Posts

Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fake news or conspiracy theory? Or the most epic troll since Dan Rather was conned into accepting forged documents about George Bush? Or a hilarious amalgam of all three?

All elements of this story are as yet unknown, but what is unfolding has the makings of historical high comedy. Here’s a rundown.

Buzzfeed, a website whose specialty is celebrity tittle-tattle, asinine quizzes such as “Which ‘Pixie Hollow Fairy Are You?“, and get-skinny-quick-by-petting-cats articles, published a document, which they gave the graduated title of dossier, which purported to show how Russia, under the devious and genius scheming of Vladimir Putin, had been grooming and bribing Donald Trump for many years, and blackmailing him by threatening to reveal perverted sexual practices, so that Trump would be induced to enter the US Presidential election, win it by secret dirt supplied by Russian intelligence agents, and so place the once United States of America under the control of a foreign government.

Yes, really.

Even Hollywood would never believe a story like that. But many others did. Like, some allege, virulent Never-Trumper, and legacy Republican political strategist, Rick Wilson, the man who accused Trump supporters (this is, unfortunately, relevant) of being childless single men who masturbate to anime.

That disgusting comment is relevant because after Wilson made it, he became a target of ridicule across the Internet, including at the Wild West site 4Chan, a place were folks delight in trolling, which might be defined as pranking-with-intent. After Buzzfeed revealed their conspiracy theory, and probably because of the conspiracy theory’s reliance on certain perverted sexual acts and because of Wilson’s tie-in with sexual commentary, members on 4chan claimed that they were the authors of the dossier. The claim is that the dossier was fan fiction, and that it was leaked to Wilson who believed it and who then turned it over to the CIA. Wilson denies this. And it isn’t plausible 4chan hoaxed the entire USA intelligence community, but the fracas adds a delightful twist to the story.

A better angle involves Republican Senator John McCain, personal enemy of Trump. McCain was first given a copy of the conspiracy document, which he later handed over to the FBI because, he said, he didn’t “know if it is credible or not.”

How did McCain come into possession of the document in the first place? It is being reported he got it from Christopher Steele, an Ex-British Intelligence Officer, and member of Orbis Intelligence Limited, a company that performs “oppo research,” or opposition research, also known as the art of digging up dirt. Yet if it is true Steele is the author of the conspiracy theory, who paid Steele to create it?

The Wall Street Journal tried tracking down Steele, but they only discovered a colleague who told the paper Steele “would be away for a few days.” The colleague didn’t know where. Perhaps they should search in Phoenix, where Senator McCain has his official residence? Or maybe in a dim bar in Moscow? One wonders if Steele has a 4chan account. Never mind.

Enter CNN. That network presented the conspiracy theory as if it were true, and hinted with all possible strength that the US intelligence community also believed it was true, and that Trump had been briefed by “Intel chiefs” about the damning information Russia had on him.

Only it turns out that Trump was never briefed. Intelligence agencies had the document, which is now known to have been “originally generated as part of opposition research by anti-Trump Republicans and then shopped by Democrats,” but they “planned to show it as an example of disinformation campaigns.”

The tale grows stranger still, because Trump himself claims to have conducted his own “sting operation” to detect leaks from American intelligence agencies, an operation he says was a success, proving somebody was leaking details about his intelligence briefings. This has led to all kinds of rumors about bad feelings between Trump and the intelligence community.

Reacting to CNN and Buzzfeed, Trump said at a news conference Wednesday, “It’s all fake news. It’s all phony stuff. It didn’t happen.” The kicker is that when a CNN reporter tried to ask a question, Trump shot him and CNN down, saying “You are fake news.”

It will be recalled that during the election, CNN had given up any pretence of impartiality, openly touting Clinton and denigrating Trump. The network’s bias soon became so blatant that when a CNN crew was spotted, Trump supporters taunted them with cries of “Clinton News Network,” or worse.

Now that Hillary has faded from the scene, CNN has not given up its visceral hatred of Trump, and has proved willing to broadcast any information that might be damaging to Trump, even when that information has less veracity than an out-of-focus photograph which purports to show Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster.

The story isn’t over. The news on why Steele wrote the document, if he wrote it, and why, including who paid him for it, is bound to generate even more fun. (For more from the author of “Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Protesters Vow to ‘Shut down’ Inauguration, Related Celebrations

/0 Comments/in , /by

A coalition of leftist causes calling itself Disrupt J20 plans a series of organizing sessions, classes, protests, and other activities aimed at disrupting Donald Trump’s inauguration as president Jan. 20.

n appeals to “all people of good conscience,” Disrupt J20 seeks to bring thousands of fellow activists to Washington to join forces at American University beginning Saturday, six days before Inauguration Day.

“We’re planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations—the inaugural parade, the inaugural balls, you name it,” Disrupt J20 declares on its website, adding:

A coalition of leftist causes calling itself Disrupt J20 plans a series of organizing sessions, classes, protests, and other activities aimed at disrupting Donald Trump’s inauguration as president Jan. 20.

“We’re planning to paralyze the city itself, using blockades and marches to stop traffic and even public transit.” —Disrupt J20 website

In appeals to “all people of good conscience,” Disrupt J20 seeks to bring thousands of fellow activists to Washington to join forces at American University beginning Saturday, six days before Inauguration Day.

“We’re planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations—the inaugural parade, the inaugural balls, you name it,” Disrupt J20 declares on its website, adding:

We’re also planning to paralyze the city itself, using blockades and marches to stop traffic and even public transit. And hey, because we like fun, we’re even going to throw some parties.

Organizers plan early-morning “blockade actions” Jan. 20 built around such banners as “racial justice,” “trade justice,” “climate justice,” “economic justice,” “communities under attack,” “labor direct action,” and “anti-war and Palestine.”

This all must be cool because the communist Workers World is covering it. The Daily Signal has not found direct calls for violence attributed to Disrupt J20 organizers, who did post this definition of what it means to take “direct action”:

Direct Action is when you take collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person. We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose. Examples of direct action include the ongoing resistance at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the street and highway blockades of Black Lives Matter, or the occupations of public squares during Occupy Wall Street.

Anarchist-affiliated media sites such as Crimethinc.com, however, suggest the potential for violence.

“Some are calling for blockades at the checkpoints around the parade route, in hopes that Trump will ride into office in front of silent, empty bleachers,” Crimethinc wrote. “Others are preparing to rove the city, supporting and defending other protesters and responding to situations as they arise.”

Disrupt J20 does not disclose or identify itself with nationally known groups or major donors. It says the “direct action” planned is “supported by the work of the D.C. Welcoming Committee,” which it calls “a collective of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support.”

That group isn’t funded by any nonprofits and has no connection with any political parties, according to the website.

But Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Washington-based Capital Research Center, said he has found an indirect link with hedge fund manager and liberal philanthropist George Soros.

“George Soros is a major funder of Alliance for Global Justice, a radical left-wing group that collected donations on behalf of the Occupy Wall Street movement,” Vadum told The Daily Signal, adding:

Alliance for Global Justice is now functioning as a fiscal sponsor for a group called Refuse Fascism that is heavily involved in the Disrupt J20 effort. A fiscal sponsor accepts donations on behalf of unincorporated or small groups and charges a modest administrative fee so that donors can deduct the donations from their taxes.

Kelly Kullberg, a founder of the American Association of Evangelicals, told The Daily Signal she doesn’t know who finances such efforts to cause chaos on Inauguration Day but considers them dangerous:

This ‘progressive’ worldview and funding accelerate the erosion of traditional wisdom like faith, family, and even freedom. It is regressive, and many people suffer the consequences. This should concern every American. We deserve to know more about this funding and their false narratives. We deserve truth.

Organizers also offer a “legal guide” for protesters who encounter the police, including advice for protesters who are placed under arrest. A section titled “Bulls— cops will say” tells protesters that “cops lie a lot” and lists examples.

Disrupt J20 urges protesters to get started over the weekend by taking part in “Action Camps” from Saturday through Monday at American University in partnership with student groups there. These include a “racial justice” group called the Darkening, the Black Student Alliance, the Latino and American Student Organization, and the AU Student Worker Alliance.

American University spokeswoman Camille Lepre told The Daily Signal in an email that the school is neither prohibiting nor sponsoring the anti-Trump events being held in its facilities.

The camps also are set for Tuesday through Thursday at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Northwest Washington.

Topics of workshops include “Radical Cheerleading,” “How to Cop Watch,” “Nonviolent Direct Action,” “Know Your Rights,” “Street Safety,” “De-escalation,” and “Community and Workplace Organizing.”

Participants may join “Climate Convergence” workshops Wednesday and have the opportunity to “stand in solidarity with others working for migrant rights, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and more.”

Such different movements and organizations need to stand as one, according to Disrupt J20 organizers, because this way they can form a more potent force to “stop the rollback of progress” under the incoming Trump administration.

Disrupt J20’s “Call to Action” warns against the advent of a “security state” under Trump:

Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny. He is the champion of neo-nazis [sic] and white Nationalists [sic], of the police who kill the Black, Brown, and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email. He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war. He continues to deny the existence of climate change, in spite of all the evidence, putting the future of the whole human race at stake.

A group called the D.C. Anti-Fascist Coalition will host a sort of counterinaugural ball called the Protest the Fascist Alt-Right Deploraball on the night of Thursday, Jan. 19, at the National Press Club. Organizers say the event is being held as a protest of an inaugural ball for Trump supporters there.

Disrupt J20 plans its major events for Inauguration Day itself, beginning that morning in McPherson Square in Northwest Washington, where it asks activists to meet and regroup throughout the day. The website says:

We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The [inaugural] parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents.

The Democratic Socialists of America, in partnership with Disrupt J20, has scheduled a “Stand Against Trump” event at 9 a.m. at the northwest end of the square.

Other events include “The Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Fascist Bloc” set for 10 a.m. at the Francis Scott Key Memorial. (Be sure to wear all black, participants are urged).

A “Festival of Resistance” is set for Columbus Circle, in front of Union Station, where many out-of-towners will arrive for the official festivities.

Disrupt J20 organizers are setting up “Activist Housing” for the expected protesters, including “mass housing” at an unnamed local church.

“Please bring a sleeping bag and anything else you need to be comfortable,” they say. “We will post community guidelines that all utilizing the mass housing option will be expected to follow to ensure everyone’s safety.” (For more from the author of “Trump Protesters Vow to ‘Shut down’ Inauguration, Related Celebrations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump to Republicans: Act Swiftly to Replace Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday pressured fellow Republicans working to repeal Obamacare in Congress to pass a replacement for the healthcare law at the same time or soon after they vote to dismantle it.

Trump told the New York Times he wanted a substitute for President Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law done “very quickly or simultaneously” to the vote to get rid of it.

The law, popularly known as Obamacare, has enabled millions of previously uninsured Americans to obtain health insurance, but Republicans condemn it as a government overreach.

With Trump set to succeed Obama on Jan. 20, Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face a dilemma. They have a chance to make good on their promise to gut the law, but forging an agreement on a replacement plan has eluded them. (Read more from “Trump to Republicans: Act Swiftly to Replace Obamacare” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘MASSIVE, DIRECT ACTIONS’ Inauguration Security to Be Tight, Amid Protest Threats to ‘Paralyze’ DC

/0 Comments/in , /by

The stage is set for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration – not just the traditional swearing-in platform on Capitol Hill, but a massive security presence amid protest plans to “shut down” the nation’s capital.

Most crowd estimates for the Jan. 20 festivities are far short of the record-setting 1.8 million visitors for President Obama’s historic 2009 inauguration. But the throngs of spectators and protesters alike are enough to create transit, security and hospitality challenges.

“Security is my greatest concern,” Missouri GOP Sen. Roy Blunt, chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, recently said. “No question that on inaugural day, this would be the most appealing target in the world.”

He suggested the city could have as many as 750,000 demonstrators alone.

More than three-dozen law enforcement agencies are working together on security and safety plans in anticipation, including the Capitol Police, FBI, Secret Service and National Guard. (Read more from “‘MASSIVE, DIRECT ACTIONS’ Inauguration Security to Be Tight, Amid Protest Threats to ‘Paralyze’ DC” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Newt Gingrich Explains Why the Media Can’t Comprehend Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump’s successful candidacy is the result of an unequivocal disconnect between elite media and average Americans, says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Speaking Tuesday at The Heritage Foundation at the first of a six-part series on Trumpism, Gingrich explained how the media’s disdain for the American people ultimately led to Trump’s victory in November.

“Because the media had such contempt for the average American, they simply could not see what was happening,” Gingrich said.

Following his Heritage speech, Gingrich spoke to The Daily Signal about the divide that exists between the American people and the news media.

“There’s a huge gap between the world as reported by the news media and the world as it really exists,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich pointed to Hollywood’s display of hatred toward Trump at the Golden Globes as an example of the gap between Americans and Hollywood elites.

“Trump is anti-political correctness and that’s the heart of their self-delusion,” he said. “They think they’re wonderful humanitarians and they think they care about the whole planet. They don’t care about you, but they care about the whole planet. They cling together like a large collection of gerbils who all reinforce each other and the loudest gerbil the other night was Meryl Streep.”

According to Gingrich, Trump disrupts the left’s core identity of safe spaces, political correctness, and their vision of the appropriate behavior.

“It just was inconceivable to members of the establishment that someone this randomly noisy, running a campaign that was so radically different, articulating issues that were clearly politically taboo and at times engaging in behavior and language that was unthinkable to the establishment definition of appropriate leadership, that such a person could become president of the United States until it became a fact,” he said.

Gingrich said the biggest disconnect came from the media’s failure to cover the issues that resonated most with Americans, while instead scrutinizing the way in which Trump delivered his message.

“Because Trump’s substance was so out of the mainstream, it was defined by the establishment media as lacking substance,” Gingrich said. “The attacks at him were about his style not the substance. Voters were responding to the substance, while reporters and opponents were responding to how he said what he said.”

“The media kept saying this guy is noisy, he uses inappropriate language, he’s not clear and the average person would go yeah, but I get what he’s talking about,” he said.

Gingrich will return to Heritage on Thursday for part two of the Trumpism series. The speech takes place at 11 p.m. EST. (For more from the author of “Newt Gingrich Explains Why the Media Can’t Comprehend Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Meryl Streep Slams Trump’s Deplorables: ‘Let Them Eat Wrestling’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night at the Golden Globes in her speech denouncing Donald Trump and his voters, Meryl Streep reminded millions of Americans why we rejected Hillary Clinton, her party, and the media elites that tried to stuff Clinton down our throat. It’s also why Hollywood keeps making expensive politicized failures that choke at the box office, like the sordid anti-gun potboiler Miss Sloane.

We’ve suffered through eight long years of Obama’s preening, class-president speeches and empty, “virtuous” gestures. We have seen him and his designated successor fawned on by tame (debate-question-leaking) Ivy-schooled reporters and gorgeous, empty-headed celebrities. We know perfectly well that America’s media and political elites consider us the great unwashed, which is why they’ve been fire-hosing us for decades with toxic solvents like anti-male feminism, anti-Western multiculturalism, and anti-family hedonism.

And we’ve learned a thing or two. We’ve learned that pretty people who are talented at acting are pretty good at saying things which they know aren’t true — and doing so convincingly. After all, that’s their chosen craft. We’ve also learned how to recognize and dismantle the Elitist Lie 2.0.

That’s a whirring little time-bomb that lefties like to plant in every “narrative” they get their hands on, from Islamic terror attacks (they blame the truck, the bomb, or the gun — whose motives it is “too soon to determine”) to the kidnapping and torture of a handicapped Trump supporter (just kids being kids, where are their parents?).

Streep reached into her goodie bag and produced her own Elitist Lie 2.0, which she tossed out to America like a trinket we should treasure. This device has three active components:

1. A Phony Claim of Victimhood to Seize the Moral High Ground

In Streep’s speech she managed to cast as persecuted victims a roomful of fantastically overpaid actors, and the coddled film critics of Hollywood’s foreign press, who today are still picking through the goodie-bags they got from billion-dollar movie studios. She took up for these hapless victims as “the most vilified segments in American society right now…. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press.” From Streep’s account, you would think that cross-burning Klansmen were attacking movie theaters for showing films where interracial couples kiss, while Inquisitors burned piles of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker in public squares across America. What really happened? The Democrats lost an election. But that’s not supposed to happen.

Did Donald Trump threaten to end all immigration? No, he promised to enforce our democratically enacted laws that regulate the process. Did he campaign against “foreigners”? No, he warned of those criminal aliens who’ve evaded our laws, with the help of “sanctuary” cities and others who help aliens to flout the law. Has he threatened to infringe on the First Amendment, to silence the media which he considers biased? No, he has gone on Twitter to dispute things he disagrees with. Has Trump spoken of jailing those who criticize his position on immigration? Never — unlike Germany’s Angela Merkel, whose government has jailed those who oppose her influx of Islamists.

2. An Unearned Claim of Moral or Intellectual Superiority

Streep listed a number of actors from working class origins or foreign countries, and presented them as moral exemplars because of their “compassionate” performances which taught Americans how to “enter the lives of those who are different from us.”

Let’s try to unpack that. Apart from those who play themselves in cameos, every actor is paid to portray someone “different” from himself. And every movie we watch (apart from home movies) is about people “different” from us. That’s why it’s entertaining. All that Streep has done here is to describe what happens in drama — while trying to spin it as a form of heroic altruism. So the actors in 50 Shades of Grey were improving America’s moral tone by teaching millions of theater-goers about sexual activities that are “different” from what they’re used to — and those who made that movie should not just be highly paid, but considered part of a virtuous elite that is improving America’s ethics. Got it? We actors, by our very profession, are better than the rest of you helots.

Then she went on to peddle the false claim that President-Elect Trump mocked a reporter’s disability. That media myth is debunked in detail here. So Streep uses a false account of what a real politician said in his own defense while fighting for his political life in response to a reporter at America’s top newspaper, to cast Trump as a bully and moral monster, compared to those heroes of empathy (actors) who read the lines they’ve been given in the dozens of crass, trashy, manipulative movies that Hollywood dumps on the public every year.

3. An Implicit or Explicit Threat of Punishment

Standing atop the papier-mâché moral high ground which she claimed, Streep included a nasty, elitist little warning to the rest of America: “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.” Now, of course this is a jibe at the ignorant rubes which Streep imagines lowing and grazing in vast, lumbering herds between the Hudson River and Hollywood, staring slack-jawed at wrestling matches.

It’s also a threat: You common people need us, and if you keep voting the wrong way, we might just go on strike. We will turn up our noses at the million-dollar paychecks we collect for reading back the words that writers put there for us, and starve America of “the arts.” So watch your step, or we will walk. Seriously, that red carpet leads all the way to Canada. We mean it this time. …

These are people who voted, campaigned, and fund-raised for Hillary Clinton, confident that she could pack the Supreme Court with justices who would pluck every critical issue out of the grubby hands of voters. Meanwhile, our Meryl Streeps would offer cinematic carrots, and our Byerleys wield the stick, until every American learned to be worthy of his masters, or starved in rural obscurity.

Gotta love those Golden Globes! (For more from the author of “Meryl Streep Slams Trump’s Deplorables: ‘Let Them Eat Wrestling'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Senate’s Role in Confirming Trump’s Cabinet, Explained

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump won’t be inaugurated as president until Jan. 20, but his Cabinet choices begin to face confirmation hearings in the Senate this week.

First up for a committee hearing Tuesday is Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Trump’s choice for attorney general.

Those scheduled to follow in rapid succession include retired Marine Gen. John Kelly for secretary of homeland security, philanthropist Betsy DeVos for secretary of education, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to head the Transportation Department, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for defense secretary, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson for secretary of housing and urban development, and businessman-investor Wilbur Ross for commerce secretary.

The process for Senate confirmation of top presidential appointees is outlined briefly in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which guides lawmakers’ examination and approval or rejection of a president’s nominees.

This section of the Constitution famously requires that a president obtain “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” in making top government appointments. U.S. law and Senate rules also apply to the process.

Here are some general questions and answers about the process, based largely on multiple detailed reports (especially in 2012 and 2015) by the Congressional Research Service, which provides exclusive policy and legal analysis to Congress.

Who begins the confirmation process?

The president—or in this case, the president-elect—chooses individuals to fill Cabinet positions and other top posts in the executive branch.

Besides the vice president, an elected official who requires no confirmation, the White House identifies Cabinet members as the attorney general, who heads the Justice Department, and the heads of 14 other executive departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

The heads of other agencies also enjoy Cabinet rank and must be confirmed by the Senate along with hundreds of other top executive branch officials (detailed here). They include the ambassador to the United Nations and the U.S. trade representative, as well as the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Small Business Administration.

Members of the House and Senate may suggest possible candidates for the president or president-elect’s consideration, but such recommendations generally have no official weight.

Who screens candidates for these top positions?

In preliminary screening of potential nominees, a sitting president benefits from White House offices such as Presidential Personnel and Counsel to the President.

However, an executive branch agency, the Office of Government Ethics, offers an array of services and publications to assist a presidential transition team such as Trump’s—as well as individual nominees.

The FBI and the Internal Revenue Service also review a potential or formal candidate’s personal, political, and financial backgrounds.

The FBI typically does a background investigation and submits a report. The Office of Government Ethics, along with an ethics official from the relevant agency, reviews financial disclosures. If they find conflicts of interest, they may work with the candidate to “mitigate” the conflicts.

What happens in the Senate?

The Senate’s executive clerk refers the president or president-elect’s formal choice to the appropriate committee (sometimes committees) overseeing the executive branch department in question, such as State or Defense.

In the Congressional Research Service’s 2012 report, author Maeve Carey characterizes this as a crucial step:

The decision by a committee to report a nomination is critical: To be considered on the Senate floor, the nomination must have been reported from the committee of jurisdiction or all senators must agree to its consideration.

Committee members and staff review the various forms sent along with the candidate’s name and gather more in-depth information as they choose.

Opponents and supporters of the nominee often submit letters summarizing their views to the committee. The committee chairman schedules a hearing, during which each member of the panel may ask questions or make points.

For a committee to vote on reporting the nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, a majority of members must be “physically present.”

A committee may decline to act on a nomination at several points—after receiving it, after investigating the nominee, or after holding one or more hearings.

The committee has three options in voting to send a nomination to the full Senate: Report it favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.

Once a nominee clears a committee, with or without a recommendation, the Senate majority leader may schedule a confirmation vote on the chamber’s executive calendar.

If a committee declines to report a nomination, it is still possible in certain cases for the Senate to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote.

How many votes does it take to confirm?

“Most presidential appointees are confirmed routinely by the Senate, without public debate,” Carey and Henry Hogue write in the 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service, adding:

Other appointees receive more attention from Congress and the media through hearings, investigations, and floor debate. Historically, the Senate has shown particular interest in the nominee’s views and how they are likely to affect public policy.

Opposition from one or more senators may prevent a floor vote on a nomination that has come out of committee, because the rules require “unanimous consent” to consider and confirm a nomination.

If a nominee faces substantial opposition, the Senate majority leader may wish to end debate through a procedure called cloture. Under it, a simple majority of senators voting—normally 51—is able to limit debate to 30 hours and advance the nominee to a floor vote.

After the Nov. 8 elections, when they lost two seats, Republicans now have 52 seats in the Senate to the Democrats’ 46 (two Independents caucus with the Democrats).

It used to require 60 votes, not 51, to proceed to a floor vote until Senate Democrats changed the rules in 2013, except in cases of nominations to the Supreme Court.

A simple majority vote also is required to confirm, or approve, the nomination.

The confirmation process is fluid and open to adjustments, the Congressional Research Service notes. For a change to be adopted, however, a senator must propose it and the chamber must unanimously agree. (For more from the author of “The Senate’s Role in Confirming Trump’s Cabinet, Explained” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Trump Can Make Intellectual Property Great Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

On the path to making America great again, President-elect Donald Trump will have a tremendous opportunity to reverse the steady slide away from a property rights-oriented American patent system.

There are good reasons to believe a Trump administration will readily grasp this critical problem and work to revitalize the American patent regime.

First, someone like Trump who has succeeded so well on the world’s biggest stages in real estate development will readily understand the fundamental need for sound, secure, enforceable property rights. After all, you face huge risks and problems developing real estate if you haven’t first secured the rights to that property.

The same holds true for developing and commercializing an invention if you don’t first gain the rights to its intellectual property. It would be foolish to start down the path of commercializing a new wireless telecommunications technology, a cutting-edge implantable medical device, or a new biopharmaceutical therapy without first securing the proper patent rights.

It is vital to secure the freedom of innovators to operate by securing for them the relevant patents, or by licensing that intellectual property from the patent owner. Otherwise, innovators will be vulnerable to intellectual property infringement, which is akin to trespassing on or even stealing someone else’s real property.

Second, the restoration of strong, secure patent rights fits in with the Trump-Pence vision for making America great again: tax reform, regulatory reform, reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing, and rebuilding our military might.

While making corporations like Carrier and Ford Motor Co. curb their outsourcing strategies may do some good, it isn’t sufficient.

Revitalizing our system of patent property rights will incentivize massive private investment into the discovery, research, and development stages of innovation. These risky stages may take years to lead to commercialization, but they are essential for clearing the way for new inventions.

Only confidence in an enforceable right to your own inventions translates into the kinds of research and development that result in new manufacturing plants, good-paying jobs, and continued innovation.

Likewise, to strengthen national security, we must ensure that we create and produce in America the components and parts to our military and national security material and sensitive equipment.

Allowing China and other foreign countries the easy opportunity to steal American intellectual property or to install malware into computers that run our energy grids or warplanes, for instance, creates tremendous national security and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Trump gets this.

Similarly, the Trump administration could stand up for U.S. intellectual property rights abroad by threatening real consequences when foreign governments deny U.S. businesses due process, use questionable antitrust claims to devalue or to appropriate their intellectual property, or otherwise advantage their own domestic companies and harm American firms.

Third, Donald Trump Jr. has experienced the anti-intellectual property behavior of the anti-patent side. MacroSolve, a mobile technology firm that the president-elect’s son was involved with, found its patents being infringed by incumbent companies.

When the small company tried to defend its patents, the big companies invoked the “patent troll” smear and kept right on infringing—economically benefiting from the unauthorized use of the stolen technology in the marketplace while refusing to pay to license MacroSolve’s patents.

The younger Trump explained the problem in a 2012 op-ed in The Daily Caller:

Not every company that brings suit for software patent infringement is an exploiter. Some are genuine tech innovators with a real historical and financial investment in their ideas. To conflate these two situations, as many opponents of software patent litigation do routinely, unfairly maligns companies that deserve to reap the fruits of their labor.

The same can be said for legitimate inventors in garages, university labs, and corporate research and development people who are inventing the next immunotherapy, semiconductor, advanced material, or robotic device. Just as Trump Jr. learned, all these creators deserve the exclusive right to their inventions.

Fourth, when it comes to presidential administrations, personnel is policy—and several Trump picks bode well for restoring patent rights.

Certainly, Vice President-elect Mike Pence grasps the economic importance of Indiana’s inventive life sciences sector and other manufacturing. He values Indiana’s academic assets of invention and tech transfer such as Purdue University. Explaining the importance of the Bayh-Dole Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act—two landmark patent laws from recent decades—should resonate with Pence.

Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary nominee, considers intellectual property an asset on which a business or entrepreneur can raise capital. He also backs strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, and he understands the close link between manufacturing and invention.

Intellectual property expert Peter Harter recently catalogued Ross’ pro-intellectual property record in IPWatchdog, citing Ross’ “zero tolerance for [intellectual property] theft.”

Josh Wright, a former commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission, currently heads the Trump transition’s antitrust efforts.

Unlike antitrust leadership in the Obama administration, Wright has opposed using antitrust laws to devalue patents out of fear of an unproven theory known as patent holdup, which says the patent system threatens the rate of innovation in the U.S. economy. This theory lacks empirical evidence, and it should not hold sway in the Trump administration.

Thus, the incoming administration could well integrate strong patent rights for inventors—individual, corporate, and academic alike—into its overarching economic strategy. Returning our intellectual property regime and patent property rights to their roots would take us far toward making America great again. (For more from the author of “How Trump Can Make Intellectual Property Great Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Trump Can Rally Three Factions in Congress for a Historic First Year

/0 Comments/in , /by

Even those repulsed by the recent campaign will focus on Congress and the new President as “gridlock” gives way to — what? The political-science notion of “unified control by one Party” doesn’t begin to explain it.

If the U.S. had a parliamentary system, President Donald Trump’s coalition in Congress would consist of three distinct parties: (1) Economic Nationalists fed up with porous borders and sweeping trade pacts; (2) Conservatives and Christians who favor limited government, military strength, and religious freedom; and (3) Corporate-oriented Republicans ready to compromise on social issues and immigration.

Since all three wear a Republican label, we’ll call them factions. To win legislatively, the Trump Administration will need very strong support from at least two of those three — and no serious resistance from the one whose priorities are being diluted, delayed or denied.

Start with where all three factions are in-sync. Big changes in health insurance. Conservative judicial nominees and support for the police. Energy independence via more fracking and new pipelines. And major business tax relief including repatriation of profits from Fortune 500 subsidiaries. If Trump and the GOP-led Congress concentrated on these four zones, 2017 would be a historic year and the economy would rally.

Beyond that, critical differences take hold. Let’s move beyond “favor versus oppose.” The more enlightening question is: Which faction is excited about delivering on what issues and themes?

1. What drove the Trump Army? Evict the violent illegals, induce a lot of others to depart, and keep out undocumented saboteurs; along with “Buy American and Hire Americans,” all the better with hefty infrastructure spending. Top Republican legislators are not keen on any of that.

2. Conservatives remain solid: Reduce or contain spending on everything while also replenishing a hollowed-out military. Restore local control of K-12 governance while promoting school choice and religious freedoms. On tax changes, remember that families and small businesses have claims at least as strong as those of Silicon Valley, Boeing, and agribusinesses seeking cheap labor.

3. And the Establishment Republicans? For this faction, “excitement” is the wrong term. They measure success by moderating whatever can’t be avoided. Not just the lifestyle and moral issues, but pushing China on trade and currency issues, new spending commitments, and restricting the global autonomy of large U.S. companies. Especially in the Senate, key conservative as well as Trumpian priorities have senior Republican legislators jittery.

Social Decay — and How to Smoke Out the Federal Enablers

Readers of The Stream might also wonder: What about the underlying deterioration not addressed by the measures being talked about?

Since the Crash of 2008, 14 million Americans have left the labor force. That’s mostly aging Boomers, according to Mr. Obama’s Labor Department. Others know that the costs of a job — for the hirers as well as the hirees — are up against government transfer payments, quotas, mandates, and very liberal “disability” rules.

With traditional marriage under assault, America is turning into a tribal society, where millions of kids are everyone’s responsibility even as they have no respected source of authority to turn to. Meanwhile heroin-smuggling, addiction to pain-deadening medications, and the so-called recreational use of marijuana are at levels not seen in 40 to 50 years.

It’s true: Permissive policies and relativistic attitudes are sapping America’s vitals in ways that more pipelines and lower corporate taxes can’t touch.

But there’s one strategy that, using minimal resources, can thwart one of the most insidious threats to family cohesion and social resilience.

Describing belligerents in battle, Carl von Clausewitz wrote that “a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.” Well, not “all” — 2017 is too top-heavy for that — but enough.

Where does “politics meet culture” in ways that inflame moral as well as economic ills? It’s the Administrative State — law made by lawyers and bureaucrats never elected and relieved to be hidden. These folks are animated by secular materialism and sustained by social polarization. All of us got to sample their daily thinking in the Wikileaks e-mail mound.

Congress won’t eliminate the Energy or Education Departments. But tough GOP legislators can partner with the Trump White House and its Departmental heads to identify and defund economic and moral nihilism in federal departments and agencies.

To block the pollution of children’s minds? Identify the parts of the Dept. of Education that manipulate local content and block objective and effective teacher evaluations. Defund them.

To bolster family autonomy, rights and responsibilities? Haul up the lawyer-bureaucrats from HHS and the Justice Department; make them explain each and every regulation or locally-targeted lawsuit; and then defund the enforcement strategy and the offices from which it sprang.

Though energy is not a family issue as such, the same “search and defund” method will work for Secretary Rick Perry and his hardier congressional allies.

A governing majority of three distinct factions and agendas can deliver on some great things this year. But they’ll need to be evocative and compelling in their public case-making — and highly explicit behind closed doors. “Who does what when? Who’ll need to wait until 2018? And how do we not play games that could blow it up for all of us? After all, we’ve just seen what the other side can do with power. …”

Oh yes, the Democrats! Why did we say so little about them? Mainly because no one expects them to govern. They won’t be able to issue executive orders or set the House and Senate schedule.

Yet the Democratic Party, much better than their GOP rivals, understands Clausewitz’s point about “the hub of all power and movement.” They have a knack for applying force in ways that preserves ground — or blows up the train tracks — regardless of what public opinion favors. They’ll also be trying to make their own deals — with the new Republican President. The Republicans in Congress should remember that. (For more from the author of “How Trump Can Rally Three Factions in Congress for a Historic First Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Key Things to Know About Building Trump’s Border Wall

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump has legal authorization to move forward on his core campaign promise of building a border wall; he just needs the money to do it.

Trump said he still intends to require Mexico to pay for the wall, but needs congressional appropriation to expedite the process.

Here are four things to know about the border wall.

1. Legal Authorization

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized a 700-mile, double-layered border fence along the U.S.-Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

The measure had broad bipartisan support and passed the House by a vote of 283 to 183 in September of that year. It then passed the Senate a couple of weeks later with a vote of 80-19. President George W. Bush signed the bill on Oct. 26.

A fence might seem short of Trump’s promise of a “big, beautiful, powerful wall.” However, Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, a pro-border enforcement group, said he believes it is essentially in line with Trump’s pledge.

“Fence or wall or barrier, he called for securing the border,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “His campaign was about fulfilling the promise of the 2006 law.”

2. How Much of the Wall Is Already Built?

The first layer of the planned double-layered wall is a little over half finished, as is much of the fence to stop vehicles, but the second layer still has a long way to go.

In May 2011, President Barack Obama asserted the border fence is “now basically complete” because the primary and vehicle fencing has been built. PolitiFact said this was “mostly false,” because the secondary fencing was such a key aspect of the fence. When finished, the complete wall is supposed to be wide enough to drive a truck between the two layers.

The Department of Homeland Security has completed 353 miles of primary pedestrian fencing, which runs directly along the border and is intended to prevent crossings on foot. The department also completed another 300 miles of vehicle fencing, which prevents motorized vehicles from crossing.

However, just 36 miles of secondary fencing is finished. This fencing runs behind the primary fencing, usually separated by a patrol road that allows the Border Patrol to monitor the area between fences. Another 14 miles of tertiary pedestrian fencing, which runs behind the secondary fencing, is intended to prevent attempts to cross the border on foot.

Mehlman said these May 2015 numbers on the wall are the most recent, and are about the same as the 2012 numbers regarding miles complete.

The cost of building that much of the existing fence was $2.3 billion, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

3. How Will Congress Pay for It?

Since Congress doesn’t have to pass a stand-alone bill for the wall, the Republican majority reportedly intends to make it part of an appropriations bill that must pass by the end of April. Most media reports are not putting a finite figure on the cost other than in the billions.

The most ambitious estimate was $11 billion, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-border enforcement think tank.

She told The Daily Signal she expected it would be less, adding that number is small compared to the estimated $50 billion taxpayers spend each year on illegal immigration costs, from crime to welfare benefits.

Since so many Democrats, including Senate Democratic Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York, voted for the Secure Fence Act, Republicans reportedly believe they will have a political advantage in pushing the appropriation through. Further, Democrats won’t likely want to shut down the government over stopping the wall, according to Vaughan.

“I don’t think it will be politically difficult for Schumer or others to change their position on border security because so many have already done a total reversal on border security,” Vaughan said. “But shutting down the government, that is something they were severely critical of the Republicans for doing and this would be a popular bill.”

4. Could Mexico Really Pay?

For now, the Trump transition team is not getting into specifics as to when the Mexican government would cover the cost of the wall.

“There will be ongoing discussions with Congress on how to fund and organize [the wall],” Trump transition team spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Friday during a conference call.

The notion of getting some form of reimbursement from Mexico shouldn’t be outright dismissed, Vaughan said.

“It’s hard for me to see the Mexican government agreeing to write a check for the U.S. wall, but the Trump administration could find ways to extract revenue by withholding remittance, by seizing the assets of Mexican crime syndicates, or reducing foreign aid,” Vaughan said. “It’s not only Mexico. It could be other countries in Central America.” (For more from the author of “4 Key Things to Know About Building Trump’s Border Wall” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.