crippled CIA Operations, Killed Informants

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Chinese government “systematically dismantled” CIA spying operations in China starting in late 2010 and killed or imprisoned at least a dozen CIA sources over the next two years, The New York Times reported Saturday.

The newspaper cited 10 current and former U.S. officials, who described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. They spoke on condition of anonymity.

The report said U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies scrambled to stem the damage, but were bitterly divided over the cause of the breach. Some investigators were convinced there was a mole within the CIA, while others believed the Chinese had hacked the covert system the CIA used to communicate with its foreign sources. The debate remains unresolved, the paper said. (Read more from “Report: China Crippled CIA Operations, Killed Informants” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas House Approves Amended Bathroom Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Texas House approved an amended version of a proposed bathroom bill Sunday. Legislators had been threatened with a special session if the measure didn’t pass.

The Texas Privacy Act, or Senate Bill 6, passed the state Senate in March but faced House opposition. The act would have limited restroom use according to biological sex in public schools and government buildings. It also would have prevented city governments from passing opposing ordinances.

But the measure that passed the House 91-50 was narrowed down to address public schools exclusively. Language crafted by Republican Rep. Chris Paddie was tacked on to Senate Bill 2078, a measure dealing with schools’ emergency operations.

The amended language requires students use facilities according to their biological sex. Students who identify as members of the opposite sex may use single-occupancy facilities.

Final approval on the bill is expected Monday. It will then head back to the Senate for approval of the bathroom language changes. Abbott is expected to sign the bill. In April, he finally broke his long silence on the issue.

“I will work with the House and Senate to ensure we find a solution and ultimately get a bill to my desk that I will sign into law,” he said.

Hot Debate

Senate Bill 6 and its subsequent versions have seen heated opposition.

On Sunday, Democratic Rep. Senfronia Thompson compared the House’s version to Jim Crow laws. “White. Colored. I was living through that era … bathrooms divided us then, and it divides us now,” she said.

Paddie disagreed, claiming the bill did not discriminate. “It’s absolutely about child safety,” he said.

Supporters of a Texas bathroom bill have insisted their intent is not to discriminate. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick previously called SB 6 “a common sense, privacy and public safety policy for everyone.” The bill’s author, Sen. Lois Koklhorst, said it was an effort to “strike a balance to protect all of us when we find ourselves in the intimate spaces, vulnerable spaces.”

The original measure was also intended to provide additional guidance in light of move by President Donald Trump. In February Trump rescinded an Obama-era policy mandating schools allow students who identify as members of the opposite sex to use the bathroom of their choice. Schools that didn’t comply were threatened with loss of federal funding.

“This is an issue best solved at the state and local level,” Education Secretary Betsy Devos said at the time. Kolkhorst said that made guidance for Texas schools “even more important.”

House Speaker Republican Joe Straus previously voiced opposition to any kind of bathroom bill. He said he thought such a bill would hurt Texas business. News media widely reported negative repercussions to North Carolina’s economy after its government passed the controversial bathroom bill known as House Bill 2. But North Carolina Lt. Governor Dan Forest disputed those reports in a press conference supporting SB 6.

Nevertheless, Straus’ fears about the economy were allayed with the passing of SB 2078. According to The Texas Tribune, he didn’t think the measure would drastically change schools’ existing approach to accommodating students who identify as members of the opposite sex. It also “avoid[s] the severely negative impact of Senate Bill 6.” (For more from the author of “Texas House Approves Amended Bathroom Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Didn’t Mention Israel in Meeting With Russians

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump on Monday defended himself against allegations he divulged classified information in a recent meeting with Russian diplomats, saying alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he never identified Israel in his Oval Office conversation.

At the end of his appearance with Netanyahu, Trump said that he “never mentioned the word or the name Israel” in his conversation with Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador. “So you have another story wrong,” he said.

Various reports, quoting anonymous officials, have said Trump did share classified information with Russian diplomats about the threat posed by the Islamic State group, and several have said that information came from Israeli intelligence. But news accounts have not accused Trump of naming Israel as a source of the information. (Read more from “Trump Says He Didn’t Mention Israel in Meeting With Russians” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Korea Says It’s Ready to Deploy, Mass-Produce New Missile

/0 Comments/in , /by

North Korea says it’s ready to deploy and start mass-producing a new medium-range missile capable of reaching Japan and major U.S. military bases there following a test launch it claims confirmed the missile’s combat readiness and is an “answer” to U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies.

The solid-fuel Pukguksong-2 missile flew about 500 kilometers (310 miles) and reached a height of 560 kilometers (350 miles) Sunday before plunging into the Pacific Ocean. North Korea’s media said more missiles will be launched in the future . . .

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un ordered the launch and watched from an observation post, state media reported Monday. The Korea Central News Agency said the test verified technical aspects of the weapon system and examined its “adaptability under various battle conditions” before it is deployed to military units. (Read more from “North Korea Says It’s Ready to Deploy, Mass-Produce New Missile” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s time to patch up America’s second “special relationship” after eight years of frayed feelings between the United States and Israel.

That’s the message President Donald Trump is sending in his early-presidency trip to Israel and unprecedented visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

Trump said of his Monday visit to the Western Wall, a first for sitting American presidents, that the visit was potentially a path to a “deeper” friendship with Israel.

Conflicts over policy and philosophy strained the relations between former President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and led to distrust between the two countries.

By going out of his way to entreat with Israel, Trump is at least signaling that a reset is in store.

Israel plays an essential role in American foreign policy—and not only in the Middle East. The war against radical Islamists has global implications in which the two countries have overlapping interests.

America’s Other ‘Special Relationship’

It is almost taken for granted today that Israel has been such a reliable foreign policy partner. This was only due to the careful diplomacy and alignment of key national and cultural interests between the two countries.

The nature of this partnership in many ways mirrors the so-called “special relationship” between Great Britain and the United States.

However, it is important to remember that before World War II, the U.S. and U.K. spent a century as mortal enemies and had deep reasons to distrust one another.

World War I pushed the U.S. and U.K. closer together after a century of suspicion and hostility. The fires of World War II and the Herculean efforts of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sealed a the long-term collaboration between the countries—an example of the importance of wise statesmanship from American and British leaders.

It is important for American leaders to recognize and cultivate just such a relationship with Israel.

While the United States has always been supportive of Israel’s nationhood since 1948, the two countries were not always so intertwined. The complex nature of the Cold War in the Middle East occasionally put the U.S. and Israel at odds.

U.S.-Israel ties grew closer after Israel defeated a coalition of Arab states backed by the Soviet Union in the Yom Kippur War and the country proved itself to be a valuable Cold War ally.

The wisdom of this cooperation is even more apparent after the rise of radical Islamist sentiment that became a cornerstone aspect of American foreign policy after the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Israel was in a prime position to help combat this pernicious ideology, which has strong ties in the Middle East.

Countering Iran and Syria

Trump addressed a few major issues of immediate concern to the U.S. during his visit to Israel.

Of course, the thorn of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and other radical, subnational Islamist groups in the region remain high on the U.S. agenda, and Israel is a key partner in destroying these factions.

But the national threats of Syria and Iran, which have acted recalcitrantly toward the West and are well-known funders of terrorist groups, are of particular concern and also require close cooperation with Israel.

Trump has already shown that he is willing to make limited strikes in Syria to enforce the red line on chemical weapons. This action was strongly supported by Israel, and was seen as a rebuke to both Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and also Iran.

On Monday, Trump sent a strong message to Iran that its terror funding and nuclear ambitions would not be tolerated.

As Middle East expert Jim Phillips argued in a recent Heritage Foundation report, “Iran remains the chief long-term regional threat to the U.S. and Israel.”

Trump has not yet followed through on his promise to tear up the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, pending a formal policy review of whether the nuclear deal advances vital American national interests.

Nevertheless, Trump said in a speech that Iran was guilty of “deadly funding, training, and equipping of terrorists and militias,” and that it acted inappropriately after the deal took place.

As Phillips noted, it is vitally important to either change the terms of this treaty or step away from it entirely to stem Iran’s “continued support for terrorism, expanding ballistic missile program, and deepening military intervention in Syria.”

Israel is among the most important counterweights to this hostile regime in the Middle East, especially in upholding economic sanctions and controlling arms flowing to and from Iran.

The ‘Ultimate Deal’

Trump made numerous commitments regarding Israel during the campaign.

Currently, his promise to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move an American embassy there has failed to materialize. This remains a thorny issue for the Palestinians in particular. It would also create a challenge for Trump’s desire to broker the “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump has expressed a desire to create some kind of lasting solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has become a white whale for American presidents from Jimmy Carter to Obama.

All of these attempts have failed to achieve any kind of lasting peace, and some have exacerbated the conflict.

A more realistic approach would be to seek an interim agreement to make incremental progress on addressing Israeli security concerns and facilitating Palestinian economic development, which would help restore mutual trust and create a more supportive environment for later addressing touchy final status issues.

Sticking points like the “right of return” for Palestinians, the status of Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements, and the redrawing of borders are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, given the glaring lack of trust and wide gaps in the negotiating positions of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. (For more from the author of “Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What’s in Trump’s ‘Taxpayers First’ Federal Budget

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Trump administration will respect taxpayers, balance the budget, return the country to 3 percent economic growth, and push a parental leave requirement in its fiscal plan to be released Tuesday, said Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.

Mulvaney called it a “taxpayers first budget.”

“This budget was written through the eyes of the people paying for the budget, not through the eyes of who is getting paid,” Mulvaney told reporters Monday during an off-camera briefing at the White House.

Mulavney elaborated that budget writers went line-by-line through the budget to see what programs had a success rate and what programs didn’t.

The White House released a general outline of the plan Monday, before the full plan is released on Tuesday. The budget includes $3.6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, which the White House says is the most proposed by any president.

The administration’s first budget is being released while President Donald Trump is out of the country, taking stops in the Middle East and Europe.

Much of the budget policies are tied to creating 3 percent growth, or are contingent on achieving that goal. A key example is balancing a budget in 10 years, which relies on the growth goal.

“It is not unprecedented, but is below the average since the founding of the country and since World War II,” Mulvaney said. “You will never balance the budget with 1.9 percent growth.”

The growth rate could be a very optimistic assumption for balancing the budget in 10 years, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Last week, she said the budget numbers are worth comparing to other estimates, such as the Congressional Budget Office.

The fiscal plan presumes the passages of both the American Health Care Act—to replace Obamacare—and of Trump’s tax reform proposal. It also includes increases in defense and border security spending—including $2.6 billion for a border wall and other border infrastructure.

The administration projects that by 2027, when the budget balances, publicly held debt will drop to 60 percent of gross domestic product. This would be the lowest level since 2010, when the Obama administration’s first budget took effect. That’s down from 77 percent of GDP. The plan further projects the national debt to continue falling.

The Trump administration’s plan puts forth a new path for welfare reforms, which Mulvaney characterized as a method to encourage the “dignity of work,” and also another way to move people out of poverty and into the workforce.

“We believe social safety net programs will help us get to 3 percent growth, because people won’t be afraid that if they take a gamble and fail, they’ll be wiped out,” Mulvaney said.

He said the reforms are simply to determine if everyone in the social programs should be on the programs.

The 10-year plan will “tighten eligibility and encourage work” for recipients of food stamps. It will limit the earned income tax credit and child tax credit to only those legally eligible to work in the United States.

The food stamp reforms are projected to save $193 billion over the next decade. Reforms to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, are projected to save $21 billion over 10 years and EITC and child tax credit changes will save $40 billion over 10 years, according to the budget projection. The budget outline further proposes to reform Medicaid to give states more flexibility through federal block grants.

There is a reason to be skeptical of whether work requirements—such as in Medicaid, food stamps, or housing—will have a significant budgetary impact, said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute.

“I do not think it’s a terrible thing, but savings will be really incremental,” Tanner told The Daily Signal. “I also think all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we’ll hear on the other side is too much. This will affect few people.”

“Look at TANF, which has fairly strong work requirements,” Tanner said. “Only 42 percent [of recipients] are working, with a fairly generous definition of working—job training or college. There are so many exemptions.”

He added that welfare programs shouldn’t be reformed to save money, but because they are not working.

Mulvaney said this is the first time a presidential budget proposed a fully-paid-for paid family leave proposal through building on the unemployment insurance system as a base, and allowing states to establish paid parental leave programs.

“This goes to the matter of 3 percent growth,” Mulvaney said, because more parents will feel comfortable about going back to work without fear.

Tanner said not so fast, citing laws in California, and in Europe, where laws have had the opposite effect.

“There is no such thing as a free lunch,” Tanner said. “If a business has to pay for two workers to support one, it becomes more expensive to hire women. In Britain and other European countries that have these laws, it drove down the number of women in the workforce.” (For more from the author of “Here’s What’s in Trump’s ‘Taxpayers First’ Federal Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted by Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

At least 19 people were killed and at least 50 injured in a suspected suicide bomb explosion Monday night at an arena in Manchester, England, where U.S. pop singer Ariana Grande was performing a concert.

Police said they were treating the explosion just outside the arena as a terror incident until they “know otherwise.”

Robin Simcox, a terrorism and national security expert at The Heritage Foundation, said the United Kingdom has been a target of Islamist terrorists “time and time again.”

“While the perpetrator of this attack is not yet clear, the U.K. has been targeted by Islamist terrorists time and again,” Simcox told The Daily Signal. “Manchester itself was targeted by Islamist terrorists on multiple occasions in the past, including by al-Qaeda.”

“Even though the U.K. has world class security services,” Simcox added, “this is a numbers game—and the amount of terror suspects in the U.K. is so high that it is impossible for authorities to be able to keep track of everyone that is of concern.”

The explosion occurred about 10:35 p.m. local time outside the Manchester Arena as people were exiting after the concert. The arena has the capacity to seat 21,000 people.

Videos shared online shows concertgoers, many of them children, adolescents, or teens, frantically fleeing a chaotic scene.

Some used Twitter to desperately search for loved ones who had attended the concert.

Andy James, an eyewitness who attended the 23-year-old singer’s concert in Manchester, told CNN the boom felt like it “rattled in my chest.” After the explosion, he said, there was “a stampede of people.”

Chris Pawley, another eyewitness, told Fox News the explosion occurred in an area just outside the arena where parents were waiting to pick up their “young children and teenagers.”

European Parliament member Nigel Farage said that if the explosion is confirmed as an act of terror, it will be a “new low” for terrorists.

“The direct attack on children … marks a new low in all forms of terrorism,” Farage said on Fox News.

A publicist for Ariana Grande told The New York Times during the initial confusion that the American singer and actress was “OK.”

TMZ later reported Grande to be “in hysterics” over the carnage, and Sky News reported her world tour had been suspended. Grande tweeted:

Her “Dangerous Woman” tour, which kicked off Feb. 3 in Phoneix, had been scheduled to take the singer to London for concerts Thursday and Friday, followed by cities in Belgium, Poland, and Germany.

The explosion coincided with President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East, where on Sunday in Saudi Arabia he urged Arab leaders to step up the fight to “drive out” Islamist terrorists and extremists. Trump was briefed on the explosion in Manchester, according to NBC News.

(For more from the author of “Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted by Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Veterans Claim They Were Duped Into Lobbying for Saudis

/0 Comments/in , /by

With all the worry about Russian influence over U.S. elections it’s easy to overlook the many foreign interests working to impact U.S. policy every day–through paid lobbying.

American lobbyists have made billions working for foreign entities. Who’s paying whom for what is subject to federal disclosure laws. But the system may not always work as intended. In the latest episode of “Full Measure” we investigated a case in point: some U.S. military vets who claim they were duped into lobbying for the wrong side.

This twisted tale of Washington, D.C., lobbying begins in an unlikely place. With a rock band from Utah.

That’s Tim Cord singing … his brother on lead guitar … both Iraq war vets.

Tim Cord, U.S. Military veteran: My brother and I were in a rock band called American Hitmen … so we’ve kind of made a name for ourselves in the music scene as veterans.

They hoped to play at President Donald Trump’s inauguration. But when that gig didn’t come through, a political contact they’d met on the road offered what sounded like a decent consolation prize.

Cord: He just said it’s going to be an all-expensive, all-expense paid trip for four days basically to see how D.C. works is basically how they worded it.

Shortly before the January trip, one organizer sent an email mentioning a political angle: a new law called “JASTA”—the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

It allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for any alleged ties to the Islamic extremist terrorist attacks.

Cord: We thought we were going to just go hang out in … D.C. and basically see politicians, see this, meet with this group of vets that were there to talk about the JASTA bill.

The trip to the Capitol began with open bar at a luxurious hotel with retired generals and Purple Heart recipients.

Folders were handed out claiming JASTA was disastrous for veterans. Then came an odd announcement, Cord says, from organizer Jason Johns—a veterans’ advocate.

Cord: Jason Johns stood up and he said, ‘Thank you all so much for coming … we want to protect the veterans and I know there’s a lot of rumors going around but we can assure you there’s no Saudi money behind this.’ … I don’t think any of us, at least at my table, had even thought about the Saudis. It was just kind of a weird statement to make opening night.

He says things got stranger the next day when they were split into groups to visit Senate offices to promote supposed improvements to JASTA.

Cord: Every time we would go into one of their offices, they would say, ‘Who are you here on behalf of?’ And whoever was our group leader would say, like flat out, “Oh no, we’re just a group of concerned vets volunteering our time.

That night, he says, his suspicions were confirmed by a drunk confession from an organizer.

Cord: I said, ‘So, by the way, who’s paying for all of this?’ And he’s like, ‘Dude, it’s the Kingdom.’ And I said, ‘The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?’ And he’s like, ‘Yeah, man.’ So this was unraveling into something that I wanted no part of. We joined the Marine Corps after 9/11. I mean 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, so I don’t want anything to do with the Saudi Arabian Kingdom or their money.

Cord says he shared the news with his group and confronted the contact who first invited him on the trip.

Cord: He goes, ‘Well, welcome to politics, Tim. It’s either Obama and the Iranians or the Republicans and the Saudis. Welcome to Washington.’ It came to the realization that my brother and I were sitting there eating catered dinner on the Saudi dime in an attempt to shoot down the 9/11 victims’ families lawsuit against the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. It was probably one of the worst feelings I’ve had in my life.

Lydia Dennett, Project on Government Oversight: That seemed to be a tactic from recruiting veterans to talk about the negative implications of this law and to do so in a way that sort of obscured Saudi Arabian involvement in it.

Lydia Dennett is an investigator with the nonprofit watchdog Project on Government Oversight … which has been tracking Saudi lobbying efforts.

Dennett: Because it was done through this lobbying firm, the veterans themselves, and the public, may not have known that these were talking points and issues that were coming from the Saudi Arabian government. That sort of undermines the entire transparency and intent of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 requires lobbyists for foreign interests to register and file reports.

Dennett: By the end of 2016, the Saudi Arabian government had 22 different lobbying firms to promote their interests in the U.S., of which were added in the fall of 2016 alone. Right around the time that JASTA was or the 9-11 bill was introduced, going through debate hearings, and then ultimately passed.

For example, a company called Qorvis has been on the Saudi payroll since two months after the 9/11 attacks. The original contract disclosed $200,000 a month in payments—$2.4 million a year.

Sharyl Attkisson: What do you sense the Saudis were trying to do when it comes to that bill?

Dennett: They were trying to get their message out there, which was that it was a dangerous bill that would set a dangerous precedent across the world.

That messaging flooded the media … that JASTA would cause foreign countries to retaliate and sue our military personnel in foreign courts. Which is the argument President Barack Obama made in September when he vetoed the bill.

Former President Barack Obama: That concern that I have has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se or my sympathy for 9/11 families. It has to do with me not wanting a situation in which we’re suddenly exposed to liabilities from all the work that we’re doing around the world.

But Congress overrode the veto. So Qorvis sprang into action, hiring none other than the man who would go on to help organize the Washington, D.C., trip: Jason Johns. It turns out he’s not just a veterans’ advocate. He owns a lobby firm of his own and officially registered to lobby elected officials on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

Cord: We found out afterward, that Jason Johns was a registered Saudi agent, and he made $100,000, it’s on public record that he was paid $100,000 by the Kingdom and registered as a Saudi agent. That’s the guy that said in the beginning, ‘There’s a lot of rumors that this is Saudi money and it’s not, I can assure you.’

By email, Johns told us that vets with “ulterior motives” are issuing “mistruths and false allegations.” He declined our request for a one-on-one interview and insisted we interview “at least three other” unnamed vets he would arrange in a group setting with him. We explained that under news policies, we can’t agree to terms, such who we must interview. Johns added we shouldn’t focus on “a few veterans feeling they were ‘duped’ but … why hundreds … volunteered to go to D.C. and speak about why amending JASTA is so vital to them, our currently serving military, and our national security.”

Qorvis declined our interview requests but has previously denied deceiving veterans, said it reports disclosures accurately, and it’s “hard to believe anyone would feel they didn’t know why they were in Washington.

Attkisson: Saudi Arabia might say everything we did was perfectly legal. U.S. law allows them to hire people in this country and lobby for their interests. What did they do wrong?

Dennett: In any written materials distributed, if there were emails sent to these veterans or their veteran groups, they’re required to say very clearly in there, ‘This is information, we’re being paid to distribute this information by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and more information is available at the Department of Justice.’ If the emails or any documents did not include that statement, then that’s a violation of the law.

In fact, an examination of some emails trip organizers allegedly sent to vets made no mention of Saudi lobbying. This one billed the D.C. trip as “basically like a 5-star vacation,” noting, “you don’t have to know anything about JASTA.”

Attkisson: Why should ordinary Americans care about this?

Dennett: The issues that these foreign countries are lobbying on can be everything from foreign aid to arms deals, … appropriated funds, which come from taxpayer dollars. So, the public deserves to know exactly how the policy is being made.

Cord says, in the end, one promise of his trip was fulfilled. He did learn a lot about how Washington works.

Cord: It was the worst feeling ever because there’s nothing I can do about it. My name will forever be on a ledger, my brother’s name will forever be on a ledger saying that we were wined and dined by the Saudis. And it’s not a good feeling. It sucks. (For more from the author of “Veterans Claim They Were Duped Into Lobbying for Saudis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.