Trump Pushes School Choice, Making Good on Campaign Promise

President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked Congress to work with him on extending school choice programs nationwide to benefit millions of students, including low-income African-American and Hispanic children.

While Trump gave no specifics on what legislation he is proposing, the statement was the clearest indication yet that he intends to follow through on his campaign promise to fund a $20 billion school choice program . . .

Speaking at a White House event attended by about two dozen children, including some participating in a federally funded voucher program in the nation’s capital, Trump said, “Every child has the right to fulfill their potential, and, if we do our jobs, then we will never have to tell young, striving Americans to defer their dreams for another day or for another decade.” (Read more from “Trump Pushes School Choice, Making Good on Campaign Promise” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Roy Moore Zooms to Commanding Lead in Alabama’s Senate Race

In the special election for Alabama’s U.S. Senate seat, Judge Roy Moore is the clear front-runner.

Moore holds a commanding 10-point lead over incumbent Senator Luther Strange, according to a poll conducted by potential primary challenger Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. Roy Moore leads the race with 30 percent, followed by Strange at 20 percent, and Rep. Brooks in “the low double-digits.”

Strange was appointed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ former Senate seat by disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley before he resigned last month. Many see the appointment as a corrupt deal struck between a governor, Bentley, mired in scandal and the state attorney general, Strange, prosecuting him.

Gov. Kay Ivey, Bentley’s successor, called for an early special primary election on Aug. 18 followed by a runoff on September 26 and a general election on December 12.

Moore’s candidacy in Alabama is strong. Many Alabamians see Moore – the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court – as a martyr for the social conservative cause after he was removed from office for directing state probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

“I have done my duty under the laws of this state to stand for the undeniable truth that God ordained marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Moore said during the press conference in front of the state capitol after the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the decision to remove Moore from the court.

The Washington establishment is backing Senator Strange for reelection. McConnell allies in the National Republican Senatorial Committee are threatening potential primary challengers to Strange to dissuade them from running.

“We have made it very clear from the beginning that Sen. Luther Strange would be treated as an incumbent,” NRSC spokeswoman Katie Martin reportedly told Politico. “It has also been a clear policy that we will not use vendors who work against our incumbents.”

Despite the NRSC’s threats, the polling shows that there is a race in Alabama, and the conservative challenger has a clear shot at winning. (For more from the author of “Poll: Roy Moore Zooms to Commanding Lead in Alabama’s Senate Race” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Help Promote Obamacare, but Hey … Tax Cuts!

It turns out Republicans fully support government-run health care, despite the collapse of the entire system. They just didn’t like the tax increases funding Obamacare, because Republicans are for servicing socialism through debt, whereas Democrats do it by raising taxes.

The group Americans for Tax Reform is already bragging about the GOP bill’s $1 trillion tax cut. That’s really nice. We can address that with tax policy. But what about our destroyed health care system, which costs the average family thousands per year in premiums and deductibles and drives up the actual cost of the supply side of health care? Health care is the single biggest driver of the deficit, dependency, and economic stagnation, and government-run and regulated health care and insurance is the single biggest reason health care is unaffordable for too many people. What are we going to do about that?

I’m a strong supply-sider and would love tax cuts, but unshackling the most important sector of our economy will do more to grow the economy than any tax cut. One reason why Europe has stagnated for decades is because of socialized medicine. It’s no coincidence that since government-run health care in America has reached a tipping point, we have never reached three percent growth and struggle for even one or two percent.

Republicans have a habit of playing chase the squirrel. Whenever the tab comes due to fulfill a promise on one issue, they immediately discuss another issue. When the time comes to defund Planned Parenthood, they talk about other random provisions in the budget, but when the time comes to restore a free market in health care, they talk about taxes and Planned Parenthood.

The taxes have nothing to do with destroying health care. Most of the revenue in the Obamacare tax increases comes from the increased payroll tax on the wealthy and the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income. The main tax that dealt with health insurance – the tax on “Cadillac plans” – was never actually implemented. Tax increases are never good for the economy, but they had nothing to do with destroying the health care system. It is government-run health care, through regulations, subsidies, and Medicaid expansion that has destroyed health care. Republicans love all those elements.

As such, Republicans have no right to complain about tax hikes needed to fund programs they themselves deem indispensable.

As I’ve questioned before, how can liberal Republicans rail against the taxes and mandates if they fully support, laud, defend, and fight for the key elements of Obamacare? Once you agree that we need the actuarily insolvent regulations, every economist – from right to left – will tell you that we need an individual and employer mandate so that younger and healthier people pay into the system and don’t game it out. And once you are funding the cost-crushing subsidies and Medicaid expansion, which they love so dearly, where is the money going to come from? Taxes, of course. As such, Democrats were right to raise taxes primarily on the very wealthy.

What exactly is their complaint?

The coming humiliation in the Senate that will make Obamacare popular

Meanwhile, Republicans are already preemptively destroying our messaging on health care. The problem with the bill that passed the House is not just the details and structure, although it is a terrible bill, which was made only slightly better by the Freedom Caucus. The problem is the messaging and principles espoused that led to this point and that will only deteriorate in the Senate. This deal was forged to merely get “something passed” as if it were a kidney stone, as Rep. Tom Massie quipped, not a soothing medicine needed to heal an ailment. The real problem is that Republicans have already adopted all of the premises and messaging of the other side. As Mark Levin said earlier this week, “Rather than confront the Left at the base of their arguments, Republican officials by and large live in fear of principles they proclaim at election time but reject at governing time.”

To use an MMA analogy, Republicans have managed to take their winning issue, with Democrats lying unconscious on the mat, and reverse the roles by placing themselves into the losing side of a ground-and-pound.

Where are the Republicans pounding the lectern and speaking to the morality of the issue: how thanks to Obamacare, nobody will have any health care or health insurance; how Iowa might be added to the list of states without insurers thanks to the very mandates these clowns support; how Maryland insurers will experience up to a 150 percent increase in premiums after some Marylanders already saw premiums triple and double; how eastern Tennessee cancer patients can’t get insurance and how premiums in Alaska cost up to $50,000; how Obamacare has created an immoral government-sponsored monopoly for the few insurers that remain?

Instead, Republicans in the Senate will merely focus on Democrat talking points about coverage and pre-existing conditions and just make this bill more liberal. Because the House kept the subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and critical regulations, the door is open for the Senate GOP to take that baseline and focus further on the need to retain or even add more on all three levels rather than address the actual problem.

Without actually driving down prices by healing the free market, Republicans have placed themselves on the hook for further subsidization. They have kept the market-distorting and price-hiking regulations and subsidies – exacerbated by the elimination of the individual and employer mandates. This will place them on defense to raise Medicaid spending even more and dump more money into the high-risk pools. Their $15 billion over nine years is a joke. Instead, Republicans should have completely repealed the regulations and subsidies to drive down prices for almost everyone (especially because Medicaid expansion is already responsible for 80 percent of those who obtained coverage, which is being retained in this bill) and then dumped $250 billion into the high-risk pools as the full replacement. Hence full repeal and full replace instead of 20 percent insolvent repeal and half-assed replace.

House Whip Rep. Steve Scalise is already talking about how “everyone with pre-existing conditions will have affordable coverage” – a utopian goal that implicitly exonerates Democrats and government-run health care from creating the pre-existing condition problem in the first place.

President Trump is praising Australia’s single-payer system.

Rather than pound the lectern and demand our right to free market health care, speak about the immoral government intervention that tethered health insurance to employment, and actually educate the public on the difference between insurance and health care, Senator Bill Cassidy, RINO-La., one of the top Senate Republicans leading the health care debate, is echoing Bernie Sanders on health care being a right. He’s preemptively ascribing blame for losing coverage on the Republican “repeal” effort rather than on Obamacare itself and the daily news stories! If Republicans would simply shut their mouths, the news cycle on Obamacare would speak for itself. Yet they are sabotaging the repeal effort by saddling free market health care with the vices that are inherent in Obamacare every time they speak.

But fear not. When we become Greece and have single-payer health care with 0.3 percent GDP growth every year, Republicans will lower your taxes. (For more from the author of “Republicans Help Promote Obamacare, but Hey … Tax Cuts!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Green Withdraws His Nomination for Army Secretary

President Donald Trump’s choice for Army secretary announced Friday that he is withdrawing his name from consideration.

“It is with deep regret today I am withdrawing my nomination to be the Secretary of the Army,” Mark Green said in a statement . . .

Green explained his decision to pull out from a military leadership position in the wake of this controversy.

“To meet these challenges, there should be no distractions. And unfortunately due to false and misleading attacks against me, this nomination has become a distraction,” he said in his statement. (Read more from “Mark Green Withdraws His Nomination for Army Secretary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Encouraging April Jobs Report Shows Need for More Pro-Growth Reforms

The April jobs report is in, and the Trump administration is taking a victory lap.

That’s because the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an increase of 211,000 jobs (up from an unimpressive 79,000 in March) and a drop in the unemployment rate from 4.5 percent to 4.4 percent—the lowest rate since May 2007.

In addition, the number of people who were employed part time for economic reasons—or working part time but want to work full time—fell by 281,000, continuing a positive trend.

The primary gains in jobs came from leisure and hospitality (55,000 jobs), health care and social assistance (37,000 jobs), financial activities and insurance carries (33,000 jobs), and mining/support for mining—which includes the oil and coal industries (15,000 jobs).

Since President Donald Trump was elected, nearly 50,000 jobs have been added in the mining/support for mining sector. This is important, because Trump campaigned on the promise to bring back jobs like these that were lost because of President Barack Obama’s regulations.

But as with most job reports in recent history, the good and not-so-good go hand in hand.

This month, the labor force participation rate fell a 10th of a point to 62.9 percent, continuing the trend of people dropping out of the labor force, or just giving up looking for a job. Last month, 162,000 people joined this discouraged group.

The labor force participation rate is arguably one of our most important economic and social indicators. Currently, the United States has 254,588,000 people that are able to work, and only 160,213,000 are currently participating in the labor force.

With entitlement spending at levels that threaten national solvency, it is important to understand why so many Americans that could be working don’t do so.

There is much work to be done to convince the 94.4 million people currently not working that reentering the workforce is worth it. The best way to achieve this is by creating more jobs through more economic growth.

The slow rate of growth over the last eight years is likely both a symptom and a cause of declining participation in the labor force. Over the last year, we have averaged growth at or below two percent, which is well below the historic average of 3.3 percent.

If growth is the goal, the formula is pretty simple: Obamacare must be repealed, tax cuts and tax reform must be signed into law, and we must move beyond executive orders to substantive legislative reform.

We must continue to cut regulation of all shapes and sizes that get in the way of growth.

It is not enough just to announce an intention to do these things. They must be pushed across the finish line.

When Trump took office on Jan. 20 of this year, he spelled out several goals for his administration.

At the top of that list was to create 25 million jobs over the next 10 years. This would require the economy to create 208,000 jobs each month over the next 10 years.

Some experts have declared that we have reached our peak economic growth. But that is defeatist thinking. If Washington simply gives Americans the economic freedom to innovate, they will find a way to adapt to any circumstance.

Economic growth can also come in unanticipated ways. Just look at the fracking boom. Ten years ago, we were waving the white flag on domestic fossil fuel production and felt totally reliant on foreign energy sources. Now, we are a world leader.

If the Trump administration can translate its policy directives into action, we have the potential to see job growth like never before. Until then, we will continue to see good and bad jobs reports.

Let’s hope the good continues to outweigh the bad. (For more from the author of “Encouraging April Jobs Report Shows Need for More Pro-Growth Reforms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Court Reviewing Challenge to Trump’s Travel Ban Swung Left Under Obama

The federal appeals court deciding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s travel ban was once reliably conservative. But it underwent a transformation during the Obama administration, and Democratic appointees now outnumber Republican appointees 2 to 1.

A New York Times Magazine article in March 2003 vividly described the Richmond, Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the “shrewdest, most aggressively conservative federal appeals court in the nation.”

“It is confident enough to strike down acts of Congress when it finds them stretching the limits of the federal government’s power and hard-headed enough to rule against nearly every death-row defendant who comes before it,” the Times wrote.

But today, the 4th Circuit has a higher percentage of Democratic appointees than even the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, a court with a liberal reputation that Trump frequently has spoken out against.

Democrats appointed 10 of the 4th Circuit’s 15 judges. When President Barack Obama took office on Inauguration Day 2009, only five of the 4th Circuit’s 15 judgeships were filled by Democratic appointees.

“There has been a transformation of this court without much notice and without much difficulty,” said Kevin Walsh, a University of Richmond law professor who clerked for Paul V. Niemeyer, a current 4th Circuit judge who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

“The conventional wisdom is stuck in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” Walsh told The Daily Signal in an interview. “The conventional wisdom is that the 4th Circuit is a very conservative federal appellate court. That is just not true.”

Court Moves Left

The 4th Circuit has left its mark on some important recent cases.

Within the past year, the appeals court overturned North Carolina’s voter identification law and sided with a transgender teenager over a battle to use a boys’ restroom.

In a 2014 case, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit — consisting of two judges appointed by a Democrat and another nominated by President Bill Clinton, then renominated by President George W. Bush — upheld the legality of tax subsidies provided to Americans to pay for health insurance under Obamacare.

The Supreme Court later confirmed the 4th Circuit’s ruling in the case, King v. Burwell.

The 4th Circuit’s transformation will be tested when the court’s full roster of judges hears oral arguments Monday about Trump’s revised travel ban.

In March, after a federal judge halted the first version of his executive order, the president issued a new one to bar entry, for 90 days, to those from six terrorism-plagued, Muslim-majority countries who never before have come to America.

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii quickly blocked major sections of the president’s revised order, again preventing the administration from implementing it.

The Trump administration appealed both those district court rulings. The 4th Circuit reviews appeals of decisions from federal judges or juries in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

So while the 4th Circuit is taking the Maryland case, the 9th Circuit will hear the appeal from the Hawaii district court May 15.

Signifying the importance of the case, the 4th Circuit decided to bypass the traditional three-judge panel — the construct that usually hears federal appeals court cases — in favor of a so-called en banc hearing, which includes all the court’s judges.

‘The Last Word’

While legal experts expect the case ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, appeals courts have the final say in most matters of federal law.

The Supreme Court reviews roughly 75 cases a year, compared to more than 55,000 cases that the nation’s 13 circuit courts (or federal courts of appeals) heard last year.

This disparity exists because the Supreme Court accepts only 1 percent of the cases submitted to it.

“This is something that people don’t appreciate,” said Walsh, who also clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “There are only so many cases that go up to Supreme Court each year. For all other cases, the last word in the federal system comes from these courts of appeals. So the 4th Circuit is a very important court.”

Walsh and other legal experts say they doubt Obama deliberately reshaped the 4th Circuit as a matter of strategy. They say he was simply taking advantage of an opportunity.

In 2009, Obama inherited 54 openings in the lower federal courts — district and circuit. That included four vacancies in the 4th Circuit, more than any other appeals court.

Today, nine of the 13 circuit courts have a majority of justices appointed by a Democrat, compared to only one when Obama took office.

“The fact the 4th Circuit has taken a liberal turn is not surprising considering how many judges President Obama got to put on that court,” said Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “I don’t have a sense the 4th Circuit was a high priority for Obama. It was just there was a large number of vacancies, and he took advantage of that.”

‘Reputation for Collegiality’

Trump has an opportunity to put his stamp on the lower federal courts, which currently have 121 vacancies. Trump has submitted one nominee for those openings so far.

But unless things change, the makeup of the 4th Circuit won’t shift under Trump because the court has no vacancies.

Russell Wheeler, an expert on judicial nominations at the Brookings Institution, says that a court’s balance of Democratic and Republican appointees is not necessarily an indicator of how a court rules on cases.

He notes that Republican-appointed district judges already have voted against Trump’s travel order in previous rulings.

“The party-of-appointing president is hardly a sure-fire predictor of decisions, certainly of any one judge’s decision in any single case,” Wheeler told The Daily Signal, adding:

In the aggregate, though, there are some fairly consistent if small differences. The reasons the differences aren’t greater is because judges by and large take their role seriously. When the law is clear, the outcome is equally clear, and that’s most of the cases. When the statute and precedents are more ambiguous and allow of more than one reasonable interpretation, judges tend to some degree to fall back on their own notions of sound public policy.

Allison Orr Larsen, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, clerked for one of the 4th Circuit’s leading conservative voices, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who remains on the court. Though the court isn’t the conservative staple it once was, Larsen said, it still maintains a serious, collegial reputation.

Indeed, one feature of the court has not changed, she said. As a matter of tradition, its judges rise from the bench to shake lawyers’ hands after oral arguments.

“Gone are the days when it was safe to call the 4th Circuit a reliably conservative court,” Larsen told The Daily Signal. “But what remains consistent is that the 4th Circuit still prides itself on its reputation for collegiality, and I know this [travel ban] case will be thoughtfully deliberated by all the judges, regardless of who appointed them to the bench.” (For more from the author of “How Court Reviewing Challenge to Trump’s Travel Ban Swung Left Under Obama” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Public Prayer in America Facing Serious Threats

“Maybe,” says Liberty Council’s Jeremy Dys, “we will get through this year without receiving reports of city leaders going to their national day of prayer celebrations in their towns and being threatened with lawsuits as a result.”

Maybe Dys will get his wish this year. But even as America observes a National Day of Prayer, people’s right to pray in public is under attack across the country. In one case, police denied a person’s right to pray in her own home.

Today, President Donald Trump signed an executive order today protecting religious freedom. He said, “We will not allow people of faith to be bullied.” The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins says that “the open season on Christians and other people of faith is coming to a close in America.”

The Rundown

In the meantime, though, people across the country have to fight in the courts for their right to pray. Here are a few of the cases.

In 2015 in Seattle, a high school football coach was suspended and then fired for praying on the field after games. Coach Joe Kennedy merely said a silent prayer. He did not instruct the players to join him. Yet for merely saying a silent prayer as he’d done for many years, this beloved coach lost his position. A federal court will finally hear his case this summer.

In Kansas, a police officer threatened to arrest a woman for praying in her own home. Mary Ann Sause is a retired Catholic nurse on disability. The officers came to her home and demanded entry without telling her why. When she began praying, one of the officers told her he would arrest her if she didn’t stop.

First Liberty is representing her in a lawsuit against the police department. A federal district court ruled that being ordered by armed officers not to pray “may have offended her, it does not constitute a burden on her ability to exercise her religion.” The U.S. court of appeals for the 10th Circuit is now hearing the case.

And More Cases

In Texas, The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack. He is facing ethics charges for allowing a chaplain to open court sessions in prayer. Yet a sign clearly says people are not required to attend the prayer. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion stating the prayers are constitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in Town of Greece v. Galloway, he argues.

Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is suing the state legislature. The legislature permits religious leaders to say a prayer at the start of sessions.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation threatened to sue the Harrison School Board in Arkansas for saying prayer before meetings. So far, the board is defying its threat.

A Cherished Tradition of Public Prayer

The U.S. has a long, cherished tradition of prayer in the public sphere. There is a reason we enjoy an annual National Day of Prayer.

But many people disagree. They try to use the law and the courts to empty our public life of any recognition of God. State legislatures around the country already protect public prayer, and Congress should do the same. (For more from the author of “Public Prayer in America Facing Serious Threats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Assange Exposes Clinton War Crimes, Asks Sweden to Set Him Free

World Press Freedom Day, celebrated May 3, stemmed from the necessity to admonish governments the world over a free media acts as a barometer of the health of a nation — insofar as wrongdoing, exposed, can’t continue unnoticed — but today’s celebration has been severely tempered by a decline in the rights of journalists.

In the one nation which should be considered a bastion of press freedom — enshrined expressly in its storied Constitution — the dogged pursuit of governmental transparency in living up to the journalist’s duty to act as watchdog of the State will instead emblazon a permanent target for prosecution. Or worse.

WikiLeaks, itinerant publisher of leaked information of the stripe governments would rather remain hidden, has endured a horrendously negative propaganda campaign from U.S. officials from both sides of the aisle after voluminous caches of documents exposed flagrant, pompous misbehavior at every level.

Founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange rightly condemns the brazen hypocrisy in the United States maintaining claims it desires press freedom, while simultaneously attempting to change the definition of ‘media’ in order to bring grave charges against WikiLeaks — going so far as to deem published leaks akin to espionage.

While that couldn’t be further from reality, wrongdoings exposed in WikiLeaks’ capacious searchable cache of documents veritably guarantee revelations will occasionally make headlines for years to come — and for American officials, that’s too dangerous to allow.

Hillary Clinton, herself the subject of countless damning emails and documents, has championed the clarion call to crucifixion of Assange under the premise that WikiLeaks, inexplicably in conjunction with Russia, threw the election from her clutches to gift a win to Donald Trump.
Taking “absolute personal responsibility” for the loss in one breath, Clinton claimed with forked tongue she “was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter, on October 28, and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off.”

Shifting blame shirks responsibility for the corruption and mendacity documents proved Clinton so fond, just as she had on previous occasions, so Assange responded accordingly.

Referencing the contents of WikiLeaks’ various Clinton files, Assange pinged the former secretary of state as the “butcher of Libya.”

Clinton’s attempts to shift blame from her actions to the messenger revealing them — and that legions of her supporters sprinted to parrot that logical fallacy — constitutes the exact bumbling of information characteristic of declining press freedom.

In fact, it is the failed presidential candidate’s countless maneuverings on interventionist U.S. foreign policy that left Libya and other nations — having been termed generically, ‘brutal dictatorships,’ prior to American encroachment — decimated beyond repair.

For many of those targets, including Libya, America’s particular brand of Freedom brought with it warlords of every stripe, spates of unhindered violence, and generally deplorable living and humanitarian conditions the original leaders would never have tolerated for civilians, no matter how totalitarian their style of rule.

Invading Libya under the premise Muammar Gaddafi was a tyrant proved to be a whopper of a lie — given the West discovered, to them, a panic-inducing plan by the Libyan leader to move all of Africa away from the almighty petrodollar in favor of the gold-backed dinar.

And that — the lie-shattering evidence in leaked documents from an ethical, free press, which officials could only deliver in their own, newly naked words — is why the media must have as free rein as possible to diligently scrutinize the State, lest its tendency to approve atrocities and justify appalling actions run amok.

It is in that vein Assange through his attorneys has requested the Swedish government drop its detention order against him, which has effectively made the editor a political refugee with limited asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy’s walls.

Allegations of sexual assault have been a millstone around Assange’s neck since he first arrived at the embassy in 2012 — Sweden’s detention order and its extradition friendliness with the United States effectively guaranteed his setting foot outside would earn arrest, removal to Sweden, and a short flight straight to an American prison cage under ridiculous espionage allegations.

In December 2016, SMS records proved police had fabricated the rape accusation against Assange — which should have led to Swedish officials to drop its interest in his detention.

Since that did not occur — and due to the Trump administration’s stated goal to relentlessly pursue the WikiLeaks founder for acting with the enemy — Per Samuelson, one of the attorneys representing Assange, asserted Wednesday,

Given that the U.S. is obviously hunting him now, he has to make use of his political asylum and it is Sweden’s duty to make sure that Sweden is no longer a reason for that fact he has to stay in the embassy.

If they rescind the detention order, there is a possibility he can go to Ecuador and then he can use political asylum in an entire country.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo crushed centuries of press tradition recently, in terming WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service” — simply because a witch hunt befits the current establishment’s penchant for dodging any unfavorable spotlights on its corruption, greed, graft, and pomposity.

As the falling dominoes of liberty are tragically wont to do, should one publisher be characterized as hostile, it should be assumed any press outside the mainstream, corporo-government paradigm is considered equally a threat — and the thriving, imperative independent press would be next in line for execution.

Whatever miscreants have bought the State’s scaremongering about WikiLeaks — that a free press is somehow antithetical to a free, functioning society — would do well to remember the freedom to choose among hundreds and thousands of media platforms, as opposed to a propaganda of just two flavors should the State take over those duties.

Reporters Without Borders — guardian of free journalism — reports the United States this year ranks an abhorrent forty-third on its World Press Freedom Index.

Until U.S. officials halt their war on journalism, it is perhaps a necessity to forget the First Amendment’s protection of the free press — words that hollow in practice should not be a boast permitted to a country acting in direct contradiction to the promise they once offered. (For more from the author of “Assange Exposes Clinton War Crimes, Asks Sweden to Set Him Free” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Active TB Increases in Minnesota; 90 Percent Foreign-Born, 11 Refugees Diagnosed Overseas Before Arrival

The number of active tuberculosis (TB) cases diagnosed in Minnesota increased 12 percent in 2016 to 168, up from 150 one year earlier, according to the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Program’s Quarterly Surveillance Report, October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016.

Ninety percent of these 168 cases (152 of 168) were foreign-born, significantly higher than the national 2016 average of 67.9 percent of active TB cases that were foreign-born.

Fourteen of these 168 cases, or 9 percent were diagnosed within the first year in the United States of the 2,635 refugees who were resettled in Minnesota in FY 2016. The majority of these refugees came from two high TB burden countries: 1,195 came from Somalia, and 653 came from Burma, according to the State Department’s interactive website.

Eleven of these 14 cases of active TB in refugees were actually diagnosed in pre-immigration exams overseas before their arrival in Minnesota – a remarkable situation that would have either violated U.S. law or required the granting of a waiver by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office within the Department of Homeland Security, since active TB is a “Class A” health risk which is prohibited entry to the U.S. without such a waiver.

Three of these 14 cases of active TB in refugees were diagnosed during the refugee health exams conducted after their arrival in the United States. (Read more from “Active TB Increases in Minnesota; 90 Percent Foreign-Born, 11 Refugees Diagnosed Overseas Before Arrival” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Police: Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shoots, Kills ‘Active Shooter’

On Wednesday night a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an alleged “active shooter” at Zona Caliente Sports Bar in Arlington, Texas.

The incident occurred around 6:15 pm. WFAA reported, “A man opened fire at the Zona Caliente Sports Bar… but police say a customer with a gun of his own put a stop to it.”

The man reported to police as an “active shooter” was 48-year-old James Jones. He allegedly walked into Zona Caliente, began arguing with the manager — 37-year-old Cesar Perez — and then pulled out a gun and killed Perez. At that moment a concealed carry permit holder responded by pulling his own gun and killing Jones. (Read more from “Police: Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shoots, Kills ‘Active Shooter'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.