‘America First’ Does Not Mean ‘America Only’

/0 Comments/in , /by

During the presidential campaign when Donald Trump spoke of putting “America first,” I never thought he meant “America only.” It appears that others understood him quite differently. They are not happy with his overseas actions. As summed up by Ann Coulter, “We want the ‘president of America’ back — not ‘the president of the world.’”

Of course, Coulter, along with other Trump loyalists like Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Cernovich, were not upset because the president bombed another country. They were upset because he bombed Syria after saying for years that we should stay out of there.

They felt betrayed and double-crossed.

They also felt that any American intervention in Syria was unwise, especially if it led to an attempt to remove Assad.

But we did not only bomb Syria. We sent warships to North Korea, warning the demented dictator of that country to behave, or else.

For Coulter, this means that Trump has already become a pawn of the Washington establishment. As she wrote:

Looking for some upside to this fiasco, desperate Trump supporters bleated that bombing Assad had sent a message to North Korea. Yes, the message is: The Washington establishment is determined to manipulate the president into launching counterproductive military strikes. Our enemies — both foreign and domestic — would be delighted to see our broken country further weaken itself with pointless wars.

What, then, are we to make of this? Has Trump caved in to the establishment already? Has he abandoned his pledge to put “America first”?

Nothing Unique About Trump’s ‘America First’ Promise

On the larger question of President Trump and the Washington establishment, time will tell. The same can be said about which direction the president will go. Will it be the way of Jared Kushner or will it be the way of Steve Bannon (a dramatic oversimplification)? Only time will tell.

But when it comes to Trump’s bombing of Syria and standing up to North Korea, I see no contradiction between these actions and “America first.” There is nothing exceptional with the elected leader of a country saying that they intend to put the interests of their country first. But of course! (For more from the author of “‘America First’ Does Not Mean ‘America Only'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Bombers Spotted off Alaskan Coast Twice in 24 Hours

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two Russian TU-95 Bear bombers were spotted flying about 41 miles off the coast of Alaska on Tuesday, just hours after two US F-22 fighter jets intercepted the same type of Russian aircraft in the area.

An E-3 surveillance aircraft was scrambled in response to the second sighting of Russian bombers off the Alaskan coast in 24 hours, a US defense official told CNN.

It is unclear if these were the same planes that were intercepted by the F-22s on Monday, but defense officials told CNN that it was a separate violation.

On Tuesday, the two Russian TU-95 Bear bombers once again flew into the Alaskan Air Defense and Identification Zone, according to two US defense officials. The closest the bombers came was 36 nautical miles off the mainland Alaskan coast, and they flew 745 nautical miles southwest of Anchorage. (Read more from “Russian Bombers Spotted off Alaskan Coast Twice in 24 Hours” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Professor Who Tweeted ‘Trump Must Hang’ Takes Paid Leave of Absence

/0 Comments/in , /by

The professor who tweeted “Trump must hang” and that two Republicans should be executed for each immigrant deported is taking a paid leave of absence for the rest of the spring semester.

Professor Lars Maischak of California State University, Fresno agreed upon the leave of absence with the university, according to The Fresno Bee.

The professor’s paid leave of absence comes after The Daily Caller News Foundation reported on threatening tweets sent from his Twitter account (since deleted), including the following:

Daily-Caller-Lars-Maischak-5-620x474

Maischak’s five American history courses will be taught by a substitute teacher. Fresno State Provost Lynnette Zelezny told The Fresno Bee that 213 students will be affected.

“The agreement for the paid leave was reached in accordance with provisions in the collective bargaining agreement with the California Faculty Association, the union that represents all faculty,” said Joseph Castro, Fresno State’s president, in a statement obtained by The Fresno Bee. “During his leave of absence, Dr. Maischak will no longer have a teaching role, but will be conducting research off campus.” (Read more from “Professor Who Tweeted ‘Trump Must Hang’ Takes Paid Leave of Absence” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Disappointing Flip-Flop on the Export-Import Bank

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump has apparently changed his mind about eliminating the crony Export-Import Bank, opting to “reform” the swamp rather than drain it.

As bad as this flip-flop is, his excuses for doing so are downright pitiful.

As a candidate in August 2015, Trump categorized the bank as “feather bedding,” adding, “I don’t like it. I think it’s a lot of excess baggage. I think it’s unnecessary. And when you think about free enterprise, it’s really not free enterprise.”

He was right, of course, but that was then.

On Friday, the president announced his intention to nominate former New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett as bank president and former Rep. Spencer T. Bachus III to the Ex-Im board.

If the two are confirmed, the bank will return to full operation after 21 months without a board quorum—which prohibited deals exceeding $10 million.

And that means billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign firms and foreign governments with which to purchase exports from favored multinational companies such as Boeing, General Electric, and Caterpillar.

The best course of action would be to eliminate the bank altogether. There is no shortage of private export financing, and the subsidies distort credit and labor markets.

Perhaps worst of all, unsubsidized American companies are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to the foreign firms collecting Ex-Im subsidies. (Delta, for example, loses out when Air India gets a sweetheart deal from Boeing by way of Ex-Im.)

A Meritless Flip-Flop

The White House is making much of the fact that Garrett has been a critic of Ex-Im, twice voting against renewal of the bank charter. That supposedly portends reform, although Congress has previously tried to do so without appreciable effect.

No amount of bureaucratic tinkering can shield taxpayers from bailouts in the event that bank reserves run dry—as occurred in the 1980s—nor protect American businesses from the disadvantages of the U.S. government subsidizing their foreign competitors.

In an April 12 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump acknowledged that he had been “very much opposed” to the bank but changed his mind because “lots of small companies will really be helped.

“But also maybe more importantly,” he said, “other countries give it, and … we lose a tremendous amount of business.” He also added, “So instinctively you would say it’s a ridiculous thing but actually it’s a very good thing and it actually makes money. You know, it actually could make a lot of money.”

All of which is nonsense.

Bank proponents focus on small firms to deflect attention from the fact that the vast majority of Ex-Im beneficiaries are titans of industry that are well-positioned to prosper without Ex-Im subsidies.

They do not lack access to private capital, and most have billions of dollars of backorders with which to keep production going.

In recent years, the bank supported less than half of 1 percent of small businesses—which in many cases aren’t so small.

(The bank’s definition of “small business” includes manufacturers with as many as 1,500 employees and service firms and retailers with as much as $20.5 million in annual revenues.)

On their own, businesses with fewer than 500 employees account for 98 percent of all firms exporting goods, and exports have reached high levels in recent years. In fiscal year 2016, for example, U.S. exports totaled $2.2 trillion, with Ex-Im supporting just 0.22 percent ($5 billion).

That makes one thing very clear: Export financing obviously is not a problem for small firms in the aggregate.

This is further validated by the fact that small businesses ranked “Exporting My Products/Services” as the least problematic of 75 business problems assessed in the 2016 annual survey by the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation.

(The cost of health care ranked as the most severe problem. The president would do well to focus on that rather than resuscitate Ex-Im.)

In the event that a small business cannot access private capital, it can seek to export through wholesalers or associate its business operations with larger firms or with global supply chains.

The real beneficiaries are the big boys like Boeing (market cap $110 billion), and the extent to which the bank caters to the company is staggering.

As of March 2014, at least 28 percent ($32 billion) of Ex-Im’s total portfolio was devoted to financing wide-body jets. In 2013, the bank authorized financing for the purchase of Boeing aircraft in 25 countries, including China, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Subsidies for air transport, in general, comprised more than 45 percent of all export subsidies that year.

General Electric (market cap $256 billion) is another top Ex-Im beneficiary. The company began 2017 with a record backlog of $321 billion. Likewise, Caterpillar (market cap $54 billion) posted a backlog of $12 billion at the end of 2016.

Ex-Im Doesn’t ‘Level the Playing Field’

The claim that U.S. companies will lose sales to foreign competitors without Ex-Im financing is also drivel.

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center has documented that only about a third of Ex-Im financing—which benefits just 2 percent of all U.S. exports—is designated in bank records as necessary to counter subsidized foreign competition.

A whopping 66 percent of the financing classified as necessary to counteract foreign competition went to Boeing.

In other words, Ex-Im Bank financing counteracts foreign subsidies for less than 1 percent of U.S. exports—with more than half the benefit accruing to Boeing.

Finance costs are only one among a variety of factors that affect a purchaser’s choice of supplier. Availability, reliability, and stability all play significant parts in purchase decisions. There should be no question that U.S. firms are capable of competing successfully without corporate welfare.

The claim of “competitive disadvantage” is further belied by the agreement among 31 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to abide by a set of financing rules covering loan term limits, minimum fees, and other practices.

There is rarely such a thing as a “level playing field” in trade. Every country has advantages that others lack.

The ingenuity and drive of American companies can, in many instances, trump the export subsidies doled out by foreign governments—assuming, of course, that tax and regulatory barriers do not further restrict free enterprise.

It is silly for Ex-Im advocates to cite China’s massive subsidies as proof that Ex-Im is necessary. Do they really want America to emulate a country in which all the largest enterprises are owned by the state?

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, almost 14 percent of China’s listed, nonfinancial companies’ profits are attributable to government support, according to an analysis by Wind Info.

And let’s not forget that Trump campaigned on challenging China’s trade practices. He cannot now claim with any credibility that we must match its subsidies to stay competitive.

An Anti-Market Institution

Perhaps most disappointing, though, is the president’s defense of Ex-Im based on its potential to “make money.” That statement, out of all his others, insults the very concept of free enterprise and limited government.

By that rationale, Washington should assume control of all profitable companies to feed its insatiable appetite for spending.

In any event, the claim that Ex-Im is profitable is illusory: The bank uses “accrual” accounting, which does not factor in the risk of defaults related to bank financing.

For example, under current accounting methods, bank officials claim that Ex-Im will return a $14 billion surplus to taxpayers in the next decade.

But the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that Ex–Im programs, if subjected to the fair value accounting methods required of private banks, actually operate at a deficit that will cost taxpayers some $2 billion over 10 years (in addition to the bank’s operating costs).

Ex-Im advocates offer myriad excuses for maintaining government interference in export financing, including job creation, gaps in private investment, and government subsidies lavished on foreign firms.

Such justifications do not stand up to the facts, and the purported benefits—if any—are not commensurate with the risk to taxpayers.

The president has made a huge mistake on Ex-Im, but it isn’t too late for him to change direction—back to where he was in the first place. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Disappointing Flip-Flop on the Export-Import Bank” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judicial Watch is suing to obtain government records regarding almost $5 million in U.S. tax dollars flowing to the “Soros infantry” that is disrupting Macedonia’s political system.

What’s more, the government watchdog group says it wants to know why President Donald Trump hasn’t replaced President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jess L. Baily.

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, is an appendage of the State Department. It has given $4.8 million to the Open Society Foundation-Macedonia, part of liberal billionaire George Soros’ vast network of global nonprofits, between Feb. 27, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2016, according to Judicial Watch.

“The Obama administration seemed to bust taxpayer budgets in an effort to fund the Soros operation,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The Trump State Department and USAID should get their act together and disclose the details of the Obama-Soros spigot.”

The USAID website links to the Soros website, and said the project trained hundreds of young Macedonians “on topics such as freedom of association, youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation, and use of new media.”

A Judicial Watch press release on Wednesday said:

The Open Society Foundation has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, calls it the ‘Soros infantry.’ The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets, and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government.

Members of Congress have inquired about the USAID dollars going to Soros.

In a March 23 letter responding to inquiries from Republican senators, Joseph E. Macmanus, executive secretary with the State Department, said the USAID goal in Macedonia is for “democratic reform and civic engagement, for strengthening of the rule of law.” (For more from the author of “Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry'” please click HERE)

Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry’

UC Berkeley Rewards Liberal Violence by Not Allowing Coulter Speech

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Apparently the lesson University of California, Berkeley learned from the violent protests surrounding writer Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech earlier this year was … you shouldn’t let controversial figures give speeches.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that commentator Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech had been canceled “for security concerns.”

“UC Berkeley officials say they were ‘unable to find a safe and suitable’ venue for the right-wing provocateur who was invited to speak by campus Republicans on April 27,” the AP report added.

This shouldn’t be acceptable.

UC Berkeley canceled Yiannopoulos’ Feb. 1 speech. The level of violence and destruction that greeted Yiannopoulos—who was rightly condemned shortly after the Berkeley violence for remarks he made months earlier about teens, adults, and sexual relationships—was astonishing. Just look at these pictures:

No doubt it’s quite a headache for a university to figure out how to cope with thugs who are willing to act like this, just because they want someone silenced. Although the fact that UC Berkeley appears to have arrested only one person in the aftermath of the protests suggests a lack of seriousness about holding protesters accountable for their actions.

(Update: In an email to me received after publication, Sgt. Sabrina Reich, a public information officer at University of California, Berkeley Police Department, wrote: “To date, there have been two arrests and one student is facing school discipline … but the investigative efforts continue.”)

The point is, no college should reward violent protesters by refusing to allow controversial speakers to appear.

Because this isn’t really about Coulter or Yiannopoulos or author Charles Murray, who was greeted by violent protests when he arrived to speak to Middlebury College in Vermont.

It’s about whether we as a society protect free speech—or not.

Yes, free speech can make some people, including college students, feel sad or threatened or dozens of other unpleasant emotions.

But it can also force them to realize a new insight or perspective that might challenge their values, might make them re-think their views on a certain issue. Or sometimes it works the other way: The weakness of the opposition’s argument makes someone surer that her own perspective is right.

Regardless, if we believe in a reason-driven society—one where arguments, not violence, drive our perspective—we need to allow a diversity of voices to communicate their views. We need to let people, hopefully guided by reason and a good education, to decide what they think is right—not force them, by silencing some perspectives, to adopt a certain viewpoint by default.

College students, like all Americans, deserve a chance to hear a variety of views—and then make up their own minds.

Once, colleges understood that. But U.C. Berkeley’s decision here suggests that at least this university is prioritizing some views over others. (For more from the author of “UC Berkeley Rewards Liberal Violence by Not Allowing Coulter Speech” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A vote on whether to approve a proposal that would allow familial DNA searching in certain criminal cases has been delayed by New York state’s Forensic Science Committee. The controversial proposal has been sent back to a special subcommittee to “tighten up the language.” If approved, the new policy would allow police to investigate family members of New Yorkers whose DNA closely matches DNA found at crime scenes.

Because familial searching has gotten little to no coverage in mainstream media, many people have no idea what it is — or that it’s already being used in California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Ohio.

The FBI describes the investigatory process as follows:

Familial searching is an additional search of a law enforcement DNA database conducted after a routine search has been completed and no profile matches are identified during the process. Unlike a routine database search which may spontaneously yield partial match profiles, familial searching is a deliberate search of a DNA database conducted for the intended purpose of potentially identifying close biological relatives to the unknown forensic profile obtained from crime scene evidence. Familial searching is based on the concept that first-order relatives, such as siblings or parent/child relationships, will have more genetic data in common than unrelated individuals. Practically speaking, familial searching would only be performed if the comparison of the forensic DNA profile with the known offender/arrestee DNA profiles has not identified any matches to any of the offenders/arrestees.

Though familial searching is already being used in ten states and has led to the arrests of numerous violent criminals, it is not always accurate.

“Anyone who knows the science understands that there’s a high rate of false positives,” Erin Murphy, a New York University law professor and the author of Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA told Wired magazine.

Further, civil liberties experts have expressed concern that the method violates personal privacy. According to comments from the New York Civil Liberties Union, “criminal suspicion will attach to innocent persons merely because of their biological relation to a person whose DNA is in the state’s databank.”

David Loftist, the attorney in charge of post-conviction and forensic litigation at the Legal Aid Society, told Gothamist:

You are creating a ‘suspect class’ of citizens. If you have a family member that has been convicted of fare beating, his DNA is in the database. Now all of his family members would be subject to searching in perpetuity.

He also pointed out that the state DNA bank is disproportionately black and Latino, adding, “This creates a dragnet for the entire community now…all of their relatives are possible suspects. It’s a genetic stop and frisk.”

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, however, is a huge advocate for familial DNA searching. “This technology has proven effective at generating important DNA investigative leads in cold cases,” he said. “We have an obligation to use every means at our disposal to identify the murderer.”

The Forensic Committee decided last week that the requirements for initiating a familial search are too broad at this point. It has postponed the vote until a new draft can be completed. The next official meeting is set for June 16th. (For more from the author of “The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

“Not Terrorism,” But Murder Spree Suspect’s Name is Muhammad, Shouted “Allahu Akbar”, and Had Pro-Muslim Rant on Social Media

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Three people are dead in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno on Tuesday, and the suspect was wanted in connection to the Motel 6 killing last week, the Fresno Police Department said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, shouted “Allahu Akbar” as police tackled him to the ground after the shootings which were spread over four locations, Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

The victims appeared to be random, Dyer said.

“These individuals that were chosen today did not anything to deserve what they got,” Dyer said. “These were unprovoked attacks.”

Shot Spotter detected the first gunshots around 10:45 a.m. Muhammad shot into a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) vehicle killing the passenger. The driver sped away and drove to Fresno Police headquarters. (Read more from “Murder Suspect’s Name is Muhammad” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Police: Killings had “Nothing to Do With Terrorism”

A man wanted in the slaying of a security guard set out to kill as many white people as he could on Tuesday, gunning down three men on the streets of downtown Fresno before he was captured and admitted to the shootings, authorities said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, was arrested shortly after the morning rampage that left three white men dead, police said. Muhammad, who is black, fired 16 rounds in less than two minutes at four places within a block, shooting men who appeared to be going about their day, authorities say.

During his arrest, Muhammad shouted “Allahu Akbar,” but Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the shootings had “nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the statement he made.” (Read more about the murder suspect whose name is Muhammad HERE)

Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Republican Party has become one giant scam PAC. When they are out of power they boldly declare Democrat policies to be illegal and unconstitutional, yet when they get into power they continue the same policies. We’ve already seen this with the Iran treaty and Obama’s executive amnesty, which are still being recognized and enforced by this administration. Now we are facing the same dilemma with the illegal cost-sharing subsidies for Obamacare. It’s one thing to phase out harmful policies over time, but when it comes to illegal executive actions how can they continue administering them for even one day?

Obamacare’s regulations are so crippling and actuarily insolvent that the individual mandate and the open-needed subsidies given to consumers have done nothing to fix the health care problem. In fact, they have only further distorted the market and increased prices. To that end, the Obama administration, in one of the most lawless decisions of a lawless presidency, decided to create an additional layer of subsidies outside of statute to be given directly to insurers. One of those subsidies — referred to as cost-sharing reductions — reimbursed insurers for discounting co-payments and deductibles for low-income enrollees (the premiums were subsidized by the main Obamacare payouts).

The problem with this program, aside from further inflating the cost for those who aren’t subsidized, is that it’s completely unconstitutional. The Obama administration paid insurers billions of dollars outside of an appropriation from Congress. CBO projects that under current policy, this illegal program will cost $130 billion over 10 years.

Last year, in House v. Burwell, the GOP-led House sued Obama for creating his own slush fund without Congress. In a rare victory and through the prism of a legitimate exercise of judicial power — interpreting instead of nullifying a statute — Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with House Republicans in asserting that the cost-sharing subsidies were appropriated without consent of Congress.

One would expect that the minute Tom Price took over HHS, the unconstitutional subsidies would vanish. One would also expect Trump’s lawyers to immediately drop the previous administration’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the constitutionality of those subsidies, right?

Not so fast.

The administration has declined to drop the appeal of the district court’s ruling, and is in fact continuing to offer the subsidies. Thus, what Republican universally regarded as unconstitutional when they were out of power, they are now administering — much like they are illegally handing out work permits to illegal aliens amnestied under Obama.

Some might suggest that Trump is in a lose-lose situation because now that Obamacare is the law of the land, even more states will be without any insurers if he shuts off the subsidies. Trump himself recognized this predicament in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The president said that on the one hand he’d love to see the law collapse, but he fears he would be blamed for the collapse instead of the supporters of Obamacare. Even though he didn’t shut off the spigot immediately, he is entertaining the idea of threatening to suspend the cost-sharing as a means of getting the Democrats to the table.

This is a false dichotomy. The president needs to realize that there is a third option: actually repealing Obamacare and demanding that Republicans support him! As leader of the party, rather than bully conservatives into supporting Obamacare 2.0 he should demand that liberal Republicans get with the program and fully repeal the law and actually solve the health care problem. At that point, there won’t be a need for the illegal subsidies, and in fact, they would only further distort the market. Democrats will never have an incentive at this point to buy into any GOP bill. There is only one option.

Donald Trump must harness his populist appeal against big government and the health care industry by immediately suspending the kickbacks for insurers. It is hard to anticipate the actions of the private sector. But by repealing the coverage mandates of Obamacare with a reasonable transition period, and concurrently making it clear that all subsidies and kickbacks are permanently terminated, insurance companies will have no wiggle room other than to utilize the de-regulation to offer a multitude of market-based plans, including catastrophic and limited benefit plans. They would be forced to compete for consumer demand rather than have a monopoly over the small trough of regulated and subsidized plans.

His message should be unambiguous: “we will not regulate you and we will not subsidize you, go out and compete for consumer demand.” Then he should travel the country and rail against a crony socialist health care system that looks like a grocery shelf in Venezuela instead of one in America. He must demand that the liberal Republicans get onboard with full repeal of Obamacare or he risks violating one of his core campaign promises.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing with an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, New York Democrats are pushing the president in the other direction. Noted health care expert, Ivanka Trump, as well as President Kushner and Gary Cohen, are reportedly pushing to keep the subsidies, while Steve Bannon is arguing that we follow the Constitution. Liberal congressional Republicans, such as Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., are also pushing for a continuation of the subsidies.

Sensing blood in the water, Democrats are now demanding that the subsidies be codified by Congress in the budget bill. Now that Democrats successfully jettisoned all conservative riders from the budget, why not go on offense and demand their priorities? After all, we can’t have a government shutdown. Now, instead of the battle lines over the budget being drawn over defunding refugee resettlement, Planned Parenthood, and the border wall, we must play defense on the cost-sharing subsidies.

Caving on principle begets more capitulation. There is no way to get around not repealing Obamacare but somehow pretending we are repealing it. The path forward is and always was very simple: full repeal of Obamacare with reasonable transition to what GOP has promised in terms of free market health care — or permanent irrelevance and humiliating electoral defeat. (For more from the author of “Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment’

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump has been sucked into the abyss of the Washington “establishment” since his inauguration, prominent Republicans and Democrats charged Sunday morning, and whether that’s a positive development depends entirely on one’s political point of view.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on national security, flatly declared that he hopes establishment types have influenced the president’s shifts on China, Syria and other foreign policy matters.

Mr. Trump two weeks ago abandoned his noninterventionist campaign rhetoric and ordered military strikes in Syria, and last week said he no longer considers China a “currency manipulator.”

The latter is an attempt by Mr. Trump to enlist China’s help in dealing with North Korea, which over the weekend conducted another missile test that, while failing in spectacular fashion, still represented an aggressive, antagonistic move.

Mr. Trump in recent days also walked back his campaign claim that NATO is an obsolete organization. (Read more from “Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.