Posts

Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In a recent article, I described how Trump is up against both the media and the CIA. The CIA started infiltrating media with Operation Mockingbird, soon after Harry Truman created the Agency in 1947— and the infiltration has continued to this day.

The crossover point occurred about five minutes after President Truman launched the Agency. The CIA’s mandate was: collect information about what was going on around the world, so it could advise the president.

But CIA directors, starting especially with Allen Dulles, had a different vision.

Why just collect information?

Since the Agency’s job was digging up secrets, why not invent secrets?

Why not invent entire patterns and platforms of information to support an agenda of US global domination?

Why not invent endless enemies who needed to be conquered?

After all, domination was the objective of the super powerful Council on Foreign Relations, coming out of World War 2. The CFR stood outside and above the government in the shadows. It was a Rockefeller operation. The Rockefeller family was uncrowned royalty. Shouldn’t the CIA align itself with that REAL power?

It took some years for the CIA to fully realize the Rockefeller agenda was global government—not US hegemony. So the CIA adjusted its sights and its motives and its invention of data, to fit the Globalist picture.

Flash forward. Trump, suddenly signaling NATIONALISM NOT GLOBALISM, in 2016, was a distinct threat. That signal could wake up millions of people who hadn’t thought about either Nationalism or Globalism.

The point wasn’t about whether Trump meant what he advocated. The point was: what effect would he have on the American people and other nations around the world, who could revert to Nationalism?

The CIA threw together a bunch of invented data about Russia influencing the election for Trump. Thoroughly in bed with the Washington Post and the NY Times, the Agency put out the word, and within a day the media echo chamber was alive with “Russia hacked the election.”

It was a typical discredit and destroy op. Delegitimize the Trump presidency. Focus on the man, not the message. Wipe out the Nationalism message by defaming the messenger.

“The cat is out of the bag. Now we have to put it back in the bag.”

Not so easy, particularly with thousands of online independent media outlets humming at full force.

Those who exclusively focus on whether Trump is a true Nationalist, a secret Globalist, or a neocon, are missing a key point. Trump woke up millions of people with his Nationalist messages. Those people are now moving outside the CIA-media nexus. They are springing from that trap.

A new sensation and feeling and thought-process is loose in the world. It was there before Trump, but he pumped it up to a full roar.

The CIA invents, every day, a world in which Globalism must win and should win. It turns its out propaganda 24/7. It thus saturates media.

It is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

JFK and RFK were obstacles to the forward motion of the CIA? Get them out of the way.

Trump is an impediment? At the very least, destroy his persona.

The CIA has no particular interest in who Trump “really is.” They only care about what effect he could have on the population.

After years of compliance from Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Elder (a former CIA director), the Agency suddenly saw this swaggering cowboy appear strolling over the horizon. The Donald.

What did he think he was doing? Where did he get this Nationalism? What was going on?

Trump started right in, attacking the media. Did he know something he wasn’t supposed to know? Did he know the media were a branch of the CIA propaganda tree?

Did he know the CIA considered itself the true president of the United States?

Did he know the CIA had been carrying out a monster covert op for 70 years, pretending to be the eyes and ears for the president—but actually consolidating its stranglehold on the Oval Office and the Congress?

Was it possible Trump knew that the CIA, while claiming to forward US interests around the world, was, behind that pose, actually positioning Globalism as the ultimate international victor?

Was Trump aware that all traces of Nationalism, across the planet, were being censored and erased by major media?

Could he see that?

In his cavalier, off-the-cuff, impulsive, egoistic, boastful way, was he waking up a sleeping giant?

Was there a deep tidal wave, gathering force far out in the ocean, a wave of Nationalism, percolating, as if waiting for a signal to proceed toward many shores?

Had decades of routine lying and data-invention at the CIA made the smartest minds there complacent and inattentive?

Was the Agency about to receive a titanic blindsiding blow?

The CIA sent out the word to its many minions in the press, government, think tanks, foundations, and Globalist organizations: say anything and do anything to discredit this crazy president NOW. Don’t wait. It doesn’t matter what you accuse him of. Throw everything you’ve got at him and hope enough of it sticks. If saying he comes from Mars works, say he comes from Mars.

The CIA was caught asleep at the wheel. It had no coordinated plan to take down the fast-talking cowboy in the White House. It had to be all hands on deck and HIT IT HARD RIGHT AWAY.

“If we can take down Trump, we can take down Nationalism and restore Globalism to its rightful place.”

Really?

Is that true?

Or are thousands more people all over the world waking up every day, realizing that one global management system for humanity is the covert agenda—and that this plan is about nothing less than complete top-down control, and the decimation of life lived in freedom?

Does Nationalism, as a massive decentralization away from Globalism, come circling back to THE INDIVIDUAL, and his utter refusal to be enslaved?

Is that possible?

Because I’m here to tell you, if it is possible, then the fact of Donald Trump, in the fullness of time, doesn’t matter. What matters is the personal truth that every person knows: HIS OWN LIBERTY.

And trying to dislodge and erase THAT resistance and that hunger for freedom is more than the CIA and all its horses and all its men can achieve.

We are not Humpty-Dumpty.

They are.

And fallen, they won’t be able to put themselves back together again.

Certainly, they’ll get no help from us. (For more from the author of “Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do THIS for Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take “a bullet” for him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.

About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent’s prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.

Kerry O’Grady, the agent in question, is on administrative leave amid an internal Secret Service investigation into her Facebook comments about Trump.

Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O’Grady from being fired.

They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs. (For more from the author of “Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do Something Major for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shoot for Mars! Trump Signs Cruz-Rubio $19.5 Billion NASA Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump signed a bipartisan bill Tuesday that funds NASA programs and maps out a plan to send a manned mission to Mars.

The NASA Transition Authorization Act, which was co-authored by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., distributes $19.5 billion for the space agency’s 2018 fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1). The bill also calls for NASA to draft a plan for a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s. The bill closely aligns with Trump’s $19.1 billion budget proposal for the agency.

Money will be delegated for deep space exploration, refining the International Space Station, commercial partnerships, and planning for the mission to Mars. The bill also “authorizes a space technology program” the White House said in a statement.

“It is the first time in seven years we’ve had a NASA authorization bill,” Sen. Cruz said, joking with President Trump that he could now “send Congress to space.”

“We could. What a great idea that could be,” Trump responded.

“This means a great deal for the nation’s space exploration, and it means a great deal for the state of Texas, and it continues America’s leadership in space,” Cruz added.

The president said NASA would continue to focus on space exploration while also working on transitioning more space activities to private companies.

“It’s been a long time since a bill like this has been signed, reaffirming our national commitment to the core mission of NASA, human space exploration, space science and technology,” the president said. “With this legislation, we support NASA’s scientists, engineers and astronauts and their pursuit of discovery.”

The bill appears to move the space agency back to its core duties. Former President Obama famously turned NASA into an agency that prioritized climate change, along with reaching out to the Islamic world. (For more from the author of “Shoot for Mars! Trump Signs Cruz-Rubio $19.5 Billion NASA Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Makes Next Move to Shape Federal Judiciary

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump has tapped a federal district judge from his list of potential Supreme Court picks to be his first nominee to a federal appellate court—putting Trump slightly behind President Barack Obama, but ahead of President George W. Bush in shaping the judiciary.

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump intended to nominate U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Thapar, son of Indian-American immigrants and a former federal prosecutor, now serves as a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Bush appointed him in 2008.

The announcement for a nomination comes as Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, is going through his confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Appeals court judges can be nearly as important as Supreme Court judges since the high court is limited in the number of cases it accepts.

There are 19 appellate court vacancies across the United States that Trump could fill, and 96 on federal district courts, according to Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

There are also two vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade and six on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. There are a total of 677 authorized district judgeships and 179 total court of appeals judgeships.

“This is a great sign that President Trump takes lower courts seriously,” Slattery told The Daily Signal. “The last administration did not make lower court judges a priority, and that ended up being good for conservatives because it has left Trump with a lot of opportunities. There was a lot of thought that the president would wait until the Gorsuch nomination reached its conclusion.”

Given his position on the Trump campaign’s Supreme Court list of 21 names, this could be grooming Thapar for the Supreme Court, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group, and a senior legal fellow for FreedomWorks.

“Everyone on that list was ranked somewhere from good to great as far as being a constitutionalist,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “Certainly if he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, he is qualified to be on an appeals court. He would be the first Indian-American on the Supreme Court. There is no better way to give him credentials.”

Obama’s first appeals court nomination was on March 17, 2009, naming David Hamilton to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Obama had 49 appeals court judges confirmed to the bench during his two terms. Obama made his first district court nomination on June 25, 2009, naming Jeffrey Viken to the U.S. District of South Dakota. A total of 270 Obama district court nominees were confirmed.

Bush’s first appeals court nomination did not happen until May 9, 2001, when he named Roger Gregory to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That same month, Bush nominated Richard F. Cebull to serve as the judge for the U.S. District of Montana. Bush named a total of 61 appeals court judges that the Senate confirmed and filled a total of 263 vacancies on district courts.

President Bill Clinton outdid both Bush and Obama, naming 62 appeals court judges and 306 district judges.

As for Thapar, before serving on the bench, he was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He was previously an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Ohio and in the District of Columbia.

Thapar began his legal career in private practice. He clerked for Judge S. Arthur Spiegel on the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and then with Judge Nathaniel R. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, to which Trump has selected Thapar to serve on. Thapar received his bachelor’s degree from Boston College in 1991 and his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley. (For more from the author of “Trump Makes Next Move to Shape Federal Judiciary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Administration Sends Strong Signal to Russia by Indicting Hackers

/0 Comments/in , /by

Of all the security threats facing the U.S. today, cyber threats are among the most pernicious. Thankfully, the administration is taking some concrete steps to confront them.

Last week, the Justice Department indicted four individuals on charges relating back to the 2016 hack into Yahoo’s network that compromised at least 500 million user accounts. Of those indicted, two are officers of the Russian Federal Security Service, an agency very similar in function to the United States’ FBI.

According to remarks made by acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, the Russian officers “protected, directed, facilitated, and paid criminal hackers to collect information through computer intrusions in the United States.”

The hackers that worked with the Russian officers have also been indicted on numerous charges. One hacker has been apprehended in Canada, while the other hacker and the two Russian officers are in Russia, where they are safe because the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia.

Though these three individuals in Russia cannot be prosecuted in the United States, the indictment charges against them are not useless. The decision by the administration to bring these charges sends a strong message to other nation-states about committing cyberattacks on private companies in the United States.

Private companies such as Yahoo already face a daunting challenge in defending themselves from cyber criminals and hacktivists. But when these cyberattacks come from nation-states, the defenses of a private company are outmatched.

The U.S. government has a responsibility to protect U.S. companies and other domestic computer networks from nation-state hackers, and it has a myriad of tools at its disposal to punish and deter such cyber aggressors.

These tools include the legal charges we saw last week, as well as charges the U.S. brought against five members of the Chinese Liberation Army in 2013 following their cyber espionage against businesses in the United States.

By using legal charges to combat cyber aggression, the United States shows that it is serious about protecting its interests and its companies, and has the evidence to prove other nations are acting maliciously.

Other options to respond to cyber aggression include leveling sanctions against offending nation-states.

A recent example of this came last fall following the hacks on the Democratic National Convention. In response to these hacks, the Obama administration enacted sanctions against five Russian intelligence agencies and three Russian companies, which froze assets and halted transactions and travel between those Russian companies and the United States.

Visa, commercial, and financial restrictions, diplomatic condemnations, actions in international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, and other strategic responses to hacking should all be on the table.

The Trump administration has set a strong precedent by indicting the two Russian Federal Security Service officers and the two hackers that worked with them. But this is just a first step.

Further steps will need to be taken to improve the U.S. deterrence posture against nations who would engage in cyber aggression against the United States. (For more from the author of “Trump Administration Sends Strong Signal to Russia by Indicting Hackers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dems Shop Around, Find Two Federal Judges to Strike Down Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

After President Trump’s first executive order ban on refugees from violent Islamic countries was struck down by two activist federal judges, Trump worked with some of the top legal minds to revise the language. The judges claimed that it unconstitutionally discriminated against the religion of Islam.

The new version removed Iraq from the list of countries banned for 90 days, leaving Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It exempted people with green cards and visas and removed a provision that appeared to prioritize acceptance of those whose religion was a minority in their home country. Those with new visas were banned from entering the U.S. for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. It was to go into effect yesterday.

Despite the changes, the revised version has just been struck down by two more federal district court judges. As with the original ban, left-wing activists went judge shopping in order to find liberal judges who would rule against Trump.

Peculiar Judicial Decisions

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama appointee who presides in Honolulu, issued a 43-page ruling on Wednesday. It came out less than two hours after listening to arguments, a sign he had already made up his mind and started writing the opinion well in advance. Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, also an Obama appointee, issued an opinion this morning. Chuang’s opinion only struck down the travel ban portion of the executive order.

A career government lawyer, Chuang was once accused by a Republican senator “of having a role in frustrating Congressional efforts to investigate the death of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, while he was serving on a special assignment at the State Department.” U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who blocked the initial travel ban last month, will also be issuing an opinion.

Judge Watson said the state had established “a strong likelihood of success” on the claim of religious discrimination. He also based his opinion on an assertion that the ban would hurt tourism. This is strange, since Hawaii has yet to accept any refugees. Perhaps he was referring to the foreign relatives of people currently in the state. However, the California man who is part of the lawsuits said his overseas mother hadn’t visited him in over 12 years. A 90-day ban probably wouldn’t change much there.

Judge Watson reasoned that since the six countries listed in the travel ban are over 90 percent Muslim, it amounts to a ban on that religion. He ignored the fact that up to 10 percent of the population in those countries are not Muslim yet still subject to the ban.

Strangely, instead of analyzing the federal law providing authorization for the travel ban, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the judges referenced Trump’s remarks about radical Islam that he made during the presidential campaign, not as president. Judge Watson called them “highly relevant.” Watson cited one of Trump’s campaign press releases: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” However, that is not what Trump ending up doing with his travel ban as president; instead, he banned entire countries.

Interestingly, Judge Chuang disagreed in part. Chuang said the plaintiffs didn’t sufficiently develop their argument that a temporary ban on refugees discriminates on the basis of religion.

Since immigration is a federal issue, the decisions by the federal court judges to continue the injunction apply across the country. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the injunction against the ban last month, which prompted the Trump administration to rewrite the executive order.

Trump’s Response

Trump strongly denounced both rulings. During a rally in Nashville today, he criticized the judges for failing to discuss the immigration law authorizing the travel ban, 212(F). “Even if you’re a bad student,” he said, “this is a real easy one. … Here is the real statute, which they don’t even want to quote when they overrule it. And it was put here for the security of our country.”

Trump went on to emphasize the national security interest against Islamic terrorism: “We’re talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people.”

This ruling makes us look weak — which by the way, we no longer are, believe me. … This is a watered down version of the first one. I was elected to change our broken down and dangerous system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country, and left our people defenseless. And I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families, believe me. Not today, not ever. We’re gonna win it.

Although the two decisions will now be appealed to circuit courts which lean to the left, it is very likely the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately make the final decision. Trump is confident of success at the high court, saying during today’s rally, “Even liberal democratic lawyer Alan Dershowitz — good lawyer — just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Many of the news accounts of these two court decisions revealed their bias: They left out any discussion that the ban could be upheld by the Supreme Court, as well as any analysis of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which clearly gives the president the authority to issue immigration bans. If this continues, random liberal judges could be dictating US immigration and foreign policy, in direct contradiction to the US Constitution. (For more from the author of “Dems Shop Around, Find Two Federal Judges to Strike Down Trump’s Revised Travel Ban” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Trump’s Budget Proposal for the State Department Makes Sense

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump has made some promising proposals to trim government spending in his recently released budget blueprint.

Trump’s significant 2018 budget cut of 28 percent for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other U.S. government foreign affairs agencies makes a lot of sense. The cut seems dramatic, but comes on the back of more than a decade of expansion during which the foreign operations budget nearly doubled.

The Trump budget does many good things. For example, it eliminates the cronyist Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a move that Heritage Foundation senior trade policy analyst Bryan Riley and other Heritage scholars have long recommended.

Also on the chopping block: USAID’s Global Climate Change Initiative and all payments to the United Nations’ climate change programs.

In calling for the elimination of this funding last year, former Heritage scholar, David Kreutzer, wrote that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change had devolved into little more than a mechanism to redistribute wealth and to dramatically rework and centralize the world economy with little or no impact on climate. Cutting this funding is a good first step toward U.S. withdrawal from the convention.

Given a second chance: the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which had strayed from its hard emphasis on anti-corruption during the Obama years but which was spared from outright elimination in the Trump budget.

Although Trump did not heed the call by Heritage senior research fellow Lisa Curtis to continue funding the United States Institute of Peace, the overall direction of Trump’s foreign operations budget is in line with Heritage foreign policy expert Jim Carafano’s advice: Cut the U.S. foreign aid budget in favor of increased defense spending to make the world safer.

The president’s dramatic budget cut will leave no choice but for the State Department and USAID “to pursue greater efficiencies through reorganization and consolidation in order to enable effective diplomacy and development.”

That’s precisely what Heritage senior research fellow Brett Schaefer recommended last year: to bring USAID directly under the control of the State Department to better coordinate its activities with U.S. policy priorities

In the words of the budget announcement, a complete overhaul of U.S. foreign aid will refocus “economic and development assistance to countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.” and ensure “the effectiveness of U.S. taxpayer investments by rightsizing funding across countries and sectors.”

Overall, the budget cuts will force the reorganization of the State Department that Schaefer recommended last year, to make it a more effective and capable agency ready to resume its role as the primary implementer of the nation’s foreign policy. (For more from the author of “Why Trump’s Budget Proposal for the State Department Makes Sense” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Not First President to Call HUD’s Block Grants Wasteful

/0 Comments/in , /by

The president’s budget called for slashing funding for a block grant program primarily because it was difficult to determine whether it was getting the desired results.

That was President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. It justified the $3.7 billion cut in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant program by asserting:

While flexibility may be one strong characteristic of the CDBG program, the use of funds and how states and communities distribute their funds lead to resources spread across many activities, diverse constituencies, and geographies without clear or focused impact. This makes the demonstration of outcomes difficult to measure and evaluate.

The Trump administration budget blueprint, issued Wednesday, calls for eliminating funding for HUD’s $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program.

“It isn’t just us who wanted this on the chopping block. Obama didn’t say get rid of it, but he did say it’s difficult to measure the outcomes,” Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

“Eligibility is so broad, [a block grant] has gone to Greenwich, Connecticut, one of the richest cities in America,” Schatz said.

Democrats and media commentators almost immediately criticized the Trump move, however. A Washington Post analysis framed it as:

The program provides cities with money to address a range of community development needs such as affordable housing, rehabilitating homes in neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosures, and preventing or eliminating slums and community blight. It also provides funding for Meals on Wheels, a national nonprofit that delivers food to homebound seniors.

Liberal advocacy groups and entertainers also raised alarm about Meals on Wheels.

However, Forbes reported that only 3.3 percent of funding for Meals on Wheels comes from the federal government.

Meanwhile, Reason, a libertarian magazine, reported that cities are routinely spending the block grants on recreational centers, auditoriums, and gardens rather than alleviating poverty.

As a private program, states could kick in funding for the meals program for seniors, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow specializing in poverty at The Heritage Foundation, who called the Community Development Block Grant program a “slush fund for urban mayors.”

Rector said the program is “barely a rounding error” in $1.1 trillion spent annually in 80 federal programs for the poor. Local governments are also less likely to look at results if the money is coming from the federal government, he said.

“To pretend that this program or that program is just one step between the poor and destitution is ridiculous,” Rector told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

The Trump budget proposal states that eliminating funding for the CDBG program would save $3 billion, and used language similar to Obama’s.

“The federal government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results,” the Trump proposal says. “The budget devolves community and economic development activities to the state and local level, and redirects federal resources to other activities.”

The Government Accountability Office determined in a 2012 report that some funding isn’t targeted to the cities in most need:

The distribution of grant funding per person in poverty in cities was not consistently aligned with overall poverty rates. Most cities, with the exception of those cities with the highest poverty rates, received roughly the same amount of economic development funding per person living in poverty. Further, when we examined how grant funds are distributed to cities based on their unemployment rates, we also found that some cities with higher unemployment rates received less funding per unemployed person than other cities with lower unemployment rates. However, we did find that a small number of cities (17 out of a total of 465 cities) with the highest unemployment rates received funding that was roughly 40 percent higher than the average for unemployed populations in all cities.

(For more from the author of “Trump Not First President to Call HUD’s Block Grants Wasteful” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Disastrous Pick for National Intelligence Director

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It looks like Indiana Sen. Dan Coats will be confirmed by the Senate for the national intelligence director slot. On Wednesday, the Senate voted 88-11 to confirm Coats.

Coats advocates violating the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. He supported reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 702 is used by the NSA to justify mass collection of phone calls and emails by collecting a huge amount of data directly from the physical infrastructure of communications providers without a warrant.

As a senator, Coats voted against the USA Freedom Act. The legislation would have outlawed the bulk collection of data. He also believes law enforcement should be able to bypass encryption.

Despite this hardline, some members of Congress doubt he is tough enough.

“I absolutely understand that this role demands someone who can stand up to the pressures that will be placed upon him,” Coats said during his confirmation hearing. “Given the situation that we are facing worldwide in terms of these threats, we don’t have time just to be the nice guy.”

Or defend and protect the Constitution, apparently.

Coats also supports the continuation of the Guantanamo Bay torture center. He characterized a 2014 Senate report condemning the US torture program as “unconstructive.”

“I support that detention, which I think is done in a lawful way,” he said.

He disagrees with Trump on Russia. “Russia’s assertiveness in global affairs is something I look upon with great concern, which we need to address with eyes wide open and a healthy degree of skepticism,” he said during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

He also disagrees with Trump on the absurd contention Russia somehow influenced the election. “It’s publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia definitely did try to influence the campaign,” he said.

It should be obvious by now to even the most inattentive American that Donald Trump represents more of the same—more war, more out of control federal spending, and a continuation and expansion of the surveillance state. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Disastrous Pick for National Intelligence Director” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2 Federal Judges Block New Trump Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked President Trump’s “travel ban” executive order from taking effect as scheduled on Thursday, saying that the order discriminates against Muslims.

The rulings in Hawaii late Wednesday and in Maryland early Thursday excited civil liberties groups and advocates for immigrants and refugees, who complained that a temporary ban on travel from six predominantly Muslim countries violated the First Amendment. The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism, as the countries temporarily banned have the largest population of jihadists.

In Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang — who was appointed by then-president Barack Obama — called Trump’s statements about barring Muslims from entering the United States “highly relevant.” The second executive order removed a preference for religious minorities from the affected countries, among other changes that the Justice Department argued would address the legal concerns surrounding the first ban, which was also blocked in court. (Read more from “2 Federal Judges Block New Trump Travel Ban” HERE)