Trump Says It’s Possible He Could Pick FBI Head by Next Week

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump said Saturday that “we can make a fast decision” on a new FBI director, possibly by late next week, before he leaves on his first foreign trip since taking office.

“Even that is possible,” he told reporters when asked whether he could announce his nominee by Friday, when he is scheduled to leave for the Mideast and Europe.

Four candidates to be the bureau’s director were in line Saturday for the first interviews with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, at Justice Department headquarters. They are among nearly a dozen candidates Trump is considering, a group that includes several lawmakers, attorneys and law enforcement officials. (Read more from “Trump Says It’s Possible He Could Pick FBI Head by Next Week” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Worst Word in American Politics

/2 Comments/in , /by

For the past couple of years, the most important word in American politics has been the worst — “rigged.”

Emanating from slang back in the 17th century, developing into a description of financial fraud, and then branching out to apply to cheating in sports and elections, “rigged” had a breakthrough year in 2016, and it shows no sign of loosening its grip.

It is a word of grievance and conspiracy. It is a word of institutional distrust. It is a word of larger forces beyond our control taking advantage of us. It is a word that says, “We wuz robbed — and we will make them pay.”

In short, it is the perfect term for a fevered era in our national life.

“Rigged” began to get its currency as a charge thrown around by the anti-globalization movement and left-wing critics of income inequality. The anti-poverty group Oxfam issued a report in 2002 on globalization called “Rigged Rules and Double Standards.” The word popped up during the heyday of Occupy Wall Street. So it wasn’t unexpected that Bernie Sanders made the “rigged” economy a rallying cry. (Read more from “The Worst Word in American Politics” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Instability in the Taiwan Straits Strains the US Position in Asia

/0 Comments/in , /by

While the eyes of the world are focused on security developments on the Korean Peninsula, two recent events should resharpen attention on the Taiwan Straits.

The Chinese launched a new aircraft carrier, and President Donald Trump indicated that he would check with Chinese President Xi Jinping before he would take another phone call from the president of Taiwan.

The new ship, whose name is as yet unknown, marks China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier. It joins the Liaoning, China’s first aircraft carrier. Remarkably, the Liaoning itself only joined China’s fleet in 2014; before that, China had no experience even operating an aircraft carrier.

In short, China has joined the ranks of carrier navies in less than five years. This reflects the broader overall growth of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, as China has added a range of new surface combatants (including air defense destroyers), many new submarines, and an array of logistics and support ships that will allow the PLA Navy to operate for sustained periods far from its shores.

Most recently, the PLA announced a fivefold expansion of the PLA Navy’s Naval Infantry force—its counterpart to the U.S. Marines.

This expanding set of naval capabilities, including an improved ability to conduct forced entry operations and expeditionary warfare, directly affects Taiwan. Beijing’s hostility towards the island has increased substantially with the election of President Tsai Ing-wen in 2016.

Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party was founded on the concept of promoting Taiwanese independence. Tsai has been very careful not to push that aspect in her policies, but this has done little to mollify Beijing.

Instead, Beijing has repeatedly insisted that, to maintain cordial relations between Beijing and Taipei, Tsai must explicitly endorse the so-called “1992 Consensus.” Intended to allow the two sides to engage in dialogue while bypassing the political status of Taiwan, the very meaning of this phrase is now debated.

The People’s Republic of China claims this “consensus” essentially accepts the idea that there is only a single China, and the entities on both sides of the Taiwan Straits are part of that China.

Tsai’s reluctance to submit to Beijing’s demand to use the phrase should not be surprising since it fundamentally contradicts a foundational aspect of the Democratic Progressive Party. Also, the party won massive victories in the 2016 election cycle, not only taking the presidency of Taiwan, but also control of the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s Congress, or parliament. Tsai almost certainly could not politically survive the abandonment of a cornerstone Democratic Progressive Party position by acceding to Beijing’s demands.

Unfortunately, Taiwan’s overall political situation appears to have been weakened by Trump’s comments. In an interview with Reuters, when asked if he would speak with Tsai again, Trump responded by saying: “I think [Xi Jinping’s] doing an amazing job as a leader and I wouldn’t want to do anything that comes in the way of that. So I would certainly want to speak to him first.”

The statement has roiled U.S.-Taiwan relations, as it appears to suggest that the administration is willing to grant China an implicit veto on whether to have contact with Taipei. That no sitting American president has spoken directly with the government in Taipei since 1979 is irrelevant; the optics on the statement suggest that the U.S. is granting China the ability to determine American actions.

In reality, the United States can, and should, conduct an independent foreign policy with regards to Taiwan. This is the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act, which is a key document governing U.S.-Taiwan relations. In fact, when it comes to arms sales, it is specifically stated that:

The president and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law.

This has long been taken to mean that the United States will not consult with China before determining what items to sell Taiwan. It should not be consulting with Beijing on other aspects of U.S.-Taiwan relations either. Undermining and diluting the understandings that link the U.S. and Taipei will prove as counterproductive for long-term regional stability as undermining the security and economic ties between the U.S. and key allies such as South Korea and Japan. (For more from the author of “How Instability in the Taiwan Straits Strains the US Position in Asia” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Korea’s Missile Launch a ‘Litmus Test’ for Trump and South Korean Leader

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump will speak again to the newly elected South Korean president—who during his campaign advocated more direct engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. That was before North Korea’s ballistic missile test over the weekend.

Trump talked by phone to South Korean President Moon Jae-in on Wednesday, the same day the country’s liberal leader was sworn into office.

Asked if the administration will advise against South Korea’s engagement in light of the missile test, White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to get ahead of Trump’s next conversation with the new leaders.

“The president looks forward to having a new conversation with the new president and discussing the way forward, but I’m not going to get ahead of him on that,” Spicer told The Daily Signal during the press briefing.

The test missile reportedly flew more than 430 miles and reached an altitude of 1,245 miles before landing in the sea between North Korea and Japan, demonstrating that it could be used to target U.S. military bases in the Pacific.

North Korea’s launch will be a “litmus test” for both Trump and Moon, Bruce Klingner, senior research fellow in Asian studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

On one front, Klingner wonders if Trump will get ahead of China in seeking more sanctions on North Korea.

“Trump has been effusive in his praise for China,” he said, but added, “China is doing less than meets the eye. So will Trump hold back on sanctions?”

He continued:

Moon wanted less sanctions and more engagement. North Korea, as with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in 2009, showed they will act no differently with a liberal progressive than they did with his conservative predecessor [President George W. Bush].

The missile test should prompt caution for South Korea’s peace ambitions, said Anthony Ruggiero, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank.

“Governing is different than campaigning. North Korea also gets a vote. North Korea responded to Moon Jae-in’s outstretched hand with a ballasted missile test,” Ruggiero told The Daily Signal Monday.

Beyond sanctions, there are few diplomatic options to contain North Korea, and the United States will have to take the lead, Ruggiero said.

“China and Russia will not put the level of necessary pressure on North Korea, only the Trump administration [will],” he said. “This will not serve as a wake-up call for Russia.”

Over the weekend, Spicer issued a statement saying North Korea’s test missile hit close to Russia, and that “the president cannot imagine that Russia is pleased.” During the briefing, he again brought up the key United Nations Security Council member nations that haven’t been cooperative in pushing sanctions—China and Russia.

“There is no question that North Korea continues to threaten the United States, our allies, Japan, South Korea, and its neighbors, including both China and Russia,” Spicer said. “We are calling on all of those folks in the region, in particular, China and Russia, to do everything they can in terms of sanctions to help resolve the situation and bring stability to the peninsula.”

North Korea likely has the capacity for an electromagnetic pulse that could target the United States, said Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank. She said she doesn’t believe the U.S. civilian power grid could withstand such an attack if the regime is able to launch over the continental United States.

As for South Korean, Lopez said she believes the new government assuredly understands the threat.

“I can’t imagine the South Korean leadership is naïve about North Korea,” Lopez told The Daily Signal. “The new president might want to express a diplomatic ambition, but I can’t believe he is oblivious to the existential threat of the North.” (For more from the author of “North Korea’s Missile Launch a ‘Litmus Test’ for Trump and South Korean Leader” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Jeff Sessions Is Getting Tough on Drug Crime

/0 Comments/in , /by

Being a drug dealer in the United States just got more risky.

Last Friday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum directing all federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.”

This means that absent extenuating circumstances, prosecutors must pursue offenses that carry the highest penalties under federal guidelines, including mandatory minimum sentences.

Mandatory minimum sentences provide that if someone is convicted of selling over a certain quantity of a particular drug, a judge must sentence the offender to a certain minimum sentence, which can, depending on the offense, range from five years up to life imprisonment.

For example, if someone sells 1 gram of LSD, 5 grams of pure methamphetamine, 28 grams of crack cocaine, or 100 grams of heroin, that triggers a mandatory minimum of five years for a first offense and 10 years for a second offense.

If someone sells 10 times that amount, that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for a first offense and 20 years for a second offense.

This policy, which will most assuredly have its greatest impact in the area of drug enforcement, is not groundbreaking. It has roots going back to a 1989 memorandum by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.

That memorandum had been relaxed by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration.

Then, during the George W. Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft reinstated the policy—only for it to be relaxed again by the Obama administration through a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Now, President Donald Trump’s attorney general, Sessions—who has long-touted the virtues of mandatory minimum sentences to deter major drug trafficking organizations—has effectively rescinded the Holder memo and reinstated the Ashcroft memo.

Predictably, Holder criticized this shift in policy as being “dumb on crime.”

Sessions announced this significant policy change after receiving honorary membership in the New York City-based Sergeants Benevolent Association, where he reiterated that mandatory minimum sentences are reserved only for those who traffic in large quantities of drugs.

He stated:

We’re seeing an increase in violent crime in our cities—in Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and many others. The murder rate has surged 10 percent nationwide—the largest increase since 1968. And we know that drugs and crime go hand-in-hand.

Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you can’t file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun.

Sessions continued:

In 2015, more than 52,000 Americans died from a drug overdose. According to a report by the New England Journal of Medicine, the price of heroin is down, the availability is up, and the purity is up.

We intend to reverse that trend. So we are returning to the enforcement of the law as passed by Congress—plain and simple.

If you are a drug trafficker, we will not look the other way. We will not be willfully blind to your conduct. We are talking about a kilogram of heroin—that is 10,000 doses, 5 kilograms of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms of marijuana.

These are not low-level offenders. These are drug dealers. And you’re going to prison.

Cartel leaders, drug kingpins, and gang leaders who run drug rings should be taken off the streets for long periods of time. Doing so protects public safety and sends a signal to would-be drug dealers that they can expect a similar fate if they engage in such activity.

It is undeniable that drug dealing, which is often carried out by gangs, and almost invariably involves the actual or threatened use of violence and the inherent risk of overdose, is a dangerous and harmful activity.

To many, the phrase “nonviolent drug offender” is an oxymoron.

When properly deployed against drug kingpins and organizers and leaders of large-scale drug conspiracies, mandatory minimum sentencing can be an effective deterrent and an efficient use of scarce federal resources.

The trick will be making sure that the new policy is indeed targeted to such individuals and not against minor players who are only peripherally involved in large-scale drug conspiracies.

Mandatory minimum charges and penalties are usually determined by the type and quantity of the drug involved, not the criminal record of the person involved in their sale.

Moreover, if a minor street dealer or courier (who may be engaging in such activities to support a personal drug habit or at the behest of an abusive boyfriend) is charged as part of a conspiracy, that individual may be held responsible not only for the drugs she sold, but also for the drugs sold by any and all of her co-conspirators—even if she had no idea who those co-conspirators were or what they were selling.

In a speech at Georgetown Law School in 2014, Patti Saris, chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and then-chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, stated:

[M]andatory minimum penalties sweep more broadly than Congress likely intended. Many in Congress emphasized the importance of these penalties for targeting kingpins and high-level members of drug organizations.

Yet the commission found that 23 percent of federal drug offenders were low-level couriers who transported drugs, and nearly half of these were charged with offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties. The category of offenders most often subject to mandatory minimum penalties were street-level dealers—many levels down from kingpins and organizers.

Under existing federal law, there are two ways that an offender who has been convicted of a mandatory minimum offense can escape receiving a mandatory sentence: He can provide “substantial assistance” to government officials, enabling them to prosecute others who are engaging in serious criminal conduct, or he can qualify under the “safety valve” designed to provide relief to those who are bit players with only a modest prior criminal record.

One problem, however, is that the current safety valve is quite narrow, affording relief to very few individuals. Bit players are rarely in a position to render substantial assistance to the government because they are too low on the totem pole to have any useful information.

Moreover, under existing law, if the individual was convicted of any crime and received a sentence of 60 days or more, he no longer qualifies for the safety valve.

In essence, mandatory minimum penalties are a blunt instrument that can be very effective if utilized against the right category of offenders.

Let’s hope that the Sessions Department of Justice implements this revised policy to target those who truly pose the greatest threat to public safety, and not against minor players who simply made poor life choices and do not deserve such harsh sentences.

If not, Congress may need to explore at least a modest expansion of the scope of the existing safety valve in order to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for leaders and organizers of the gangs who spread misery and peddle poison on the streets of this country. (For more from the author of “How Jeff Sessions Is Getting Tough on Drug Crime” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Conservatives Should Be Excited About New EPA Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has been in his new role for just over 80 days.

He spoke with The Daily Signal about his objectives for the first year, which he says include “getting back to basics.” Pruitt says the agency needs to do a much better job of respecting individual states and the rule of law, and promoting policies that are pro-jobs, pro-growth, and pro-environment.

He also explains why President Barack Obama was not the environmental savior some suggest, and why he calls the Paris Agreement an “America Last” policy.

(For more from the author of “How Jeff Sessions Is Getting Tough on Drug Crime” please click HERE)

Chuck Norris for New FBI Director?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Superstar Chuck Norris wants everyone to know he’s not looking for a job, but …

If President Trump, whom he supported for president in 2016, wants him to replace James Comey as FBI director, he’s ready, willing and available.

While promoting his new bottled water in Utah this weekend, Norris said: “If someone has to clean it up, and it has to be me, I’ll take the job.”

Fans were keen on the idea of Norris taking over the FBI. One said, “We need to get him in to Washington! I think he would clean it up. I think he’s the man for the job.” (Read more from “Chuck Norris for New FBI Director?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Expert: Scientific Studies No Longer Trustworthy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Don’t eat that! It will cause cancer. Wait, eat more of it! It will actually cure cancer.

A high-fat diet will make you obese! No wait, actually, a high-fat diet is the best way to get in shape!

It seems every day Americans are bombarded with breathless, contradictory headlines about their health. For Americans hoping to lose weight and avoid chronic illness, even reading the morning paper can be a baffling or infuriating process, as millions are told last week’s fad diet is now this week’s dangerous health risk.

But the phenomenon isn’t just a minor frustration. Science as a whole is suffering a “reproducibility crisis.”

For a discovery to have any value, different scientists repeating the same experiment under the same conditions need to get the same results. Yet research shows half of the medical studies trumpeted by the establishment media are found to be worthless after follow-up scrutiny. (Read more from “Expert: Scientific Studies No Longer Trustworthy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Snowden Tweets: Microsoft Confirms Cyberattack Spawned From NSA

/0 Comments/in , , /by

National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden, currently living in exile in Russia, issued a tweet on Sunday explaining computer giant Microsoft “officially confirms” Friday’s cyberattack was spawned from exploits originally created by the NSA.

The alleged theft of the NSA hacking tools was originally published in April. An article by CNN last month said the NSA’s press office did not respond to an email at that time to confirm the information originated at the agency.

Snowden provided a link to an article on Microsoft’s blog written by the company’s President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith where he detailed information about the cyberattack that spread through malicious “Wannacrypt” software on Friday affecting computer users worldwide. . . . The software blocked users from their data unless they paid a ransom thin bitcoin. (Read more from “Snowden Tweets: Microsoft Confirms Cyberattack Spawned From NSA” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Answer to Alaska’s Abortion-Protecting Judiciary? Life at Conception Act and Responsible Judges Act

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today, the Alaska House of Representatives will hear the Alaska Life at Conception Act read for the first time. While a similar law has been introduced in Congress each of the last several years, this is the first time it has been introduced in the Alaska Legislature. This bill, along with its companion, the Responsible Judges Act, represent a culmination of more than forty years of Pro-Life efforts in Alaska and in other states.

On Monday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives, in the midst of a budget crisis and with a billion dollar budget gap of their own, passed House Resolution 1004, which instructs state officials at every level of government in Oklahoma to recognize the killing of preborn human beings as murder. The resolution itself will force no official to take action, but it does signify a seismic shift in how human rights advocates now aim to pursue the protection of children waiting to be born.

The Alaska Life at Conception Act brings state law into conformity with the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which provides that “all persons have a natural right to life”, “all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights” and “all persons are entitled to equal…protection under the law.” It makes clear, in accordance with established science, that human life begins at conception, and that a child waiting to be born in Alaska is an Alaska resident if the mother of that child is an Alaska resident. Further, it provides that no child awaiting birth may be transported to another state or country for the purposes of taking the life of that child. Taking the life of a child waiting to be born incurs the same penalties as taking the life of any other person.

Alaskans have watched, time after time, as a politically aggressive Alaska Supreme Court has struck down or invalidated one law after another in its quest for limitless abortion paid for frequently by the state. It has declared that the killing of preborn infants is an Alaskan value, placed in our state constitution, and worthy of state funding. Today, 44% of abortions in Alaska are paid for entirely by the state (as no federal monies may be used for that purpose). For those who qualify based on income, and likely for many who do not, Alaska now provides generously for those willing to let a doctor take the life of their preborn infant. For those who happen to find themselves at a distance from an abortion clinic, travel, room and board are provided, all expenses paid, for an expectant mother and her authorized escort. And if the Planned Parenthood clinic in Anchorage is all booked up, or if the pregnancy has reached 14 weeks, Planned Parenthood will arrange for travel to Seattle, as well as lodging and the cost of food for those traveling (all at government expense of course). Each year, Planned Parenthood arranges for 100 such trips to Seattle, a number of which are billed to the state.

An outsider, knowing only these statistics, would likely conclude that Alaskan’s electorate was somewhere on the political spectrum between Vermont and Oregon, each of which pay for a similarly large percentage of the abortions taking place in their state each year. It is unlikely that observer would peg Alaska for a red state. After all, legally speaking, Alaska has no limits on abortion. Its law requiring parental consent was struck down by its exceedingly liberal court. Its law requiring parental notification was likewise struck down. To add insult to injury, in striking it down, a majority of the appointed members of Alaska’s Supreme Court effectively awarded Planned Parenthood more than $1 million in attorney’s fees last year. Even Alaska’s ban on partial-birth abortion, taking the life of a helpless infant in the very process of being born, has been invalidated by the five appointed members of the Alaska Supreme Court.

These events have led previous legislatures to focus the whole of their pro-life efforts on meager attempts simply to limit state funded abortions to those that are medically necessary. That law passed as well. Unsurprisingly, the Alaska courts have prevented that law from going into effect as well.

So is that simply the end of the story? Has Alaska’s Supreme Court simply assumed the power to write Alaska’s abortion laws, with or without the participation of the legislature? To our casual observer it might seem so. But it is in fact the legislature who is empowered to write laws, to amend them, and to repeal them. Nowhere in Alaska’s state constitution is that power entrusted to the courts. To reinforce that fact, the constitution gives the legislature ample tools to protect the power it has been given.

The Responsible Judges Act provides that any Alaska judge or justice who attempts to exercise legislative power is guilty of malfeasance and may be impeached by the legislature and removed from office in accordance with the state constitution. It also makes clear that impeachment of a judge or justice by the legislature may not be overturned by the courts. With that initial check upon the courts in place, the Alaska Life at Conception Act provides that any lawsuit challenging it constitutionality in state court may only be heard by the Alaska Supreme Court in a process specifically laid out for that purpose. Further, state officials who enforce any provision of the act are provided immunity from prosecution for good faith actions taken while in the performance of their official duties. Regardless of the machinations of its courts, the State of Alaska has a duty to protect the life of every Alaskan, and the Alaska Life at Conception Act of 2017 provides the means for the state to finally fulfill this duty.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.