How McConnell Botched the Senate’s Response to Orlando

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s, R-K.Y. (F, 44%) handling of the fallout from the Orlando terrorist attack in recent weeks has been an unprecedented disaster. Here’s why.

The floor of each chamber can be a powerful tool, just ask Senators Rand Paul, R-K.Y. (A, 95%) and Ted Cruz, R-K.Y. (A, 97%) who through epic speeches captivated the attention of the country. Just last week Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, D-C.T. (F, 8%) was able to draw the attention of the national media to his cause of gun control by commanding the Senate floor in a 15-hour-long filibuster.

The goal of competent Republican Senate leadership after the Orlando attack should have been to respond by controlling the debate and defining the narrative on its terms. After all, Republicans control the Senate floor and thus the agenda.

The preferred way of Republicans defining the narrative on their terms would have been for McConnell to announce that because of the threat of radical Islamic terrorism in the United States the Senate would immediately move to consideration of the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Defense. A bill that literally funds the troops who will take the fight to radical jihadists.

Doing so would have unified Republicans and split Democrats. Democrats would have been left with the choice between funding our nation’s troops or filibuster their funding in an effort to push forward a radical gun control agenda — an agenda that would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Orlando attack. Instead, McConnell divided Republicans on the issue of guns and allowed Democrats to have the upper hand in controlling the narrative and legislative agenda.

If Republicans had successfully moved the Department of Defense funding bill, they would have been able to offer a series of amendments that deal directly with radical Islamic terrorism and would have defined the debate on their terms. Media coverage would be about amendments intended to address ISIS, domestic terrorism, and an immigration system that is arguably one of our nation’s biggest national security threats, instead of the gun control theatrics we’re seeing today.

As a byproduct of moving to the Department of Defense funding bill, Rule XVI in the Senate would have precluded Democrats from bringing up any of the gun control amendments, which Republicans are currently being forced to vote on. Thereby protecting any vulnerable GOP members in tough general election races.

Instead, to show that Republicans can “govern” McConnell opted to stay on the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) funding bill. A huge tactical blunder.

Because spending bills must originate in the House, the House version of the CJS funding bill is used to determine what amendments can be offered in the Senate. And the House CJS funding bill has provisions that have allowed Democrats to successfully achieve their goal of gun control votes and pushing their message of more gun control.

Committed to his course of seeing through the CJS funding bill to prove Republicans can “govern,” McConnell on Monday agreed to allow two votes on Democrat gun control proposals, along with two Republican side-by-sides. Significantly, these side-by-sides are not pro-gun designed to highlight the GOP standing up for Second Amendment rights. Rather, they are gun control lite proposals.

But Thursday, things got even worse as McConnell stumbled into his biggest blunder yet, forcing a vote on a motion to kill the latest gun control proposal from fellow Republican Senator Susan Collins, R-M.E. (F, 12%).

Collins’ gun control proposal survived the motion as 54 senators voted to keep the proposal alive, but the vote also demonstrated Collins proposal did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Therefore, not having 51 votes to table the proposal or 60 votes to pass the Collins proposal, the Senate is effectively stuck.

And stuck on a debate of gun control, not terrorism, or protecting the Second Amendment, but gun control. The exact topic and terrain that Democrats want to discuss. The result? A divided Republican party in the Senate and forcing vulnerable Senators in general election races to take high profile gun control votes. Meanwhile the media runs with the preferred Democrat narrative that their proposal has bipartisan support.

The overall narrative on display to the Republican base plays into the critique and reality that Washington Republicans are not principled, they will do anything to show they can “govern”, and absolutely incapable of standing on principle.

The sad truth is that this entire scenario was absolutely avoidable if Republicans in the Senate had competent leadership. (For more from the author of “How McConnell Botched the Senate’s Response to Orlando” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered

/0 Comments/in , /by

Janet Yellen should send a note of congratulations to Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, the British politicians most responsible for pushing the Brexit campaign to a successful conclusion. While she’s at it she should also send them some fruit baskets, flowers, Christmas cards, and a heartfelt “thank you.“ That’s because the successful Brexit vote, and the uncertainty and volatility it has introduced into the global markets, will provide the Federal Reserve with all the cover it could possibly want to hold off on rate increases in the United States without having to make the painful admission that domestic economic weakness remains the primary reason that it will continue to leave rates near zero.

For months the corner that the Fed has painted itself into has gotten smaller and smaller. It continues to say that rate hikes will be appropriate if the data suggests the economy is strong. Then its representatives continually cite (arguably bogus) statistics that suggest a strengthening economy, which cause many to speculate that rate hikes are indeed on the horizon. But then at the last minute the Fed conjures a temporary reason why it can’t raise rates “right now,” but stresses that they remain committed to doing so in the near future. But each time they conduct this pantomime, they lose credibility. Sadly, Fed officials are discovering that their supply of credibility is not infinite, even among those who would like to cut them a great deal of slack.

But the Brexit vote saves them from all this unpleasantness. Now when critics question the Fed’s unwillingness to deliver on the suggested rate hikes, given what they believe to be a strong economy, all the Fed needs to do is point to the “uncertainty” that will be in play now that the world’s fifth largest economy is disengaging from the European Union. And since this process is bound to be long, messy, and fraught with uncertainties (as there is no precedent for a country leaving the EU), this will be a handy excuse that the Fed will be able to rely on for years.

Brexit could also place severe strains and uncertainties on the global currency markets. The fear of financial losses could encourage investors to seek safe haven assets like gold and, at least for now, the U.S. dollar. Given that there is already much concern that the dollar is valued too highly against most currencies, and that this has created imbalances in the global economy, any surge in the dollar that results from Brexit may have to be fought by the Federal Reserve through lower interest rates and quantitative easing. This would rule out the potentially dollar-strengthening interest rate hikes that they supposedly planned on delivering. So as far as Janet Yellen is concerned, the British have given her the gift that keeps on giving.

On another level, the vote in the UK illustrates the fundamental inefficacy of the monetary and financial policies that have been implemented by the world’s dominant central banks and central bureaucracies. For years, global elites have been telling us that deficit spending, government regulation, and central bank stimulus is the best way to cure the global economy in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis. To prove these points, elite economists associated with the government, academia, and the financial sector have pointed to all kinds of metrics to show how their policies have been successful. But the man on the street perceives a very different reality. They know that their living standards have fallen, their cost of living has risen, and that their job prospects have deteriorated. They see a loss in confidence and economic stagnation when they are being assured the opposite.

This disconnect has fueled anti-establishment sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, it has given rise to the insurgent candidacies of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The unexpected successes of both reflect a deep distrust of the establishment. Such discontent would not be in play if the positive stories being told by the elites had made any resonance with rank and file voters.

The same holds true with the unexpected strength of the anti-EU voters in Britain. The “Remain” camp had the support of virtually all the elite members of the major UK political parties, the media, and the cultural world. In addition, foreign leaders, including President Obama in a state trip to England, harangued British voters with warnings of economic catastrophe if the British were to make the grave error of defying the advice of their “best” economists.

Given all this, poll numbers that suggested the vote could be close had been dismissed. The elites, as evidenced by recent drifts in currency and financial markets, had all but assumed that British voters would fall into line and vote to remain. Instead, the people revolted. After having been misled for so many years by the very elites who urged them to remain, the rank and file finally asserted themselves and voted with their feet.

British voters may not know what they will get with an independent Britain, but they knew that something was rotten, not just in Denmark, but all over the European Union. The same holds true in the United States. Until our leaders can paint more realistic pictures of where we are and where we are going, we should expect more “surprises” like the one we got [last week]. (For more from the author of “BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Obama: “Our founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”

No they didn’t. They didn’t conceive of the … who said it’s a refuge for the … who said that? They conceived of the nation. So they conceived the nation so it would be a refuge for the world. Who says? They conceived a Republic, where the people would have a say!

President Obama: “More than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful.”

No. It didn’t work that way. It wasn’t just wave of wave of people who wanted to come in. Now, if you’ve listened to this program you know the history.

We had waves at some point, and we also had long periods, like the 1930s to 1970s, where there weren’t waves, where there were periods of assimilation. But at all times prior to 1965, prior to the Great Society – which wasn’t so great – at all times the number one principle, the priority, was what’s in the best interest of the nation and the American people.

We didn’t have this obsession of waves and waves of immigrants coming to the country, changing the culture, changing the demographics, doing this, doing that. That wasn’t the drive behind immigration. Can anybody name a single Founder of this country who said otherwise?

And why is Obama citing them anyway? Some of them were slaveholders. I thought he hated them.

President Obama: “And dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character, and it has made us stronger.”

Some have made us stronger. Some have made us weaker.

President Obama: “I know a lot of people are going to be disappointed today, but it is important to understand what today means.”

I’m disappointed. What today means is separation of powers is hanging by a thread. That is, our constitutional system is hanging by a thread, and the greatest fear that the Framers had: this concentrated power in a centralized government is here. You’re staring at it.

President Obama: “We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gangbangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in.”

Oh he’s talking about immigrants. I thought he was talking about the illegal immigrants who he releases into society, that they prioritize criminals, gangbangers and so forth. Ask any local police department about MS-13 problems. Ask them! Just ask them.

He acts like everybody comes in hear picking lettuce and cleaning our homes. That’s not the way it works.

President Obama: “Millions of people who have come forward, and worked to get right with the law under this policy – they’ve been living here for years too, in some cases even decades. So leaving the broken system … .”

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa… So they have been defying the law for decades? And notice how he doesn’t differentiate, people who come here and violate their visa status, and others. Are all those people who come here on student visas, and teaching visas and entertainment visas and business visas – are they all picking lettuce? Are they picking lettuce, Mr. Producer?

How about all those Syrian refugees he wants to bring in? Are they going to be picking carrots? What are they going to be doing? How do they know they love America?

Is that part of the test when they come into this country: ‘Do you love America?’

President Obama: “That’s not a solution. In fact, that’s the real amnesty: pretending we can deport 11 million people, or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is abetting, what, really, just factually incorrect.”

“Factually incorrect?” You know, ladies and gentlemen, there is a law on the books – I believe it was passed in 2006 – where Congress said that they were going to build a wall and double fences and do all kinds of stuff with another 700 miles of that southern border, and they won’t do it.

Here’s my question: If Barack Obama won’t follow the law, if the bureaucracy won’t follow the law, if Congress won’t follow the Constitution and it keeps surrendering its powers, if the Supreme Court won’t follow the law and the Constitution, why should the rest of us?

If they don’t follow the law, why the hell should we? (For more from the author of “LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Changes His Stance on US-UK Relationship After Brexit Vote

/0 Comments/in , /by

After telling the people of Britain in April that everything might change if Britain left the European Union, President Barack Obama said Friday that the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the EU will not impact the “special relationship” between the United States and Britain.

“The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,” Obama said in a statement. “The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security and economic policy.”

Friday’s conciliatory words were a far cry from those Obama delivered in April during a visit to Britain he urged voters there to remain in the EU.

“I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a U.K.-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done,” Obama said then.

“The UK is going to be in the back of the queue,” he said.

On Friday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested that Obama’s support of the EU might have contributed to the voters’ decision to leave the EU. Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton had also supported Britain remaining in the EU.

On Friday, Obama said that the United States will maintain good working relationships with Britain and the EU.

“The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world,” he said. (For more from the author of “Obama Changes His Stance on US-UK Relationship After Brexit Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This State Becomes the First to Require All Gun Owners Be Entered Into Federal Database

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hawaii became the first state in the nation to enact legislation requiring gun owners to be entered into an FBI database.

The measure, signed into law on Friday by Democratic Gov. David Ige, will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere in the country through what is known as the “Rap Back” system.

Fox News reports that the database is already in place in the FBI and used to keep track of people in “positions of trust” such as schoolteachers or bus drivers. Hawaii becomes the first state to use the system to keep track of all gun owners.

Critics says that gun owners should not have to be entered into a database simply for exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

The National Rifle Association and the Hawaii Rifle Association opposed the legislation.

“This is an extremely dangerous bill. Exercising a constitutional right is not inherently suspicious,” Amy Hunter of the National Rifle Association said in May. “Hawaii will now be treating firearms as suspect and subject to constant monitoring.”

“I don’t like the idea of us being entered into a database. It basically tells us that they know where the guns are, they can go grab them” Jerry Ilo, a firearm and hunting instructor for the state, told the Associated Press last month. “We get the feeling that Big Brother is watching us.”

The law was one of three gun control measures Ige signed on Friday. State law now also bars those convicted of stalking or sexual assault from gun ownership and gives the police the authority to seize firearms from any deemed disqualified due to mental illness.

State Sen. Will Espero, the Democrat who introduced the FBI database registration requirement for gun owners, hopes it will be a model for other states. (For more from the author of “This State Becomes the First to Require All Gun Owners Be Entered Into Federal Database” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Immigration Fueled the Brexit Result

/0 Comments/in , /by

The vote by Britons on Thursday to leave the European Union doubled as a referendum on how the country views the issue of immigration.

With immigration at an all-time high in Britain, voters concerned about related issues such as economic uncertainty and sovereignty decided to shed their national identity by voting to upend 43 years of life inside the European Union.

The tension over immigration is similar to what’s playing out in the United States, but different in an important way, in that Britain, as a European Union member, has no control of its borders.

That’s because as long as Britain is in the European Union, it has to allow anyone from the 28-member bloc to live and work there.

According to experts, Britain has experienced the changing face of immigration over the years.

Stephen Booth, the co-director of Open Europe, a nonpartisan think tank based in London and Brussels, said that of the roughly 5 million net immigrants to the United Kingdom between 1990 and 2014, over three-quarters came from outside Europe.

But immigration from the European Union now makes up nearly half of the United Kingdom’s net inflow, Booth said. The combination of European Union expansion in 2004 and 2007—which brought in poorer countries like Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland—and the Eurozone economic crisis has influenced substantial internal immigration to Britain and its relatively strong economy.

Proponents of immigration say it has grown the British economy, increased tax revenue, and attracted skilled workers. But critics say immigration has overwhelmed Britain’s public resources, and changed Britain’s culture and values.

“The evidence is that immigration does not have huge economic effects either way,” Booth said in a response to emailed questions from The Daily Signal. “There has been major changes to some areas of the country which are not used to immigration—new shops, languages, etc. Some people view this positively, others feel threatened by the change.”

“EU migrants make a fiscal contribution to the U.K., but the public is concerned that investment in public services, housing, and infrastructure has not kept pace and in some local areas integration is a challenge,” Booth added. “There is a particular concern about low-skilled migration, which can hold down wages for the lowest paid and increase competition for low-paid jobs.”

Yet Booth said policy changes such as the relaxation of restrictions on non-European migration in the late 1990s, and European Union expansion, were not preceded by appropriate public debate and that it is “not unreasonable” for Britons to clamor for greater control over who enters the country.

“[This is] particularly true when the government has promised to reduce numbers,” Booth said. “There is a feeling that politicians have promised something but are not delivering.”

Booth and other experts predict that Britain, split from the European Union and its ethos of free movement, will pursue a more selective immigration policy geared toward attracting skilled migration, based on the needs of the country.

“A ‘Brexit’ will result in a more global-based immigration policy attracting the best talent from around the world,” said Nile Gardiner, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

“This is not about isolation,” Gardiner told The Daily Signal. “It’s about creating a better system for the British economy.”

Booth and Gardiner recommend Britain adopt a policy emulating the point-based systems used in Canada and Australia.

Under this model, an immigrant is “scored” or valued based on skills and qualifications to contribute to the economy. Those who reach a certain threshold would be eligible for a visa.

The government would prioritize industries and employers with skills shortages.

Booth argues this method is more nuanced than it seems, though.

“There is likely to be a continued need for migrant labour to fill low-skilled jobs,” Booth said. “Therefore, the U.K. would also need a mechanism to fill low-skilled jobs or meet labour shortages where employers have recently relied on EU migrants.”

In addition, the result of Thursday’s referendum won’t bring instant change—on immigration or anything else.

The process of breaking apart begins when the government acts on a provision known as Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for negotiating the departure.

Gardiner contends that Britain will struggle even more to contain immigration during the two-year negotiating period, since people will seek to cross its borders while they still can. Britain cannot legally deny migrants entry before the withdrawal formally takes place.

“There is a big fear factor here,” Gardiner said. “You will see a lot of Europeans moving to Britain in that period. I’m not sure there’s anything you can do to stop that.”

Both experts note that whether Britain is separate from the European Union or a part of it, the country will continue to feel the impact of immigration.

“Despite public pressure to reduce migration, there are several reasons why net immigration is unlikely to reduce much,” Booth said.

“[That’s because] of the effects of globalization on migration flows, which the U.K. is not alone in experiencing, and the likelihood of some constraints on U.K. immigration policy under a new arrangement with the EU.” (For more from the author of “How Immigration Fueled the Brexit Result” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iran’s Unfriendly Skies

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the blessing of the Obama administration, Boeing Co. has negotiated the sale of a fleet of new jets to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

The $17.6 billion deal between the aviation giant and the Islamic Republic of Iran was made possible by the lifting of economic sanctions against Tehran in January. It is a reckless piece of business that Congress must address.

Under terms of the memorandum of agreement, Boeing reportedly will supply 80 planes—including intercontinental jumbo jets—to state-owned Iran Air.

The carrier, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury, has been routinely commandeered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics to transport rockets, missiles, and other military equipment, including materials and technologies with ballistic missile applications.

Iran Air flights have also transported military components to Syria (another state sponsor of terrorism).

None of which concerns President Barack Obama, evidently. His nuclear deal with the ayatollahs, including $150 billion in sequestered funds, specifically lifted restrictions on the sale of commercial aircraft. Indeed, enabling Iran to modernize its timeworn fleet was “essential” to striking agreement with Tehran to (supposedly) restrict its nuclear operations in return for easing economic sanctions, according to Boeing executives.

To complete the sale, Boeing still must obtain an export license from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control. Should a U.S. bank or investment firm wish to finance the purchase, it, too, would have to obtain a license from the Office of Foreign Asset Control. (Officials of the U.S. Export-Import Bank have said the bank charter prohibits financing for Iran, but they aren’t the most credible bunch.)

This “licensing” procedure seems downright silly considering that Iran has been designated for years by the U.S. Department of State as “the leading state sponsor of terrorism globally.” As noted in the 2015 edition of the Country Reports on Terrorism, “Iran continues to provide support to Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

There is little reason to think that U.S. engagement with Iran is now moderating the regime, according to James Phillips, The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs. Despite the agreement, he reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has repeatedly challenged U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

For example, the Guard Corps vessels launched rockets within 1,500 yards of the carrier Harry S. Truman near the Strait of Hormuz in late December, and in January flew drones over U.S. warships and detained and humiliated 10 American sailors. In March, the Guard Corps launched a series of missiles, including two that were emblazoned with the message “Israel must be wiped out” in Hebrew.

To their credit, Reps. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Peter Roskam, R-Ill., aren’t quite as trusting of Iran as the Obama administration. In a June 16 letter to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, the lawmakers said they “strongly oppose the potential sale of militarily-fungible products to terrorism’s central supplier,” and sought assurances that the company would repossess or remotely disable aircraft if Iran violated the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, Roskam has introduced the No Dollars for Ayatollahs Act, which would impose an excise tax of 100 percent on any transaction that involves Iran conducting a financial transaction in U.S. currency.

According to Roskam, “It’s tragic to watch such an iconic American company make such a terribly short-sighted decision. If Boeing goes through with this deal, the company will forever be associated with Iran’s chief export: radical Islamic terrorism.”

In addition, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., has introduced the Preventing Investment in Terrorist Regimes Act, which would deny U.S. tax credit to Boeing for the foreign taxes it would pay on the income derived from the Iranian deal.

Both measures are co-sponsored by all six subcommittee chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee. But whether either measure would prove effective in halting the sale, using the tax code to steer the actions of a multinational corporation is a lousy way to set policy.

Besides, Boeing generated more than $96 billion in revenue last year, and its market cap exceeds $86 billion. It also paid a lot of money to lobby in favor of the nuclear deal, including hiring Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, to testify before Congress, write letters to high-level officials, and submit op-eds in support of lifting the sanctions. All of which is perfectly acceptable—except that he systematically failed to disclose his relationship with Boeing.

Boeing executives say the proposed sale is necessary to remain competitive against Airbus, the European aviation manufacturer that has struck a $27 billion deal with Iran for 118 planes. But that’s the same lame argument Boeing made in lobbying for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank—from which Boeing was the top beneficiary of export subsidies.

The fact is, projected demand for commercial planes is forecast to rise for years to come, and both manufacturers are carrying huge backlogs that will take years to fulfill.

Rather than tweak the tax code, Congress should, at the very least, explicitly prohibit financing from the Export-Import Bank for the sale of Boeing planes (or any other product) to Iran.

Additional actions are needed as well. The administration has already increased the risk of yet more death and destruction by the terrorist state. Lawmakers should ensure that Boeing and other U.S. companies don’t become tools of Tehran. (For more from the author of “Iran’s Unfriendly Skies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LET (BRITISH) FREEDOM RING: UK Gives Middle Finger to the Elites, Exits European Union

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By BBC. Prime Minister David Cameron is to step down by October after the UK voted to leave the European Union.

Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, he said he would attempt to “steady the ship” over the coming weeks and months but that “fresh leadership” was needed.

The PM had urged the country to vote Remain but was defeated by 52% to 48% despite London, Scotland and Northern Ireland backing staying in.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed it as the UK’s “independence day”.

The pound fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985 as the markets reacted to the results. (Read more from “Let (British) Freedom Ring: UK Gives Middle Finger to the Elites, Exits European Union” HERE)

___________________________________

Brexit Upends Global Markets as Stocks, Pound Plunge; Yen Soars

By James Regan and Stephen Kirkland. Global markets buckled as Britain’s vote to leave the European Union drove the pound to the lowest in more than 30 years and European banks to their steepest losses on record.

“It’s scary, and I’ve never seen anything like it,” said James Butterfill, 41, head of research and investments at ETF Securities in London. “A lot of people were caught out, and many investors will lose a lot of money.”

Sterling slid by the most on record and European stocks headed for the biggest drop since 2008 as trading soared. The yen strengthened past 100 per dollar for the first time since 2013, gold rose the most in more than seven years and benchmark Treasury yields had their biggest drop since 2009.

The victory for the “Leave” campaign prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to resign. The outcome stunned many investors who’d put wagers on riskier assets over the past week as bookmakers’ odds suggested the chance of a so-called Brexit was less than one in four. (Read more from “Brexit Upends Global Markets as Stocks, Pound Plunge; Yen Soars” HERE)

___________________________________

Britain Has Voted to Leave the EU – What Happens Next?

By Patrick Wintour. The UK’s historic decision to end its 43-year love-hate relationship with the European Union represents a turning point in British history to rank alongside the two world wars of the 20th century.

On the assumption there is no turning back, or collective buyer’s remorse, Britain will live with the political, constitutional, diplomatic and economic consequences for a decade or more . . .

So what happens next? . . .

The scale of the destruction wrought by independence day is such that one of the last redoubts of the establishment left standing – the civil service led by the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood – will now take centre stage.

It will be his task, in conjunction with the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and David Cameron acting as a caretaker prime minister to bring a semblance of shape to the chaos that is likely to ensue. (Read more from “Britain Has Voted to Leave the EU – What Happens Next?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SMOKING GUN: Hillary Did Not Turn Over Email Showing She Hid Information

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton did not turn over an important email about the problems caused by her use of a private email server for classified information.

Clinton sent an email to her deputy chief of staff stating that she did not want some of her emails to be “accessible,” presumably to Congress or to the State Department itself. That email helped form the basis of a scathing inspector general report that found Clinton violated rules.

Now, we know that Clinton did not hand over that email to State Department investigators, proving that Clinton violated her sworn statement that she handed over all of her emails. Her inability to hand over this email could also provide more evidence that she violated the Espionage Act by allowing national defense information to be “lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed” through gross negligence.

“While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby in a statement to the Associated Press. (Read more from “SMOKING GUN: Hillary Did Not Turn Over Email Showing She Hid Information” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Organization Seeks to Run Third Party Candidate for Unsatisfied Voters

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many Americans are unsatisfied with the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the United States’ 45th president. The organization Better For America was launched June 14 with just such Americans in mind and is planning running an independent candidate for president.

The group is made up of religious leaders and political operatives and is currently choosing a candidate to run. According to The Federalist, the organization’s chief strategist has confirmed that three names have committed to run if they are chosen.

Better For America’s website states that their mission is “to get a credible candidate on the ballot who can win both red AND blue states, presenting the nation with a third party option who changes the historically bad choice we’re facing this fall.”

No independent candidate has won an Electoral College vote since George Wallace in 1968. The Federalist reported:

Even Ross Perot, who netted nearly 20 percent in the 1992 election, failed to win a single state. So what makes Better For America believe this year can be different? The short answer is the unfavorable ratings of both Clinton and Trump.

Better For America’s launch corresponds with new polls showing Trump’s popularity decline. According to CBS News, polls this week showed Clinton up by between four and nine points. Trump is also falling behind in several swing states.

John Kingston III, a former Republican delegate and the founder and chair of Better For America, wrote an opinion piece for CNN about his decision to decline to be a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

“I could not support a candidate like Donald Trump, whose behavior disqualifies him to be a PTA member, let alone president,” Kingston wrote.

Kingston reached out to colleagues and friends who felt the same way. Better For America was born from a “remarkable grassroots coalition of lawyers, pollsters, ballot access professionals and others who shared the belief that something had to be done.”

Trump has also struggled to raise funds for his campaign, which has raised $3.1 million in private donations, while Clinton’s has pulled in approximately $26 million. CBS News reports that the super PACs supporting the candidates also had a large gap: the biggest pro-Trump group had $500,000, while the main pro-Clinton group had $52 million at the end of May.

Trump blamed some of these financial difficulties on the lack of support he is receiving from the Republican Party, Los Angeles Times reported. Although he feels Clinton is receiving more support from her party, he said he feels confident he can fund himself.

“I have a lot of cash; I may do it in the general election,” Trump said. “But it would be nice to have some help from the party.”

But Better For America “is not an attempt to undermine Trump,” according to The Federalist. Better For America plans to win.

Kingston pointed to the polling done by Data Targeting, Inc. on the viability of a third-party candidate, which suggests that 65 percent of respondents would be willing to support a candidate besides Trump or Clinton. The research also found that 90 percent of millennials wanted to see a third party candidate on the ballot.

A possible third party candidate is Libertarian Gary Johnson, though current support for him is quite modest. A CNN poll showed Johnson with 9 percent support nationwide. Jill Stein, the likely Green Party nominee, has 7 percent support.

CNN held a live town hall event Wednesday night with Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld. “The two-party system is a two-party dinosaur, and they’re about to come in contact with the comet here,” Johnson told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. (For more from the author of “Organization Seeks to Run Third Party Candidate for Unsatisfied Voters” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.