We had a hit in the headlines section this week about how Rand Paul is “under attack” from the rest of the GOP field and it’s probably the best thing that could happen to him. Clearly one of the Super PACs supporting the Kentucky Senator is getting into the spirit of the battle… though perhaps a bit too much. As The Hill reports today, America’s Liberty PAC has released one of the very first attack ads of the cycle as we approach the deadline for the expiration of the PATRIOT Act, and one of their chief targets is Ted Cruz. (Emphasis added.)
A super PAC backing Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is pulling no punches with the first attack ad of the 2016 GOP presidential primary, complete with fire-breathing bald eagles and slams of Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham for their stances on government surveillance.
Mimicking the aggressive style of a wrestling event promo, the one-minute spot teases the Senate debate Sunday (“Sunday! Sunday!”) over expiring portions of the Patriot Act as the “greatest brawl for liberty of the century.”
It also needles Obama’s “so-called conservative accomplices,” Cruz (R-Texas) and Graham (R-S.C.). Cruz, referred to by the super PAC as the “capitulating Canadian” as a dig against the fact that the GOP candidate was born in the country, supports a compromise bill called the USA Freedom Act.
The ad is pretty low budget and not particularly innovative or clever. It takes the “Sunday Sunday Sunday” theme of monster truck or demolition derby events and transfers it to a political debate, complete with explosions and other cheesy sound effects. The graphics aren’t much to write home about either. Here’s the video.
(Read more from “Inevitable: Rand Paul Supporting Group Labels Ted Cruz “The Capitulating Canadian”” HERE)
In an interview with Esquire, Shepard Fairey said President Obama has not lived up to the expectations of the image that captured the verve behind Obama’s 2008 run. In fact, Fairey said, he’s “not even close.”
“Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he’s compromised on that I never would have expected. I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support],” he told Esquire.
Fairey, who has met Obama several times, said he thinks he is a “quality person,” whose presidency and legislative record also have been dictated by things out of his direct control.
“I’m not giving him a pass for not being more courageous,” Fairey said in his interview with Esquire. “But I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step.” (Read more from “Lost ‘Hope’: Poster Artist for Obama Says He Let Him Down” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-30 01:29:092016-04-11 11:00:35Lost ‘Hope’: Poster Artist for Obama Says He Let Him Down
Photo Credit: Free Beacon Hillary supporters in the D.C. area, for example, recently congregated for a Hillary-supporter happy hour in Arlington, Virginia. Fortunately, the New Republic was there to cover the festivities:
Beth Lilly, 29, remembers the first time she felt like the media was doing Hillary Clinton wrong: It was in 1992, when she was just about six years old, and remembers that people weren’t happy about Hillary’s chocolate-chip cookie recipe …
Nate Maeur, 29, remembers seeing Hillary for the first time on TV when he was young. She was advocating for children’s rights in Africa. “I remember being glued to the TV as a really little kid, watching her, almost being entranced by what she was saying, what she believed in, because it was exactly what my mother was saying,” says Maeur, who runs a workforce development organization. “I’m surprised I didn’t confuse my mom for her, and say—‘Oh, there’s Mom right there.’”
For Clinton’s younger supporters—many of whom, like Maeur, were Barack Obama campaign volunteers—their memories of the scandals and pseudo-scandals of the Clinton years are hazy at best, filtered through the soft focus of childhood. In sharper relief for them are the accomplishments that Hillary has racked up since then—U.S. senator, 2008 candidate, secretary of state—which her young Arlington supporters quickly rattled off when asked why they were backing her. “She’s going down in history whether people like it or not,” says Renzo Olivari, 19, a political science major at James Madison University who hopes to run for office one day. He was still in middle school during the 2008 campaign but remembers watching her speeches at age 12 and getting “emotionally invested” in the Clinton campaign even then.
(Read more from “ANALYSIS: Some People Are Dangerously Obsessed With Hillary Clinton” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-30 01:28:322016-04-11 11:00:35ANALYSIS: Some People Are Dangerously Obsessed With Hillary Clinton
There is nothing more rare in Washington than the opportunity to shutter the doors of a profligate federal agency. Thus the prospect of ending the wasteful and corrupt Export-Import Bank is even more enticing. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has just handed the Democrats another gift that could possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Republicans and reauthorize the poster child of corporate welfare.
In an irony of all ironies, McConnell was giving away political favors last week to Democrats willing to join him to…pass one of Obama’s biggest legislative priorities, Trade Promotion Authority and dubbed by others as Obamatrade for the special privileges granted to the potential trade deal. Irrespective of one’s views on trade in general, the idea that Republicans would expend political capital to pay off Democrats in order to help pass one of Obama’s top priorities is absurd. Yet, that is exactly what McConnell did when he promised Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) a vote on the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank charter in exchange for her and a contingent of Democrats agreeing to vote for cloture on Obamatrade last Thursday.
McConnell has refused to negotiate or fight vigorously to allow votes on conservative priorities, but he is willing to surrender the one impending victory against corporate welfare in order to bail out Obama from troubles with his own party! Even more troubling, at a time when McConnell has blocked conservatives from offering amendments, even those that are germane to pending legislation, he is abdicating his authority as Majority Leader to set the Senate to Cantwell next month by allowing her to file cloture on a bill reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. And according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), this non-germane bill will be attached to the eventual highway bill, which is regarded by the Washington political class as “must pass legislation.” This will make it very difficult for conservatives to block the bill. And to top it all off, McConnell is doing all this while he claims to oppose the Export-Import Bank.
Republicans can pocket a victory that would shrink the size of government by simply doing nothing and allowing the Bank’s charter to expire, but McConnell, in order to help Obama, is willing to forgo that victory. The entire purpose of winning back the Senate when lacking 60 votes to affirmatively pass legislation is to control the floor and block liberal initiatives from coming to a vote. With every Democrat and many establishment Republicans potentially supporting Ex-Im’s reauthorization, allowing Cantwell control over the floor will ensure the passage of this handout to Boeing and General Motors – at a time when conservatives are working overtime to re-establish the Republican Party as a free market beacon for all.
McConnell’s double game is so infuriating because there has never been more momentum behind eliminating the charter of this corruption-laden federal entity. In addition to the conservative leaders in the House, the ranks of those who want to see Ex-Im expire include Reps. Jeb Hensarling, Paul Ryan, Steve Scalise, and Kevin McCarthy. Why can’t McConnell just take yes for an answer?
Sadly, McConnell doesn’t share conservative policy goals so naturally he has no qualms about sabotaging this impending victory over big government. In fact, he supports the big government cronies pushing for the Ex-Im Bank.
While McConnell works on his new memoir, The Long Game, he ought to include a lengthy chapter titled: The Double Game. (See “McConnell Gives Poster Child of Corporate Welfare a Pass”, originally posted HERE)
Photo Credit: Bloomberg Investor resolutions urging corporate leaders to be more environmentally friendly in how they run their businesses are being rolled out at a record pace this year for the energy industry.
Just don’t expect them to pass.
Proposals meant to nudge Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. into nominating directors with environmental expertise, setting greenhouse gas targets, and compiling reports on minimizing fracking risks are among seven such resolutions being voted on Wednesday when the two biggest U.S. oil companies hold their shareholder meetings.
Institutional investors who control the biggest blocks of stock believe the proposals aren’t needed because the companies already are motivated to minimize damage, said Vincent Piazza, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst. Supporters as diverse as the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and the As You Sow Foundation say that just having them on the ballot can spur important dialog that can advance their movement.
“Success doesn’t mean you have to get 50 percent of the vote,” said Timothy Smith, a senior vice president at Boston-based Walden Asset Management who supports the proposals. “The goal is to start a dialog, and that moves things forward.” (Read more from “Big Oil Investors Give Cold Shoulder to Climate Changes`” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-30 01:27:562016-04-11 11:00:36Shareholders Trying to Push Big Oil Investors to Act on “Climate Change”
There is a very dangerous precedent unfolding around the country as it relates to criminal justice.
When approaching criminal justice policy, conservatives have always sought to strike the perfect balance to maximize liberty. The balance is built upon a bifurcated approach of eschewing over-criminalization of trivial matters while being tough as nails on dangerous and harmful criminals who infringe upon the liberties of others.
Unfortunately, there is a growing trend among Republicans – both from libertarians and politically correct establishment types – to pursue wholesale liberalization of our criminal justice system by championing issues pushed by the far Left until recently.
This growing trend among many Republicans is rooted in a legitimate desire to toss out junk laws and avoid over-criminalization. However, some of these well-intended initiatives being pursued in the justifiable lane of “over-crim” are running adrift into the sharp rip current of Obama’s dangerous agenda to undermine our criminal justice system. Ironically, the end result of some of these “liberty” initiatives will result in more tyranny – both from increased federal involvement in local law enforcement and a potentially dangerous increase in criminal activity.
The Baltimore Paradigm
Conservative proponents of “criminal justice reform” must remember that, much like any other policy where they might seemingly share some common ground with this president, joining with Obama on this issue will not end well. There are legitimate proposals to reform some laws pertaining to regulatory issues or non-violent crime, but any effort to make the discussion centered on liberalizing criminal justice laws will invariably lead to the return of “pre-Giuliani” crime days under this president.
Sadly, this dynamic is already playing out in America’s large cities. Just two months after the White House lauded the Baltimore City Police Department for its model of new policing tactics, the Justice Department is now launching a civil rights investigation based on one incident – an incident that clearly had nothing to do with race (three of the cops were black).
Now, the Baltimore police, as I predicted, are so scared to effectively patrol the dangerous parts of the city in the east and western districts, it appears that more criminals are being given “space to destroy.” Baltimore is experiencing its deadliest month for homicides in 15 years. Just over this past Memorial Day weekend for example, 29 people were shot 9 of who were fatally wounded.
This rash of violence in Baltimore comes on the heels of a slew of cop killings around the country. In addition, cops are now having a hard time issuing arrests without emboldened mobs interfering and becoming violent, a dynamic that threatens the very fabric of the rule of law.
Conservative lawmakers must consider this: what is the consummate criminal justice challenge of our time? Is too much being done to combat violent crime throughout the country? Or has Obama created a climate in this country where police departments are returning to a pre-‘90s mentality and are terrified to maintain order and preserve liberty against a growing trend of anarchy?
The Federalization of Law Enforcement
Unfortunately, instead of holding hearings and demanding answers from the Justice Department for their politically motivated and often racist investigations of local police departments without any evidence of systemic abuses, Republicans remain completely silent. Many of them are even giving into Obama’s false premise. By focusing on the police as the primary problem, Republicans are implicitly blessing his agenda to federalize local law enforcement.
House Republican appropriators have just created a “community trust initiative” slush fund in the annual funding bill for the Justice Department, which will be used to funnel $50 million to local police departments for body cameras. While this might sound innocuous or even positive to some people, it is hard to imagine that more federal funding for local police – earmarked for specific political purposes – will not result in further federalization of law enforcement. Strings are always attached to federal funding, especially given the political context.
At a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on “21st century policing,” Susan Lee Rahr, a member of Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, let the cat out of the bag about the concerted effort on the Left to federalize law enforcement. She lamented the “18,000 different cultures reflecting the policies and practices that are the product of 18,000 local governments serving communities with a diverse range of values and expectations.” Rahr concluded that “outside of Consent Decrees and the distribution or withholding of Federal funds, the influence the Federal Government has on local policing is also limited.”
And that is exactly how things ought to be.
Not Playing into Obama’s Hands
Libertarians and some conservatives might feel passionate about ending mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses or initiatives to “de-militarize” the police. However, those policy initiatives should be pursued in a propitious political climate with a president who is not bent on using such policies as a platform to dismantle every aspect of our criminal justice system that has led to a swift decline in violent crime in recent years. One can make a strong case for getting rid of some non-violent drug laws as an ends to itself, but it certainly is not the panacea for the current problems with violent crime and Obama’s systematic war on law enforcement.
Nevertheless, instead of engaging in soul-searching about the ubiquitous violence in inner cities and the dangerous intervention of the Justice Department in local affairs that is engendering this disquieting spike in crime, many Republicans are jumping on the far-left bandwagon. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is spewing left-wing platitudes about “disparate impact” and voting rights for felons. Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have signed onto a bill sponsored by Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), which would create a national criminal justice commission to propose reforms. The problem is that, much like many of their versions of “immigration reform,” any criminal justice reform commission will be staffed with radical leftists who only address the Left’s version of reform. The bill is also co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo).
Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in which one liberal activist witness after another berated southern states for not adequately supplying counsel for indigents charged with misdemeanors. One witness was Mark Cady, the Iowa Supreme GOP Justice who wrote the decision mandating homosexual marriage in his state. Did Republicans consider him an expert on the Constitution and federalism? Do they really have nothing better to do when there are so many egregious overreaches by the Justice Departments to investigate?
The systematically racist Justice Department will second-guess every instance in which a police officer is involved in a shooting with a black individual, irrespective of the evidence. Together with their cohorts in the media, they helped foment a growing violent culture of ‘riot first ask questions later,’ which in itself has created an even greater cycle of violence – one that places police officers in untenable situations. The message to law enforcement is reverberating loud and clear: face federal investigations without due process and the presumption of innocence or give criminals space to destroy. Regrettably, many of them will feel they have no choice but to choose the latter.
Despite the growing socio-economic and cultural problems in this country, one of the greatest developments of the past few decades has been the near-miraculous drop in violent crime. While there is no single proven factor behind this precipitous decline, it is hard to doubt the effectiveness of more pro-active policing and stricter sentencing.
Republicans should think long and hard about the consequences of playing Obama’s game on criminal justice, lest they risk reversing these hard fought gains for public safety, which are really gains for individual liberty. There is no greater tyranny than the ubiquitous restriction of movement that invariably comes with rampant anarchy.
As the GOP presidential candidates uniformly rail against the excesses of the federal government and over-regulation of our daily activities, they would be wise to extol the virtues of law enforcement and how it should remain under the auspices of state and local governments. It is part and parcel of a pro-liberty agenda. (See “GOP: Still the Party of Law and Order?”, originally posted HERE)
[Listen to this interview on The Joe Miller Show with the author]
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-29 01:32:442016-04-11 11:00:36GOP: Still the Party of Law and Order? [+video]
Photo Credit: WND A federal judge hearing the contempt of court case against Maricopa, Arizona, County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday stayed further proceedings until a dispute over his involvement in the case is resolved.
Judge G. Murray Snow’s decision came after a second motion for his removal arrived in U.S. District Court. An earlier motion, filed by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch on behalf of a whistleblower who was drawn into the Arpaio case, Dennis Montgomery, was rejected both by Snow and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals . . .
At the center of the effort to remove the judge from the case is a statement from a witness, Karen Morris Grissom, who told the sheriff the judge hates him. The witness explained to Arpaio that she was a childhood friend of the judge’s wife . . .
[Listen to an update from one of the attorneys involved in the case on the effort to eject the federal judge]
The latest effort to remove Snow came from A. Melvin McDonald and Michele Iafrate, who have been representing Arpaio in a case that stemmed from claims the sheriff failed to follow the court’s orders regarding his department’s policing procedures.
“No doubt, moving for the recusal or disqualification of any sitting judge is a serious matter,” their motion stated. “Under statute, case law, and judicial canons, the perception of judicial bias and the appearance of impropriety, punctuated by the material witness status of the presiding judge’s spouse, mandate the recusal and disqualification of the Honorable G. Murray Snow. (Read more from “Motion Seeks Removal of Arpaio-Case Judge” HERE)
She was the woman who almost brought down the president, with her allegations of sexual harassment.
But 21 years after Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of lurid behavior, she is speaking out against Hillary and insisting that his wife is not fit to be President either – because of her husband’s history of bad behavior.
In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online Jones delivers her own verdict on Hillary’s bid to become president, saying that her husband’s attitude towards women disqualifies Bill from re-entering the White House – while what she calls Hillary’s ‘lies’ disqualify her from the Oval Office.
‘There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband,’ she says. ‘They have both lied’ . . .
Her lawsuit led to Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky being uncovered and led to Clinton being impeached, accused of lying about the nature of his relationship with the White House intern. (Read more from “‘Don’t Let Bill Back in the White House, He Abused Women and He’ll Do It Again.’ Paula Jones Warns Against Voting for Hillary” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-29 01:29:512016-04-11 11:00:37‘Don’t Let Bill Back in the White House, He Abused Women and He’ll Do It Again.’ Paula Jones Warns Against Voting for Hillary
President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority.
[Listen to this environmental law expert discuss the terrifying implications of this expansion of federal jurisdiction]
“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.
The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.
“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” McCarthy said. “This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science.” (Read more from “Obama Administration Asserts Dominion Over Creeks, Streams, Wetlands, Ditches — Even Big Puddles” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-28 02:19:292016-04-11 11:00:38Outrageous, Massive Federal Expansion: Obama’s EPA Now Asserts Dominion Over Mud Puddles, May Destroy US Agriculture [+video]
