US Launches Dozens of Cruise Missiles After (Some Contend) Apparent False Flag Chemical Attack in Syria

/0 Comments/in , , /by

So somebody please tell us what possible purpose there was to Assad launching a small scale chemical attack that had no apparent tactical advantage on the battlefield? What purpose would something of this nature serve, especially given the brutal conventional force already being applied against the rebels?

Notably, there’s no direct proof that Assad committed the heinous attack.

Joe Miller, publisher of Restoring Liberty, was a certified NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) officer while in the U.S. Army and had this to say about the videos of what has been described as a sarin gas attack: “Sarin gas is an incredibly toxic nerve agent which can kill a human with a single drop. Contact with the agent is almost immediately debilitating. The videos of the attack reflected numerous victims being treated by responders with minimal to no protective gear. The fact that the responders were seemingly unaffected by contact with clothing and skin contaminated with alleged sarin nerve agent has not been explained.”

No matter the truth of what happened, so much for Trump’s anti-Neocon positions that he campaigned on. And so much for congressional approval.

Some are contending this is part of the globalists’ intent to start World War III, to ultimately remove Russia as an international player. They are furious over Russia’s involvement in the Syrian civil war. Given that Russia is still a nuclear power, it’s apparent that they have little concern for the People. Perhaps depopulation is part of their insane objective.

Here’s what NBC News just reported:

The United States launched dozens of cruise missiles Thursday night at a Syrian airfield in response to what it believes was the Syrian government’s use of banned chemical weapons blamed for having killed at least 100 people on Tuesday, U.S. military officials told NBC News.

The U.S. military fired at least 50 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target — Ash Sha’irat in Homs province in western Syria, the officials said.

That’s the airfierld from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired the banned weapons.

Read more about the US response to this potential false flag chemical attack HERE.

Yes, Change May Be Coming to America’s Tax Code, and It’s Going to Cost You MORE

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservatives were told they must rush through a health care bill that doesn’t repeal Obamacare or heal the insurance market because there was an imperative to move on to tax reform. But much like with health care reform, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans never offered any details or philosophy behind their tax plan. We are now seeing that, once again, these “reform” proposals are more like interceptions than touchdowns.

Our tax code, much like our regulatory burden (which costs families $15,000 per year), punishes productivity, is too redistributive, socially engineers our economy, and has too much uncertainty. Yet, rather than lead with a plan that addresses these problems, Republicans are talking about raising taxes, and worse, opening up entirely new streams of revenue that will crush economic growth, job creation, and consumer pricing. Evidently, the projection of less than two percent growth for the indefinite future is too much for these people to handle. They are gunning for zero growth!

The Washington Post reports today that the Trump White House is mulling a carbon tax and a value-added tax (VAT), which is a de facto national sales tax on consumers and businesses alike. After all, nothing screams blue collar populism like driving up the cost of all products, energy, and basic goods sold at Walmart:

Administration officials are aware how politically divisive these ideas are, but they are searching for ways find new revenue sources.

The value-added tax, which is popular in many other countries, would serve as a kind of national sales tax, one that consumers would pay when they make purchases and that businesses would pay for supplies, services and raw materials. But many economists view a VAT as a tax that disproportionately hurts lower-income workers, who typically benefit from a progressive income-tax system.

A carbon tax would target the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases in the burning of gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels. Many Democrats support the creation of a carbon tax as a way to address climate change, but they couldn’t even reach an agreement on the issue when they had control of Congress and the White House during the early years of the Obama administration.

It’s as if we are in the twilight zone. This time into the Obama administration, they were voting on a Keynesian stimulus, cap and trade, and expanding government health care (SCHIP). Some things never change.

Clearly, as the Post notes, some administration officials strongly oppose these proposals, but the concern for conservatives is that the lead players on tax issues — Steven Mnuchin, Gary Cohen, and Wilbur Ross — are all progressives. It’s hard to imagine any pro-growth tax plan emanating from that trio, and no tax plan would be worth the creation of these pernicious new revenue streams that strike at the lifeblood of our economy.

This rumor comes on the heels of months of negotiations in pursuit of yet another tax increase — the border adjustment tax (BAT) — championed by Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas. His proposal would open a new revenue stream by taxing imports and subsidizing exports. Aside from social engineering the economy, this plan would devastate consumers who rely on cheap products from retailers.

Concurrently, the president has voiced support for yet another pernicious tax hike on “carried interest.” Although proponents use demagoguery to single out evil wealthy hedge fund managers, this plan would tax the sale of ordinary private equity partnerships as full income (even though they are already paying annual income taxes on the business) instead of at the lower capital gains level. This will drive a stake through the heart of entrepreneurship and risk taking — the lifeblood of capital formation.

A carbon tax, a VAT, a BAT, and raising taxes on investors are all bad ideas. It would be one thing if Washington were planning to abolish the income tax or the corporate tax altogether. But to add another revenue stream in return for a promise of some other tax cuts, which invariably make the code even more progressive … conservatives should not waste their time on this issue.

The seminal issue of our time, unlike during the Reagan era, is debt, dependency, and socialist health care. Not only will the leviathan bankrupt our country, but it is weighing down our economy to the point that the benefits even from legitimate tax reform will be somewhat muted. If Republicans are going to insist on pursuing the worst forms of taxation to pay for undefined “tax reform,” they should focus on actually reforming entitlements and dependency so that the budget scoring of future tax plans is not a problem.

In the meantime, Republicans should pursue a simple reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% (or as high as 38.9%) to 25% without touching any deductions or creating disruptions. This will inject an immediate pro-growth shot into the economy at a time when it badly needs a recovery. And given that corporate taxes don’t even bring in that much revenue, a simple reduction to 25% (as opposed to 15%) is very achievable. Moreover, Democrats are already on record as supporting such an idea, and this would be a great way to call their bluff.

We’ve tried taxing and subsidizing our way into prosperity and it never works. The only positive aspect to Republicans dabbling in progressive ideas is that it will finally get Democrats to hate taxes and worry about the cost of public spending. (For more from the author of “Yes, Change May Be Coming to America’s Tax Code, and It’s Going to Cost You MORE” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fed President Resigns Over Role in 2012 Leak of Information

/0 Comments/in , /by

Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker announced his immediate resignation Tuesday, admitting his involvement with a 2012 information leak.

Lacker said a conversation with an analyst from Medley Global Advisors in 2012 may have disclosed confidential information about Fed policy options.

The day after the conversation, Medley Global Advisors reported details of a September 2012 Fed policy-setting meeting. Those details were made public one day before the central bank’s own record of a meeting during which officials discussed a major massive bond-buying stimulus that was planned for later in 2012.

The Medley report controversy became a topic of debate in Congress, leading to a criminal investigation.

In May 2015, Financial Services Committee chair Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, subpoenaed documents and communications related to the leak. At the time, Fed officials said sharing information with Congress might jeopardize a criminal investigation.

Lacker’s resignation was negotiated with law enforcement officials involved in the probe, CNBC reported. It said no charges will be filed against Lacker.

“In this episode, as in all of my communications with analysts, journalists and the public, it was never my intention to reveal confidential information,” Lacker said in a statement.

“I further acknowledge that through this and other conversations with the Analyst, I may have contravened the External Communications Policy, which prohibits providing any profit-making person or organization with a prestige advantage over its competitors,” he added.

Lacker noted that he was not forthcoming about the incident in a December 2012 investigation.

“Although it was my intention to cooperate fully with the internal review, I regret that I did not disclose to the General Counsel, either in my December 6, 2012 questionnaire or the December 10, 2012 interview, that the Analyst was in possession of confidential information,” he said.

He admitted that he did not reveal what had transpired until 2015, when he was investigated by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the Office of the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

“I apologize to my colleagues and to the public I have been privileged to serve. I have always strived to maintain the appropriate balance between transparency and confidentiality, but I regret that in this instance I crossed the line to confirming information that should have remained confidential,” he wrote in his statement.

He said that he had initially planned to step down in October, but instead was making his resignation immediate. (For more from the author of “Fed President Resigns Over Role in 2012 Leak of Information” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DHS Head Backs Phone Searches of Those Entering U.S. At Airports

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Department of Homeland Security will continue searching the mobile phones and electronic devices of travelers at U.S. airports, the agency’s leader said as lawmakers of both parties questioned whether the anti-terrorism tool is unlawfully intrusive.

DHS Secretary John Kelly, speaking Wednesday to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said such searches are valuable in the fight to keep terrorists out of the U.S. and that they affect a fraction of the 1 million people who enter the country every day.

The electronics searches are “not routine; it’s done in a very small number of cases,” the retired Marine general told lawmakers. “If there’s reason to do it, we will do it. Whether it’s France, Britain Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Somalia, it won’t be routinely done at a port of entry.”

Kelly appeared before the panel to announce that the number of undocumented immigrants apprehended at the border last month reached a 17-year low since President Donald Trump took office. (Read more from “DHS Head Backs Phone Searches of Those Entering U.S. At Airports” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Won’t the US Help Syrian Christians Fighting ISIS?

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s no secret that the battle for Raqqa, the ISIS capital, is near. The Syrian Democratic Forces are preparing themselves for what will be a gruelling battle to liberate the city.

The Syrian Democratic Forces are an alliance of Kurds, Turkmen, Arabs and Syriac-Assyrian Christians in northern Syria. They fight together against ISIS, with the express support of the U.S. The SDF is the army of the Federation of Northern Syria.

The One Free Region in Syria

I’ve written before about the Federation at The Stream. Unlike most of the Middle East, it offers multi-ethnic governance, real freedom for women and real freedom of religion. It governs an area twice the size of Lebanon with several million people.

A crucial move towards the fight for Raqqa happened on March 22. That’s when the U.S. airdropped an entire SDF fighting force at the southern bank of the Euphrates, near the Tabqa town and dam southwest of Raqqa. Soon both Tabqa and the dam over the Euphrates will be taken by the SDF.

ISIS was seized by panic. A rumor spread that the dam was about to break and many fled Raqqa. Still many ISIS fighters stayed. They started to dig in even deeper, increasing the prospect of a gruelling battle for Raqqa.

Turkey Halts Attack on Christians’ Allies

The Trump Administration apparently finally concluded that Turkey is of no use for any further anti-ISIS operations in Syria. Regardless of Turkish pressure, the U.S. is sticking with the SDF. That became very clear when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Turkey and Turkey announced an end to its Euphrates Shield attack on the SDF.

One important question remained unanswered. Why is the U.S. singling out the Syrian Christian militias and refusing to arm them? So far, the U.S. has only sent arms to the Arab elements in the SDF. Those forces deserve the help. But so do the Christians.

Why Deny Christians Weapons?

The Syriac-Assyrians (Christians) in the SDF have released a statement calling for equal treatment. The Syriac Military Council says:

General Votel stated in the congressional hearing of March 29, 2017 that “the most effective force (against ISIS) we have right now in Syria is the Syrian Democratic Forces that consist of both Kurds and Arabs, Turkmen and in some cases Christians.”

First of all we want to emphasize that it is a simple fact that we as Syriac-Assyrian Christians are a founding member of the SDF via the Syriac Military Council. We have furthermore been in every single operation of the SDF.

Yes our numbers are smaller as our population is smaller as a consequence of the genocides against our people. However we are a full and equal partner in the SDF. … Our men and women are on the frontlines and we lost dear friends in battle. We know that it is not our compatriots who created this impression but a lack of information on the side of the US. …

The fact that we suffered under genocides emphasizes the need for delivery of military equipment. If we are weak, we are a target of the extremist forces that the SDF is fighting against.

We will be part of any operation against Raqqa, regardless of our current level of military equipment. We cannot imagine that the U.S. would deliberately want us to be more poorly equipped then our Arab partners when we go into that big battle.

We thank the US for the air support given in crucial battles and the support to the SDF. We also hope that this is an opportunity to work together for the long-term security and freedom of our people and all the peoples of the region.

The Second Amendment for Syria’s Christians

The statement is a challenge to the Trump administration. Trump has (rightly) emphasized the need to protect Christians and to act against persecution. Syria’s Christians don’t ask for U.S. troops. They ask for equal treatment. They need the arms to protect themselves against ISIS, just like their neighbors. In fact they would like to have the same right as Christians in the U.S. — who also have the equal right of self-protection as their fellow citizens, thanks to the Second Amendment.

The crucial question is whether Christians in the U.S. will stand up. Will they ask the Trump Administration to treat Syria’s Christians equally? Or will they allow their brothers and sisters to be more easily killed by ISIS? Will U.S. Christians lobby Congress, Senate and White House to set this injustice right? Or will they allow brothers and sisters to be left without protection? Do they imagine that Christians in the Middle East do not need to protect themselves against jihadists?

This is an urgent question as the battle for Raqqa will commence very soon. Syriac-Assyrian Christians in northern Syria are now treated equally by their fellow citizens fighting ISIS. The question is if Christians in the U.S. will do the same. The answer will determine if Syria’s Christians have a reliable ally in American Christians and a strong voice in the post-ISIS settlement of Syria. (For more from the author of “Why Won’t the US Help Syrian Christians Fighting ISIS?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Assisted Suicide Means Throwing Patients Away

/0 Comments/in , /by

The assisted-suicide bill in Hawaii was just deferred. We may see it threaten patients again in coming years. I offer my comments as a psychiatrist, and as a clinical expert on suicide.

Assisted-suicide is, at the very least, a medical procedure unlike any other. A surgeon hopes that his patients will wake up again, and be alive to critique him. A living patient is a complaining (and perhaps a litigious) patient.

A dead patient is a patient who by definition cannot complain — a point never lost on pirates (“Dead men tell no tales”) or on the Mafia. In fact, there is probably something profound in the old Jewish idea of glorifying God through our kvetching.

To bring the point back to doctoring: Imagine, if you will, a procedure where a patient cannot complain afterwards. Picture a procedure whose purpose is to end complaining, precisely by taking away a patient’s ability to complain.

Such is an assisted-suicide. How convenient for the doctor. His patients are so satisfied with their outcome … they’re practically speechless.

Assisted Suicide: The 21st Century Lobotomy

In my own field of psychiatry, for many decades we had another such procedure, one which obviates complaint. Almost no patient ever complained about his lobotomy. Patients who were lobotomized were docile. They hardly complained about anything.

Today, we do not allow lobotomies. Patients may request it, as they sometimes used to. But it isn’t available. We consider it barbaric and inhumane. Doctors have said NO. We have imposed our value system on our patients.

We’re Ashamed to Say “No”

These days, doctors can be very uncomfortable saying NO. Look no further than the opioid epidemic we are facing as a country. It’s largely caused by the unwillingness of doctors to say NO. Like you and everyone else, doctors do not like being characterized as callous or cruel.

Doctors are, perhaps, in their wish for moral esteem, even more sensitive to these accusations than the average person. Especially in our touchy moral climate.

A doctor who facilitates an assisted-suicide may be touted as a doctor who looks squarely at his patient’s suffering. But he might be, on the contrary, a doctor unwilling to sustain the professional burden of having failed a patient.

Patients Who Feel They’ve Failed Their Doctors

On an unconscious level, a minority of cancer patients may actually feel guilty for not responding to treatment. They may equate their illness with personal failure. The patient may also perceive his suffering as causing the doctor to suffer.

The patient may have an unconscious wish to preserve, at all costs, his own belief in the doctor’s omnipotence to heal. Some patients may imbue their doctor with childhood feelings, the sorts of feelings in which mommy can kiss away any boo-boo, and no matter what, daddy will find a way to fix it.

For these patients, the thing that absolutely cannot be endured, is not their suffering per se, but to see a doctor turn and throw up his hands.

These emotional factors in interplay can create a perfect storm. To a doctor with no other moorings than “I’m good, science is good,” a lethal prescription may be quite appealing. The finality of it may be especially so.

An Unholy Communion Wafer

On a deeper and more perverse level, the sacramental aspect of it may resonate. A lethal prescription may be prescribed by mouth, like a Satanic wafer, or like a coin on the mouth for Charon the ferryman.

What are the chief duties of physicians? They are “to cure sometimes, relieve often, and comfort always.” To sit with our patients. To admit our failings. To say NO if necessary. And to continue to offer our help.

Emphatically, it is not among our duties to ship our patients off to some unknown shore, a shore from which they can never return, and wash our hands of the whole thing.

We saw this mindset in the unique history of the leper colony in Kalaupapa, Hawaii. We saw it especially in the doctors who sent patients there, but who refused to go there themselves. (For more from the author of “Assisted Suicide Means Throwing Patients Away” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Export-Import Bank’s Secret Dealings Demonstrate the Problem With Crony Capitalism

/0 Comments/in , /by

The annual conference of the Export-Import Bank begins Thursday, which is an opportune time to catch up with the federal agency that doles out billions of dollars in subsidies to benefit foreign governments and titans of industry.

Of particular interest are transaction details that the bank won’t reveal, as well as its relatively limp support for small business.

Over at the bank’s downtown District of Columbia headquarters, most everyone is concerned about what President Donald Trump will do.

The Ex-Im charter is authorized through September 2019, but there are three vacancies on the five-seat board of directors. The lack of a quorum limits the size of bank deals to $10 million or less, including export loans and loan guarantees as well as capital and credit insurance. (That’s how it is supposed to work, in any event.)

Ex-Im opponents are hoping that the president will, at the very least, maintain the status quo—although the best course of action would be to eliminate the bank altogether. (More on that below.) But the Ex-Im lobby is pushing for Trump to nominate board candidates and negotiate their Senate confirmation. Doing so would free up billions of dollars in subsidies for Boeing Co., General Electric Co., Caterpillar, and the like—that is, multinational corporations that do not lack access to capital and which can finance exports without taxpayer handouts.

On the other hand, Congress could—at least conceivably—exercise leadership and phase the bank out of existence. It is not as if there is a shortage of private export financing: U.S. exports totaled $2.2 trillion in fiscal year 2016, with Ex-Im supporting just 0.22 percent ($5 billion).

Who benefitted from that $5 billion? Ex-Im officials are keeping mum, although the transactions are supposed to be public. But if allowed to operate in secret, citizens and their representatives in Congress cannot determine whether the bank is complying with the $10 million transaction limit or with the other rules it has violated in the past.

The Heritage Foundation made repeated requests in the past five weeks for information on 48 transactions in fiscal year 2016 that far exceeded the $10 million limit. For example, both JPMorgan Chase & Co. and TD Bank, N.A. were awarded a whopping $500 million on Dec. 14, 2015, and Wells Fargo & Co. was awarded $200 million on the same day. Several others were awarded between $15 million and $150 million.

According to Ex-Im officials, some of the awards in question represent taxpayer-backed insurance for U.S. banks that issue letters of credit used overseas to finance foreign firms’ purchases of American exports.

However, Ex-Im’s public database does not identify the borrowers or exporters, products or countries, involved in at least half of those 48 transactions, and multiple requests for details were in vain.

Ex-Im representatives claim that prior boards of directors have authorized bank staff to unilaterally approve short-term transactions that exceed $10 million. But they also said that individual transactions under this so-called delegated authority are subject to limits of $10 million for corporate entities, $25 million for financial institutions, and $35 million for sovereign entities.

Alas, without transaction details, neither Congress nor the public can determine whether the awards of $500 million, $200 million, $150 million, and the like were proper.

Also in fiscal year 2016, there were five transactions listed in the bank database as approved by the board—although there was no board quorum to approve deals at the time.

According to a bank representative, the working capital loans were approved by the board when a quorum existed, and represent installments of multiyear authorizations. However, the decision dates for the four transactions are listed as fiscal year 2016, and prior entries for the same companies do not indicate a multiyear authorization.

The one medium-term transaction, for Aeromexico, refers to an amendment to a transaction approved by the board in 2014, according to an Ex-Im representative. The nature of the amendment is unknown, although the representative did say that Ex-Im staff exercised their (supposed) delegated authority to approve the (supposedly proper) amendment.

Throughout the two-year debate over reauthorization of the Ex-Im charter, proponents incessantly claimed that small business was the bank’s “core mission.” That simply wasn’t true. Just 20 percent or less of total financing went to small businesses. But lacking a quorum, and thus barred from dispensing billions of dollars in export subsidies to the big guys, one might think that bank officials would maximize its small-business assistance.

But that didn’t happen. The bank reported $2.7 billion in authorizations to benefit small business in fiscal year 2016, which was about half of the level of small-business support from two years before. Obviously, they aren’t banging down Ex-Im’s door for help.

The vast majority of small-business exporters do not need—and do not receive—taxpayer subsidies. Indeed, small businesses ranked “exporting my products/services” as the least problematic of 75 business problems assessed in an annual survey by the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation. The cost of health care ranked as the most severe problem.

The debate about Ex-Im isn’t about helping small business. It is about the powerful bond between big business and big government. Ex-Im subsidies are neither the biggest nor worst manifestation of corporate welfare. But change in Washington is tortuous, and ending Ex-Im is a practical and rational target at present for reasons both material and ideological.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some members of Congress believe that a few legislative tweaks will remedy all that is wrong with the bank. Ex-Im officials have thwarted past attempts by Congress to impose reforms.

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

There isn’t an economist alive who could coherently argue that Ex-Im subsidies don’t distort credit and labor markets—and always to the detriment of those who remain independent of the welfare state. That is why Trump and Congress must eliminate the bank, both to prove that cronyism can be restrained, and because it would most benefit the nation. (For more from the author of “Export-Import Bank’s Secret Dealings Demonstrate the Problem With Crony Capitalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Could Be Next for Susan Rice in ‘Unmasking’ Controversy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Susan Rice, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, likely will figure in congressional investigations of Russia’s interference in the presidential election.

That prospect arose after news reports that Rice sought the identities of persons close to President Donald Trump whose communications were captured after the election in surveillance of foreigners by U.S. spy agencies.

Intelligence and national security experts say that it’s both legal and normal for someone in Rice’s position to ask to see the names of Americans whose communications are captured incidentally in surveillance of foreigners.

But intelligence committees in the House and Senate could look into whether Rice misused and spread information about Trump officials or associates once she learned their identities. The panels also could assess her motivation for seeking details about the incoming president’s conversations with foreigners.

“In the course of doing her national security adviser job, Susan Rice is within her full right to request the unmasking of NSA-collected information or FBI-collected information,” David Shedd, an acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama who also served in the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“The question becomes what does she do with that information once she knew it, rather than did she have the right to ask and did she actually do it,” added Shedd, who is now a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “I would absolutely put that question front and center now as a target of investigations.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that the House intelligence committee wants Rice, national security adviser to Obama in his second term, to testify as part of its probe into Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Tuesday that he could be interested in interviewing Rice as well.

“If there is intelligence that leads to a reason for us to look at Susan Rice, then we’ll do it,” Burr told reporters.

Trump, meanwhile, told The New York Times that he thinks Rice may have committed a crime. The president did not provide evidence for his claim.

“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Trump told The Times in an interview Wednesday.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, criticized Republicans for focusing on Rice. Schiff said the issue is a diversion from the question of whether Trump campaign officials colluded with Russia in its election interference.

In an interview Tuesday with MSNBC, Rice denied doing anything improper, saying that it is “absolutely false” to suggest she sought to unmask the names of Trump campaign officials for political reasons.

Rice also denied leaking the information to anyone without the security clearances required to view classified intelligence reports, which would be a crime.

“I leaked nothing to nobody, never had, never would,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it, is completely false.”

Americans whose communications are incidentally captured—meaning somebody else was the target—in surveillance of foreigners generally are not named in intelligence reports unless there is a specific request to reveal their identities.

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, intelligence agencies frequently monitor the conversations of foreigners—including officials with allied or hostile countries.

But the surveillance inevitably sometimes captures communications related to Americans who may be participating in the intercepted conversation or being spoken about.

To address concerns over Americans’ privacy, the law requires the government to use “minimization rules” that mask the identity of Americans—replacing the name with a generic description such as “U.S. Person 1.”

But there are exceptions. Certain government officials such as Rice may request names to be revealed to help them understand the intelligence reports.

The intelligence agencies decide whether to grant the requests, which are tracked and archived.

National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, in testimony before the House intelligence committee last month, said 20 people at NSA have the authority to grant a request.

FBI Director James Comey, in the same hearing, would not say how many in his agency have that power. Comey did say the number is “surely” more than at the NSA, because FBI agents “come into contact” with U.S. citizens more often.

Experts say the standard required to ask for a name to be unmasked is easy to meet, meaning it’s unlikely Rice did not follow the rules if intelligence officials ultimately granted her requests.

“The standard is whether the U.S. person’s identity is needed to understand the importance of foreign intelligence information,” Adam Klein, a senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security, told The Daily Signal.

In an email, Klein said:

There’s a certain amount of subjectivity built into that, which means that the intelligence committees will likely want to look at how the standard was applied in these cases: What was the intelligence need for each unmasking request? How frequent were the requests, and was there a pattern? The answers to those questions will be informative for determining whether there’s cause for concern here.

Shedd, who had the authority to ask for Americans’ names to be unmasked when he held positions on the National Security Council, contends that it’s unlikely intelligence officials would reject a request to unmask an identity from a person in authority such as Rice.

“The predicate for unmasking is, ‘Does it have a national security concern?’” Shedd said. “I can drive a Mack truck through that. If I am Rice, I can make a case I need that name.”

Patrick Eddington, a former CIA analyst who is now a policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, said it’s impossible to say whether Rice and intelligence officials properly followed procedures without knowing more about the conversations that Trump or his campaign and transition teams may have engaged in.

“So far, all we have is Rice acknowledging she did ask for some specific U.S. person data in some intelligence report,” Eddington said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “We don’t have remotely enough detail on what the report was about, and why she wanted to have information unmasked.”

Eddington says the House and Senate intelligence committees will want to know more about the timing of Rice’s requests, and if she indeed sought the names of Trump campaign or transition officials in the waning days of the Obama administration.

“Rice is not a law enforcement official,” Eddington said. “If she is making these requests as she is heading out the door, it does raise questions that require a deeper examination.” (For more from the author of “What Could Be Next for Susan Rice in ‘Unmasking’ Controversy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mom Horrified After Finding Police Drone Watching Her Children — in Their Backyard

/0 Comments/in , /by

For decades, in dystopian fictions, readers and watchers alike are very familiar with the idea of state-run drones spying on the entrapped population. Luckily, however, the scenes of drones chasing down or spying on those who dare dissent against authority have been restricted to fantasy — until now.

When Texas resident Bobbie Sanchez walked out in her backyard last week, the last thing she thought she’d see was a drone — hovering — watching her kids.

“Mommy there’s a drone over our roof,” said her children.

According to Sanchez, the drone hovered there long enough for her to take multiple photos and to call the police for help.

However, when Sanchez called the Hurst police department to inform them a drone was spying on her children, the Hurst police department said it was them.

“They’re watching my children play in the backyard,” said Sanchez. “I called the Hurst Police Department and was pretty surprised to hear that it was them.”

According to NBC DFW, Hurst police and fire started using drones earlier this year. They said the day they were over Sanchez’s yard was a training exercise.
Training, in the land of the free, now involves police officers stripping citizens of their privacy and creepily watching their kids.

Dystopian, indeed.

After being caught spying on children, the department now promises that they will tighten down on when and where the drones will be deployed.

“We will not be doing any type of training exercises over houses and things like that,” said Hurst Police Assistant Chief Steve Niekamp.

According to Niekamp, the department’s drones will now only launch of crime scenes, accident scenes, to find a suspect, an active shooter, or a missing person. The fire department may also use them to strategize on fighting fires.

“We’re working for our citizens, if they have concerns then we definitely need to address it,” said Niekamp in an obvious understatement.

When Sanchez’ neighbors got news of the drone they were outraged, naturally.

“It might be legal but it’s still creepy to think that police can be saying that they’re training or looking for a criminal and still be looking at you in your backyard,” said neighbor Casey Byrnes.

Others told NBC DFW that they feel betrayed and that their trust in police is damaged.

In a truly liberty-loving tone, Sanchez stated, “I am not a person who will give up privacy for safety.”

The use of drones in policing is a slippery slope. While fears of active shooters and missing children will be used to justify them, if history is any indicator, these drones will ultimately be used to further deteriorate what little semblance of privacy left in America.

Also, guns.

As the Free Thought Project reported last week, Connecticut may be the first state in the country to allow police officers to put deadly weapons on drones. Some states have discussed equipping drones with tasers but this is the first proposal to arm them with deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

The good news is, in a recent ruling, a Kentucky man has prevailed in a lawsuit he faced over shooting down a drone that entered his property.

William Meredith became known as the “drone slayer” in 2015, after he used a shotgun to dismantle a drone operated by David Boggs, that he says was flying over his property in front of himself and his daughter. Meredith initially faced felony charges of endangerment and criminal mischief for shooting down the drone. The criminal charges were dismissed by Judge Rebecca Ward in Bullitt County District Court, citing recollections from witnesses who said that the drone was flying under the tree line. Ward also said that Meredith was within his rights to shoot down the drone.

According to Meredith, that drone, like the police drone in Hurst — was also watching his children.

However, we shouldn’t rely on this case to hold up against the blue privilege associated with shooting down ‘official police property’ — even if it is watching your kids in your own backyard. (For more from the author of “Mom Horrified After Finding Police Drone Watching Her Children — in Their Backyard” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Many Liberal Legal Experts Think a Gorsuch Filibuster Is a Terrible Idea

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Senate Democrats barrel towards a filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, prominent liberal legal commentators and members of his own caucus are urging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to chart a different course.

Elite legal opinion on the left is certainly not uniform with respect to the Gorsuch filibuster, but it has tended against a filibuster of Gorsuch as a general matter.

Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman has repeatedly urged Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch, so as to keep their powder dry for future judicial confirmations.

“It would be wise to save it for a Supreme Court nominee who was truly terrible, rather than using it on a well-qualified nominee,” Feldman wrote in late March.

“Neil Gorsuch is no progressive,” he added. “But liberals could do worse — much worse. And it’s the Senate Democrats’ job to do what they can to reduce the risk of an unqualified, radical Trump nominee in the future.” (Read more from “Many Liberal Legal Experts Think a Gorsuch Filibuster Is a Terrible Idea” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.