4 Big Indicators of What’s Next in Impeachment Process

As House Democrats’ impeachment probe moved forward Thursday, a star witness told Congress that “no quid pro quo” existed in the president’s dealings with Ukraine and the president’s chief of staff told reporters that politics typically play a role in foreign policy. 

Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union and one of those named in a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump, testified in secret Thursday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Mick Mulvaney, White House acting chief of staff, conducted a sometimes raucous press conference in which he said Trump sought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s cooperation with a Justice Department investigation related to the 2016 election. 

Both men answered questions and raised others as the impeachment process advanced. 

Here are four key indicators of what may be next.

1.  Chief of Staff: ‘Why We Held Up the Money’

Mulvaney provided what was widely perceived by Democrats as an admission of a quid pro quo in Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelenskyy. 

Trump and Zelenskyy talked broadly about corruption in Ukraine, he said, but allegations that a Democratic National Committee computer server is in Ukraine was part of that.  

“Did he [Trump] also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney said during the press briefing. “No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

The “money” the president’s chief of staff mentioned is $391 million in military aid to Ukraine approved by Congress but not yet delivered at the time of the phone call.

Mulvaney was clear that the administration didn’t withhold the funds because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the business dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter,   but, rather, potential Ukrainian corruption in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. 

Justice Department officials reportedly sought to distance themselves from the matter, saying they were unaware of any connection between cooperating with the probe and U.S. funding for Ukraine. 

By law, the congressionally appropriated money for Ukraine had to go out by the end of the fiscal year, which was Sept. 30. 

Asked if this were a quid pro quo, since the U.S. funding was conditioned on Ukraine’s investigating the Democrats’ computer server, Mulvaney responded: “We do that all the time with foreign policy.”

The president’s chief of staff appeared to be talking about how American presidential politics works, not just the Trump White House.

“We were holding up money at the same time for the Northern Triangle countries, so that they would change their policies on immigration,” he said, referring to the Central American nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

Mulvaney, a former three-term congressman from South Carolina, noted that Michael McKinley, a career State Department employee who recently resigned, had complained about politics in foreign policy. 

“I have news for everybody: Get over it,” Mulvaney said. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. … Elections have consequences.” 

The White House chief of staff stressed that such is the case with every administration that has policy goals. Trump never has made a secret about disliking foreign aid, he said. 

So, Mulvaney said, the president has no interest in spending American dollars on corrupt governments. 

“The look back at what happened in 2016 certainly was one of the things he was worried about in terms of corruption with that nation,” Mulvaney said.

After 6 p.m. Thursday, Mulvaney issued a written statement clarifying his comments during the press briefing.

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” Mulvaney said, adding:

Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.  The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. 

Multiple times during the more-than 30 minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately.  There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server – this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server. 

There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.

 2. Ambassador Recalls ‘No Quid Pro Quo’

Pushing a foreign government for assistance in a political campaign and withholding funding is wrong, Sondland testified before the House Intelligence Committee. 

However, the ambassador to the EU also stressed to lawmakers that there was no quid pro quo in Trump’s conversation with Zelenskyy. 

William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine “raised concerns” Sept. 9 “about the possibility that Ukrainians could perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President’s 2020 reelection campaign,” Sondland said in his prepared statement to the committee, adding:

Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. 

I asked the President: ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’ The President responded, ‘Nothing. There is no quid pro quo.’ The President repeated ‘no quid pro quo’ multiple times.

This was a very short call. And I recall the President was in a bad mood.

Sondland testified that his only agenda was the truth. 

“I understand that some people may have their own specific agendas: Some may want me to say things to protect the President at all costs; some may want me to provide damning facts to support the other side,” Sondland said in his written opening statement. “But none of that matters to me. … Simply put, I am NOT here to push an agenda. I am here to tell the truth.”

He admitted some frustration about the president’s personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giulliani, working on behalf of the State Department. 

Giulliani has led an effort in Ukraine that is part of a larger probe of the origins of U.S. government investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible involvement by the Trump campaign.

“Please know that I would not have recommended that Mr. Giuliani or any private citizen be involved in these foreign policy matters,” Sondland said. “However, given the President’s explicit direction, as well as the importance we attached to arranging a White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy, we agreed to do as President Trump directed.”

What Trump is being accused of would be wrong, he said. 

“Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong,” Sondland said. “Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings. In my opinion, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason.”

Text messages that showed Sondland told an envoy to “stop texting” are not a sign of a cover-up, Sondland told the House Intelligence Committee. 

“Any implication that I was trying to avoid making a record of our conversation is completely false. In my view, diplomacy is best handled through back-and-forth conversation. The complexity of international relations cannot be adequately expressed in cryptic text messages,” Sondland said in his opening statement. “I simply prefer to talk rather than to text. I do this all the time with family, friends, and former business associates.”

3. Pelosi: ‘Solemnly’ Proceeding

After a confrontation at the White House on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a press conference Thursday that Democrats are moving forward with the impeachment process. 

Pelosi, D-Calif., argued that this is not what Democrats wished to do upon being elected, and said they are proceeding  “solemnly.”

“The times have found us,” Pelosi told reporters. 

However, some House Democrats, such as Reps. Maxine Waters and Brad Sherman of California and Al Green of Texas, have called for impeaching Trump since 2017, his first year in office and well before the issue of the phone call with Ukraine’s Zelenskyy. 

Several freshman House Democrats, such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, were demanding Trump’s impeachment from the time they were elected. 

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has taken the lead on the Ukraine investigation, has come under fire for not telling the truth about helping the whistleblower in the case and for publicly reciting a fictional summary of Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian leader. 

Nevertheless, Pelosi told reporters she is “very proud” of Schiff’s leadership during the impeachment probe. 

4. Impact on Policy 

With the House tied up in Democrats’ impeachment investigation and potentially voting out articles of impeachment to the Senate, much of the government could grind to a standstill. 

Mulvaney said during his briefing that Democrats are accomplishing little with such a heavy focus on investigations of the administration. 

Nevertheless, Larry Kudlow, director of the president’s National Economic Council, expressed hope that Congress will approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. 

“It’s quite true that President Trump and Speaker Pelosi have some significant political differences,” Kudlow said. 

But, Kudlow said he didn’t believe the Democratic House would seek to deny Trump any legislative victory. 

“Down through the many recent months, Speaker Pelosi has been cooperative and sensible and helpful in setting up meetings and discussions with our team,” Kudlow said. 

The USMCA pact, if approved, would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, the 1993 trade deal that Trump scrapped in 2018.  

“Even though I know we have big political differences in the fall, there is a sense among both parties that this is an historic treaty,” Kudlow said.

The post 4 Big Indicators of What’s Next in Impeachment Process appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/35HZP3w
//

Read More

Boris Johnson Strikes a Brexit Deal

After days of optimistic leaks and rumors, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has done what the European Union said was impossible. He’s successfully re-opened the bad Brexit deal struck by former Prime Minister Theresa May, and won a new deal that is significantly better for Britain.

The light is now flashing green for Brexit.

The problem with May’s deal was that it was designed to trap Britain inside the EU’s regulatory orbit forever. In practice, it meant that Britain would have been locked into a customs union in goods—visible trade—with the EU.

That would have made it impossible for Britain to negotiate trade deals with other nations. Worse, it would have meant that Britain was, practically speaking, still ruled from Brussels.

No wonder the House of Commons rejected May’s deal three times, by historic margins.

Johnson’s deal is far better. After a 14-month transition period, Britain will completely leave the EU and the EU’s single market and customs union. There will be a special customs deal for Northern Ireland and its border with Ireland, an EU member.

This is the part of Johnson’s deal that will be controversial.

The arrangements for Northern Ireland, indeed, are not ideal, as they will be tied to EU customs rules while remaining part of the U.K. customs territory. But the deal does secure an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and give Northern Ireland the freedom to participate in whatever new trade deals the British government negotiates.

Above all, Johnson’s deal puts Northern Ireland in control of its own destiny. If Northern Irish lawmakers dislike the new arrangements, they will be free to reject them.

The scene now shifts to the House of Commons, where early indications are that the vote on Johnson’s deal on Saturday will be extremely close. Most Conservative members of Parliament are likely to vote in favor of the deal, but the Democratic Unionist Party, Johnson’s Northern Irish allies, have indicated they will vote no.

The europhile Liberal Democrats will also oppose. That makes the stand of the opposition Labour Party critical. If enough Labour members defect, Johnson’s deal will win. If not, it will lose, and the Brexit uncertainty will continue.

Labour hopes that if it can sink Johnson’s Brexit deal, it can run an election campaign on the theme that Johnson has failed to achieve Brexit. This is a transparent approach. It has nothing to do with the good of the country, and everything to do with party politics.

Johnson is on the verge of a truly historic achievement. He was the victorious leader of the Brexit referendum campaign, and he has now successfully renegotiated Britain’s exit agreement from the EU.

If he brings Britain out of the EU, he will rank as one of Britain’s great prime ministers.

The post Boris Johnson Strikes a Brexit Deal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2BmXUDo
//

Read More

Ukraine-Russia Prisoner Swap Renews Hopes for Peace Deal

Read More

Big Labor Said to Exploit ‘Weakness’ in State Laws Despite High Court Ruling on Dues

Labor unions are working with allies in state legislatures to counteract a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated mandatory union dues and fees for government employees, according to a new report from a free-market think tank.

In June 2018, the high court ruled that “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government employees to pay the union violate the First Amendment rights of those who object to the union’s political agenda.

“Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

But in the months following the Supreme Court ruling, the Commonwealth Foundation’s report says, “Big Labor” has sought to exploit “policy weakness” in state laws. 

One example, according to its report: “the lack of clear statutory language prohibiting or limiting union privileges such as release time, the payroll deduction of union dues and other political money, and the scope of collective bargaining.” 

Enactment of these privileges potentially jeopardizes the free speech rights of government employees while adding costs to state budgets, the Commonwealth Foundation argues.

“We are seeing that, post-Janus, government unions and their allies will capitalize on legislative majorities, political weaknesses, and vague labor law to create statutory protections for Big Labor,” the report says, referring to the high court ruling. 

On the other side of the ledger, “the more pro-worker and pro-free market, right-to-work states are less active in solidifying Janus and similar labor reforms,” the report laments.

The Daily Signal sought comment on the report from the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which counts about 180,000 members as the largest public sector union in the state. As of publication time, the teachers union had not responded.

Figures compiled from Ballotpedia show that, as of early August, 102 “Janus-related bills” have been introduced in state legislatures since the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory union dues violate First Amendment freedoms, the Commonwealth Foundation says. 

The majority of these bills include “union-backed policies” and seven bills “backed by labor leaders” have become law, the report says.

Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, was the lead plaintiff in the case that went to the high court. 

Janus discussed his experiences as a state worker during the August meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Austin, Texas.  ALEC, as the group is known, is a nonpartisan network of state lawmakers who support constitutional, limited government and it produces model legislation along those lines.

Janus warned that union leaders are making a concerted effort to “maintain their monopoly” by refusing to allow public employees to resign their union memberships. 

He expressed concern about the number of bills moving at the state level that could undermine his victory at the Supreme Court.

“We have a monumental task ahead of us,” Janus said.

Janus told The Daily Signal in an interview that checks and balances limit the power of organized labor in the private sector but don’t exist in the public sector.

“In the public sector, there are no checks and balances,” he said, adding:

The unions are negotiating with people who they helped to elect, and these elected officials can either go raise taxes or move items around in their budget or sacrifice needed programs. But in the private sector, there are checks and balances because companies can resist certain demands. They can move their operations, and they can also go out of business.

The Commonwealth Foundation report includes an online, interactive database of labor laws in all 50 states.

“This report warns that a Supreme Court decision is in danger of being undermined by politically savvy actors at the state level,” Charles Mitchell, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, said in a press release.

 “Advocates for workers cannot rest on their laurels and expect public employees’ newly restored rights to be respected,” Mitchell said. “States must pass laws that enforce and protect the Janus ruling.”

The Supreme Court’s Janus ruling affects about 5 million government employees in 22 states who no longer are required either to join a union or pay related fees as a condition of employment.

Pennsylvania stands out as one state working to implement labor law reforms that would bring it into compliance with federal law. 

State Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican, introduced a bill (HB 785) that would require government employers to notify workers of their rights. 

Pennsylvania also is home to court cases, including this one, involving public employees who allege their unions refused to allow them to resign their memberships. 

The post Big Labor Said to Exploit ‘Weakness’ in State Laws Despite High Court Ruling on Dues appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2PVJ5BT
//

Read More

An Illegal Immigrant Shot His Son Dead. Now He Hopes to Spare Other Parents His Grief.

Read More

Osama bin Laden’s Son Is Likely Dead. Here’s What It Means.

Hamza bin Laden, the son and heir of Osama bin Laden, is almost certainly dead.

While his demise has not yet been confirmed by al-Qaeda, U.S. officials have felt confident enough to brief media outlets that bin Laden was killed at some point after January 2017.

It’s unclear to what extent the U.S. was involved and exactly where the killing took place. However, for years, much of al-Qaeda’s central leadership have been lying low in northwest Pakistan.

There has been speculation for some time that Hamza, as the son of al-Qaeda’s former leader, was being groomed for a leadership role within the terror group in the years ahead. His profile was growing as he appeared more frequently in al-Qaeda’s propaganda output, calling for attacks in the U.S., United Kingdom, and elsewhere.

Though not a veteran warrior, Hamza bin Laden enjoyed star power within jihadist circles due to his father’s legacy. He potentially represented al-Qaeda’s future, so his death is clearly a blow to the terror network.

However, al-Qaeda has had to get used to losing key personnel over the last 18 years. The U.S. has killed and captured countless top al-Qaeda leaders—be they in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, or elsewhere—and yet the group has still managed to rebound.

So while this is a heavy blow to al-Qaeda, it is unlikely to be a fatal one.

That matters, because al-Qaeda is a group that still aspires to attack America. As recently as November 2016, al-Qaeda was thought to be planning a possible attack before the election. The U.S. responded by launching drone strikes against the group in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.

The Trump administration must remain committed to keeping pressure on al-Qaeda as part of a broader counter-terrorism strategy.

Undoubtedly, the administration has achieved success on this front. Destroying the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria was a particularly key moment. So, too, was the drone strike which killed the notorious bomb-maker Ibrahim al-Asiri, affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Still, the threat from ISIS rumbles on, and an array of jihadist groups continues to operate throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In addition, there are homegrown Islamist terrorists based within the U.S. who aspire to strike the homeland.

One such attack occurred in October 2017, when an Uzbek man killed eight and injured a dozen others by mowing them down with a truck in New York City.

Two months later, a Bangladeshi man attempted to carry out a suicide bombing also in New York City. While the bomb detonated, it thankfully didn’t claim any casualties. Many other plots targeting the U.S. have since been thwarted by law enforcement.

The U.S. needs to remain vigilant. It needs to keep identifying key terrorist leaders overseas, and then either kill or capture them. It also needs to keep a watchful eye on potential threats based within the U.S..

Thankfully, the U.S. has top-notch intelligence and law enforcement agencies who are up to the task.

But physical security is not enough. The U.S. also needs to work with key partners and allies at a state and non-state level to reduce the ideological appeal of Islamism.

The Islamist threat will come to an end only when the ideas that animate the movement are entirely discredited. Unfortunately, that’s the area where much work still remains to be done both in the U.S. and beyond.

Still, that is a task for tomorrow. Today, the U.S. can be thankful that Osama bin Laden’s hateful legacy will likely no longer be being promulgated by his son.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2Kcaz16
//

Read More

Pete Buttigieg’s Plans to ‘Fix’ Our Democracy Would Only Make Things Worse

During Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Pete Buttigieg proposed a raft of supposed “reforms” that have, until recently, been the provenance of fringe groups and politicians such as D.C.’s nonvoting Democratic congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

The South Bend, Indiana mayor said:

When I propose the actual, structural, democratic reforms that might make a difference—end the Electoral College, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up [the Supreme Court ruling in] Citizens United, have D.C. actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform—people look at me funny.

Those funny looks are well-deserved. Each of those proposals would harm the integrity of the constitutional republic that our Founders so painstakingly crafted.

1. The Electoral College.

Ending the Electoral College and moving to a national popular vote for presidential elections gained momentum on the left immediately after President Donald Trump’s victory.

While the idea of a national popular vote may seem appealing, it would be a disaster in a country as large and diverse as ours.

If we did away with the Electoral College, the trail to the White House would run through New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and that’s about it.

Popular elections push politicians to focus on the most densely populated areas. With limited resources and time, it just makes sense to camp out where the biggest concentrations of voters live.

Granted, most states get more or less ignored under the Electoral College system. Generally, candidates home in on tossup states, such as Ohio and North Carolina. But it’s much better for candidates to focus on these swing states than major metropolises alone.

Because these states are typically won by such small margins, candidates journey throughout the state, visiting both major cities and smaller towns, while hitting plenty of coffee shops and greasy spoons along the way.

Furthermore, by definition, “swing states” shift from election to election. It was not that long ago that dark blue California and deep red Arkansas were tossup states. With a national popular vote, big coastal population centers would dominate electoral politics election after election and “flyover country” would be continually bypassed.

2. Overturning Citizens United

The call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United in order to prevent American citizens and corporations from spending money on political speech is another misbegotten anti-speech idea that is, nonetheless, common among progressives.

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have a right to make unlimited independent expenditures—that is, expenditures that are not coordinated with any political party politician’s campaign—undoing Citizens United became a fixation on the left. But the Supreme Court got it right.

The connection between the freedom of speech and the freedom to reach an audience—which typically costs money—is clear. If freedom of speech does not include a right to broadcast our words, the First Amendment protects little more than our ability to mumble quietly to a small circle of friends.

Attempts to eliminate independent expenditures and super PACs also rests on the faulty assumption that political speech funded by one set of corporations and individuals (the ones who donate to super PACs) is perverse, while political speech funded by another set of corporations and individuals (the ones who own TV stations and newspapers) is just fine.

The dichotomy is senseless. Why should a puff piece on a candidate in The Washington Post (owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos) be considered journalism, where no campaign finance rules apply, while a TV spot paid for by a super PAC funded by another CEO and praising another candidate is an electioneering communication subject to federal law?

3. Making Washington, D.C., a State

Statehood for the District of Columbia would not affect presidential elections, since D.C. residents already vote for president, but it would allow the District to exert outsized influence over national politics.

The Founding Fathers created the District of Columbia because they understood that if they located the national capital in a state, that state would have extraordinary control over national politics, since nearly every federal officeholder would live and work there.

Such a state could use law enforcement officers and permitting offices, and leverage everything from tax policy to zoning ordinances to extort political favors and make life a living hell for political enemies.

Because the District is not a state, and, thus, does not have sovereign authority within its borders, Congress can strike down D.C. policies that interfere with the functioning of the federal government.

However, if the District were made a state, officeholders selected from across the country would be directly affected by its policies and would have little recourse to challenge them.

For those who think the D.C. government would be above playing politics in this way, consider a recent decision by Washington’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to hear an obviously frivolous challenge to the Trump Hotel’s liquor license (on the grounds that he does not meet the city’s “good character” requirement).

4. ‘Depoliticizing’ the Supreme Court

The call to “depoliticize” the Supreme Court sounds fine at first blush, until you realize it would do exactly the opposite.

Buttigieg, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and several members of Congress—including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.—have advocated increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 15.

It’s not as though 15 justices would be able to discern the meaning of the Constitution with any more clarity or hear any more cases than nine would.

So why change the composition of the court? The motivations aren’t particularly mysterious. Whoever holds the White House during such an expansion could handpick six justices.

In so doing, a progressive president could ensure progressive rulings for a generation to come. The idea is so radical and transparently partisan that even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the darling of the left, thinks it’s a bridge too far.

Let’s hope we hear more sensible policies for reform in future debates. While most would agree our politics are badly broken, Buttigieg’s prescriptions would do much more harm than good.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2YzZUFx
//

Read More

How Faulty Assumptions in Climate Predictions Could Mean Big Costs for Americans

Read More

Mario Lopez Vilified for Comments on Parenting, Gender Identity, and Believing Women

Read More

Why the Federal Reserve Has Done More Harm Than Good

If the Federal Reserve brought home a report card reflecting its performance since its creation in 1914, its parents would not be pleased.

Its record for stability is among the worst in the developed world, and it has done little to fix the problems it was invented to address.

Moreover, the Federal Reserve is far from the only way to assure stability in banking. As George Selgin of the Cato Institute and Norbert Michel of The Heritage Foundation persuasively argue on “The Bill Walton Show,” it may not even be the best way.

More provocative views on the Fed from Selgin and Michel:

• How the Fed contributed to, then botched its response to, the 2008 recession. Forget the idea that it was only about “greedy bankers.” If you want to learn what really happened, their explanation is lucid.
• Why an “independent” Fed has never been a reality and probably should not be the goal. We need our money to be politically accountable, but how to do this is a thorny issue.
• If America could print all the money we needed, we would never have financial problems, right? That’s modern economic theory in a nutshell, and Selgin and Michel explain why this very seductive idea is such a dangerous one.
• Selgin and Michel explain “quantitative easing” to me and how it’s painted the Fed into a corner. I sort of get it. See what you think, here on “The Bill Walton Show.”

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2ythGf6
//

Read More

Rep. Rashida Tlaib Gets Donation From Developer Who Died in 2009

Read More

Illegal Migrants on Way to US Border Down 39%, Mexico Says

The Mexican government says the number of U.S.-bound illegal migrants traveling through its country has decreased by 39% since May, a result of its bolstered enforcement efforts.

Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign relations secretary, said Tuesday that the number of mostly Central American migrants traveling through the country to reach the U.S. dropped from 144,278 in May to 87,648 in June, according to the Associated Press.

Ebrard specifically credited Mexico’s recent crackdown on illegal immigration, brought on largely by pressure from the Trump administration.

Faced with the threat of a 5% tax on all of its exports to the U.S., Mexico City agreed to send thousands more of its newly formed National Guard troops to its own southern border with Guatemala, a hotbed for illegal migrant crossings. It also agreed to more adamantly fight human smuggling and human trafficking operations.

“This is the first time we’ve heard anything like this kind of number of law enforcement being deployed in Mexico to address migration—not just at their southern border, but also on the transportation routes to the northern border and in coordinated patrols in key areas along our southwest border,” acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said in June about the bilateral agreement.

The number of illegal immigrants being encountered by U.S. Border Patrol agents has dropped since the agreement was enacted. 

Border Patrol agents apprehended or turned away a total of 104,344 illegal aliens in June, a 28% drop from the 144,278 encounters that took place in May—marking the first decrease in monthly apprehensions since January. 

Mexico also agreed to hold more U.S. asylum-seekers as they wait for their claims to be processed in an immigration court, a policy known as “Remain in Mexico.”

However, questions remain as to whether the Mexican government has the resources to provide shelter for the thousands of Central American migrants hoping to gain asylum in the U.S.

“Who is offered shelter? The ones who need it, typically families,” Ebrard told the Associated Press. “But not everybody is asking for it, I would say that more than half aren’t asking for it.”

Corruption among Mexican law enforcement is also becoming a major obstacle as the government attempts to tackle the flow of illegal immigration.

Nearly a tenth of the National Immigration Institute’s officers were under investigation for corruption or other allegations, according to Francisco Garduno, leader of the agency.

Garduno said around 400 to 500 internal affairs investigations were taking place within the agency, with some immigration agents previously accused of helping migrant smugglers.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2YCI9l3
//

Read More

Pro-Choice Groups File Lawsuit Over Missouri Abortion Ban

Read More

4 Things to Know About Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s New Chief for Lawful Immigration

Read More

What Those Decrying America’s ‘Endless Wars’ Are Really Talking About

From the presidential candidate debate stage to new think tanks, voices from both left and right are demanding an end to America’s endless wars. Only one problem: We’re not fighting any endless wars.

No matter. The endless-war warriors want us to do less on the world stage.

Even in this age of great power competition, these “new” isolationists would prefer America step off the playing field and wave from the sidelines. It’s a strategy that would work well for Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow—but not for the U.S.

No one is denying we’ve seen plenty of wars—and long ones at that. The U.S. has fought more than it ever wanted, including the global war on terrorism and related conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But America’s endless war days have ended—at least for now.

That’s not to say we don’t have troops in combat zones around the world. But, by any reasonable definition, America just isn’t at war.

We are, for sure, dealing with the aftermath of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq marked the end of that war, and he transitioned the effort in Afghanistan from all-out fighting to an advice-and-assist mission.

History supplies overwhelming evidence that weakness and indifference do not deter aggression and exploitation, they invite it.

Today, what America does around the world is pretty much what it has been doing since 1945—providing forward presence, deterrence, counterterrorism, training, assistance, and freedom of navigation. That’s important work and a heavy lift, but it ain’t war.

So what the carpers are really complaining about is not “endless wars” (an admittedly powerful albeit dishonest catch phrase), but U.S. foreign policy in general. So the question is: What foreign policy do they want instead?

The U.S. is a global power with global interests and responsibilities. That’s not a choice; it’s just who we are.

No one today is arguing that the U.S. can child-proof the world to make America safe. The overly ambitious efforts of the George W. Bush era clearly created as many problems as they solved.

But, walking away from problems doesn’t work well either—as the Obama team more than amply demonstrated.

They ended the war in Iraq. And, for that, we got a war with the caliphate. They ended the war in Afghanistan. For that, we got the resurgence of the Taliban.

The reset with Russia produced a war in Ukraine. Tried to buy Iran off, and that didn’t work. And they stood by as China moved to make the South China Sea its own and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un built out his nuclear arsenal.

President Donald Trump has tried to stake out a middle ground. He isn’t interested in being the world’s babysitter, but he is willing to stand up and demonstrate sufficient resolve to protect America’s interest. He has managed to do that—and finish off the caliphate—without starting any new wars.

So where are the endless wars? Or, more to the point, what’s so bad about this administration’s foreign policy?

Look around, and you’ll see Russia stonewalled in Crimea. Iran just failed to close the Straits of Hormuz. The DPRK is negotiating. The Stars and Stripes proudly sail the South China Seas, and there is nothing Beijing can do about.

Apparently, that’s not good enough for the end-the-endless-war warriors. They want us to do even less. But “do less” is a poor prescription for dealing with the world as it is.

History supplies overwhelming evidence that weakness and indifference do not deter aggression and exploitation, they invite it.

What America needs now are discussions about how to prudently exercise its power in a complex world: what’s the right balance of multilateral action, prodding allies, making compromises, and standing strong.

What we don’t need are politicians and pundits who suggest that, if America simply does nothing, our enemies and competitors will behave just as they should and everything will be just fine.

Trump’s foreign policy has been dramatically successful at rebalancing U.S. interests. It has not brought war, much less endless war.

To withdraw further from the world stage would only invite the world’s bad actors to take center stage once more.

Originally published by Fox News

The post What Those Decrying America’s ‘Endless Wars’ Are Really Talking About appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/303bqqe
//

Read More

The Hard Facts Behind Venezuela’s Oil Crisis

The citizens of Venezuela have gotten used to spending days parked in mile-long lines for state-owned gasoline as shortages worsened for the world’s largest oil producer.

In the capital of Caracas, hundreds of motorists waited in lines last month while carrying rocks and pipes to defend themselves as Venezuela’s socialist regime clung to power, The Wall Street Journal and others reported. 

Violent crime became common at fueling stations, and Reuters reported one instance of a man being killed.

A teenage boy lost his eyesight Monday after a policeman fired pellets at him during a protest of fuel shortages in Tariba in northwest Venezuela, The Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom reported.

Why the fuel crisis?

Sanctions implemented in January by the U.S. banned the sale of diluting agents used for transporting and processing crude oil to Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the country’s state-run oil and natural gas company. 

Amid the sanctions, U.S. allies also were “prohibited from doing business” with the state-owned entity, according to a report by Ana Quintana, a senior policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.  

The lack of fuel prevented citizens from going to work and farmers from delivering produce to cities, and led to the hoarding of fuel in homes despite the danger, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

In the face of already severe food and medicine shortages, the scarcity of fuel has perpetuated Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis. Some 90% of Venezuelans live in poverty, according to a report from the Council on Foreign Relations, which notes that 1 in 10 has deserted the country. 

The goal of the sanctions, the Trump administration argues, is to force Venezuela’s illegitimate president and dictator, Nicolás Maduro, from power and pave the way for interim President Juan Guaidó. 

Quintana writes that any future income from the state-owned company’s American subsidiary, GITGO, should be deposited in blocked accounts turned over to Maduro’s democratically elected successor.

Guaidó condemned the violence Monday that cost 16-year-old Rufo Valendria his sight, reported The Sun, which published a gruesome photo of the bleeding boy. 

“We will not get used to it, we will not stop calling them murderers … nor will we get used to the sadistic act against the eyes of Rufo Chacón, who also did not get used to living without gas in a country that had plenty,” Guaidó said. 

Opponents of the regime inside and outside Venezuela say the nation crumbled under “the government’s two decades of self-proclaimed ‘socialist revolution,’ which has been marred by corruption and mismanagement, first under the late Hugo Chavez and now under Maduro’s rule,” as the Associated Press put it.

Guaidó was elected and sworn into office in January by the National Assembly, the county’s single remaining democratically elected institution. 

The Maduro regime has not relinquished control even as dozens of countries recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s rightful president. The regime successfully uses fear to control dissent. 

Smuggling gasoline has become a trend. Gasoline bought in Venezuela is taken, by foot, across the border into Colombia, where prices are much higher, Al Jazeera reported Wednesday. 

The report describes a young man pointing to his clothing, filled with holes, and noting the price of bread and flour increases daily. “I am doing this for food, to be able to eat,” he told Al Jazeera.

Though Maduro cites sabotage as the reason for the recent shortages without showing evidence, declining investment and paltry oil production long have hurt Venezuela’s refineries. 

The regime implemented rations for gasoline, allowing citizens eight gallons a week in select states. In some towns, officials control gasoline sales by allowing those with certain license plates to purchase fuel only on specific weekdays. 

“We don’t even think about food,” one citizen told The Wall Street Journal. “What I want is gasoline because I can’t keep missing work.”

“The [Maduro] regime has bankrupted Venezuela and forced millions into poverty and exile,” Quintana writes, with Colombia bearing the brunt of hosting refugees. 

In her report, Quintana outlines steps the U.S. should take to pressure Maduro to turn over power: 

• Strengthen multilateral humanitarian assistance within Venezuela and in neighboring countries.
• Maintain and expand comprehensive sanctions against Maduro’s inner circle and urge other countries to reciprocate.
• Work with regional partners to seize the regime’s illicit assets and pressure it to leave office.
• Raise the cost on the Cuban government for its role in Venezuela’s crisis.
• Urge countries that recognize Guaidó as interim president to allow only his administration to have access to Venezuelan state assets within their jurisdictions.

The post The Hard Facts Behind Venezuela’s Oil Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2XLowe7
//

Read More

A Nation Worth Lauding

This week, as Americans commemorate Independence Day and the creation of the most free, most prosperous nation on earth, we will inevitably hear from those who say there’s no reason to celebrate a country where not everyone gained their freedom or their equality in 1776.

They will say that a nation stained with the evil of slavery, a nation that once refused women and blacks the right to vote or hold property, isn’t a nation worth lauding.

As a woman and as a black person who lived through segregation, I have experienced both the inequality and the opportunity of this nation.

As a student of history and as someone who works with governments around the world, I know how women and minorities are treated in other societies compared to the United States.

Because of these experiences, I want to tell you exactly why America is worth celebrating.

Despite their flawed nature as human beings, our Founders laid out principles for forming a nation based on humanity’s highest ideals. Nowhere else on earth had that ever been done before.

Those founding principles have guided this nation and created a framework that allows society to recognize the error of its ways.

The fact is, we abolished slavery. We even fought a war over it. We ultimately recognized women’s and minorities’ right to vote, to own property, and to have the full and equal rights of any other citizen.

We have endeavored through our laws and our actions to eradicate the unequal treatment and marginalization of fellow Americans because of their ethnicity, religion, politics, or other characteristics.

July 4, 1776—and the principles that day epitomized—began the foundation for a nation that would right its own wrongs.

The unfortunate reality is that we had to grow into our principles. The Founders knew what we aspired to be, but the country wasn’t there yet and even today, we still have a ways to go.

In fact, every Founder admitted in his writings that slavery contradicted the equality principle of the Declaration of Independence.

They knew that it would be a journey for us to fully realize our ideals, but they set a course for achieving them, and every generation since has been working to advance them.

That’s what has made America the unique and wonderful nation that it is.

I love America not only because we’ve grown to rectify many of our wrongs, but also because we’ve been an incredibly positive force for good.

We’ve built a free and prosperous nation where anyone has the opportunity to thrive and live out their dreams. We’ve also shared that gift with the world, helping others to achieve the same.

Despite that success, we continue to hear from the “America is irreparably flawed” crowd that our freedom and free market system only bring opportunity to the wealthy and well connected. They claim that the system just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The reality is exactly the opposite: Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.

Plain and simple, over the last 25 years, it has been free markets that have cut the global poverty rate by two-thirds.

In the United States, every segment of the population—including women, minorities, and even the lowest income earners—have seen their incomes rise and their opportunities grow.

Realizing that people around the world deserve the same blessings of freedom and prosperity that we have, Americans work through our government, nonprofits, and private charities to spread these blessings to other countries.

We’ve even helped others fight for their very freedom—from both world wars to peacekeeping missions around the world.

Despite the leftists who call our nation imperialist, when we help other countries defeat tyrants or repel invaders, we don’t use the opportunity to conquer them and build an empire. Rather, we help them to rebuild and become self-sufficient.

These are all proofs of a nation reaching for its highest ideals.

While it took too long to correct many of America’s early injustices, and while we will always be a work in progress, our founding principles themselves created the framework that has allowed us to solve some of our biggest issues.

While not perfect, we are a great force for good that works to bring freedom, prosperity, and that problem-solving ability to our own land and to others that want to replicate them. This is all part of what we are celebrating on Independence Day.

Alexis de Tocqueville said admiringly of America, “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” His words still ring true almost 200 years later.

So, on this Independence Day, I encourage you to join me in watching fireworks, eating hot dogs and apple pie, proudly celebrating America, and continuing to work toward the vision of the nation our Founders thought we could be.

Happy Independence Day!

Originally published in The Washington Times.

The post A Nation Worth Lauding appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2YwAWnc
//

Read More

Debate Over July Fourth DC Festivities Shows How Out of Touch Elites Are

Read More

‘Let Us Provide Our Own Security’: Virginia Beach Manager Petitions for Guns at Work

Read More

How the Trump Administration Is Reining in the EPA’s Union

The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new collective bargaining agreement last week that has outraged the main labor union representing EPA employees.

According to the president of the union—the American Federation of Government Employees—the EPA is “trampling on federal employees’ rights and ignoring the law” with the new agreement.

So what are the draconian provisions that have the union so exercised?

Well, perhaps the biggest change is that EPA employees will have an automatic right to work from home only one day a week instead of two. But the reason the union is up in arms has less to do with working conditions and more to do with losing its own taxpayer-financed perks.

Unlike private-sector unions, which have to charge their members (including some forced members) full price in order to finance themselves, federal employee unions are in large part financed by taxpayers who pay for all sorts of things, such as union office space within government buildings.

Tax dollars have even paid for federal workers to spend up to 100% of their time working for their union.

The new collective bargaining agreement brings an end to that. It cuts union office space in federal buildings and the use of conference rooms, internet, and other amenities, all of which the union used to receive totally free of charge.

The Trump administration is also taking on the EPA union’s most generous subsidy: taxpayer-funded manpower.

Under the old collective bargaining agreement, the EPA allowed employees to conduct union business during regular working hours while being compensated at their regular wage—a practice that is common throughout the federal government, called “official time.” 

Indeed, many employees spend their entire workday doing union business and never doing what their actual job title suggests. These employees are, for all intents and purposes, full-time union reps being paid a government wage to not do their job.

Often, the employees that do this are among the most highly trained and highly paid. For instance, until recently, the Department of Veterans Affairs paid 400 physicians, dentists, nurses, and physician assistants to work for the union instead of helping veterans.

The new agreement between the EPA and the employee union does not completely do away with official time, but it does curtail it significantly.

Employees at the agency will now be required to do the job they were hired to perform 75% of the time they are on the clock. And, to prevent the union from simply spreading the same amount of official time across more employees, the new agreement caps the agency-wide total of official time as well.

The agreement also limits the sort of activities federal employees can do while on official time. Under the new agreement, employees will not be able to use official time to combat disciplinary actions taken by EPA management and supervisors unless they are defending themselves.

This does not mean the union can’t defend its members. It just means it has to spend its own membership dues, rather than taxpayer dollars, to perform these services.

Of course, the American Federation of Government Employees—the largest federal employee union, which donated $9.5 million to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle compared to only $100,000 for Republicans—would prefer to use its membership dues for other things.

The union complains that all of these provisions were unilaterally imposed by the administration. And to some extent, it’s right. It did not agree to these terms. But that’s because it walked away from the negotiating table years ago.

Federal law demands that both the agency and the union engage in collective bargaining in a good-faith effort to reach an agreement. In this case, the union did not even come close.

In fact, the union walked away from negotiations before they even began, refusing to negotiate unless the agency accepted a set of “ground rules” that protected every substantive provision of the old agreement. That was unrealistic and hardly in good faith.

This is becoming a familiar story by now. Federal employee unions are currently in the midst of legal battles over collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration.

If they get in front of the right judge, they just might win. Even when the law isn’t on their side, they have a strong track record of winning in front of activist Obama-appointed judges.

But, in the long run, the union’s all-or-nothing tactics are doomed to fail. Public-sector unions in general, and the American Federation of Government Employees in particular, do their members no favors by refusing to engage in any serious conversation with agency leadership about the state of the civil service.

Good government groups on both sides of the political aisle are dialoguing about how to update a decades-old bureaucracy built for a bygone era. Not since the 1970s has there been more bipartisan agreement that serious reform is needed.

Labor unions are not part of this exchange, however, because they prefer to throw bombs and cold water than offer any practical solutions. The reform agenda that is currently galvanizing in their absence will soon blindside them.

The climate has changed, and the EPA fight is just the beginning.

The post How the Trump Administration Is Reining in the EPA’s Union appeared first on The Daily Signal.

from The Daily Signal https://ift.tt/2xvHLd3
//

Read More