The Wire

  • VIDEO: Bill Hightower for Governor airs its first TV ad

    State Sen. Bill Hightower (R-Mobile) will air his first TV ad in his campaign for governor next week. An advance look at the commercial, which focuses on term limits, a flat tax and cutting spending, can be seen here:

  • President Trump threatens to veto federal budget because it doesn’t fully fund border wall

  • Alabama Rep. Roby’s re-election campaign nabs endorsements from pro-business groups

    Excerpt from a campaign news release:

    “Martha Roby continues to do an outstanding job for the hardworking people of Alabama. Her steadfast support has allowed job creation and an environment where people can do better for themselves and their families.”
    Alex Whaley, II, Alabama Associated General Contractors PAC

    “As the voice of small business, NFIB knows good small business policy starts with electing good small business candidates. Therefore, Martha Roby’s reelection is critical to the small businesses in Alabama’s Second District, and we look forward to working with you on the issues most important to them.”
    Sharon Sussin, National Political Director, National Federation of Independent Business Fed PAC

3 days ago

Sessions to address black law enforcement group in Alabama

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) speaks at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be in his home state of Alabama this week to address a black law enforcement group that is sometimes at odds with the Trump administration.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Birmingham says Sessions will speak to the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives on Friday.


The group has been critical of President Donald Trump for his disparaging comments about immigrants from Africa and Haiti. It has also criticized Trump’s move to let police agencies obtain surplus military equipment.

The organization opposed Trump’s pardon of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio (ahr-PY’-oh) and noted Sessions’ past opposition to clemency.

Sessions will speak at a meeting that includes numerous large-city police chiefs and Justice Department officials.

Sessions was a U.S. senator from Alabama before joining the administration.

(Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)

3 days ago

Paris Climate agreement ‘somewhere between a farce and a fraud’ says Manhattan Institute senior fellow

President Trump’s pick to be the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is not a fan of the Paris climate agreement, the treaty that claims it will slow global warning by reducing the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Politicians from most of the world’s nations signed the deal, and President Obama said “we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”

That’s dubious.


Trump wisely said he will pull America out of the deal. He called it a “massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

Unfortunately, Trump often reverses himself.

The climate change lobby has been trying to change Trump’s mind. Al Gore called his stance “reckless and indefensible.” Most of the media agree. So do most of my neighbors in New York.

That’s why it’s good that Pompeo opposes the Paris deal. Such treaties are State Department responsibilities. Pompeo is more likely to hold Trump to his word than his soon-to-be predecessor Rex Tillerson, who liked the agreement.

The Paris accord is a bad deal because even if greenhouse gases really are a huge threat, this treaty wouldn’t do much about them.

I’ll bet Al Gore and most of the media don’t even know what’s in the accord. I didn’t until I researched it for this week’s YouTube video.

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass is the rare person who actually read the Paris accord.

Cass tells me it’s “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” I interviewed him for a video project I am doing with City Journal, a smart policy magazine that often makes the case for smaller government. “You don’t even have to mention greenhouse gases in your commitment if you don’t want to. You send in any piece of paper you want.”

The Paris accord was just political theater, he says. “They stapled it together and held it up and said, ‘This is amazing!'”

The media announced that China and India made major commitments.

In truth, says Cass, “They either pledged to do exactly what they were already going to do anyway, or pledged even less. China, for instance said, ‘we pledge to reach peak emission by about 2030.’ Well, the United States government had already done a study to guess when Chinese emissions would peak, and their guess was about 2030.”

In other words, China simply promised to do what was going to happen anyway.

“China was actually one of the better pledges,” says Cass. “India made no pledge to limit emissions at all. They pledged only to become more efficient. But they proposed to become more efficient less quickly than they were already becoming more efficient. So their pledge was to slow down.”

It’s hard to see how that would help the planet.

“My favorite was Pakistan, whose pledge was to ‘Reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions,'” says Cass. “You can staple those together, and you can say we now have a global agreement, but what you have is an agreement to do nothing.”

However, Cass says one country did make a serious commitment. “The one country that showed up in Paris with a very costly, ambitious target was the United States. President Obama took all the zero commitments from everybody else but threw in a really expensive one for us.”

Obama pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent. If that ever happened, it would squash America’s economy.

Nevertheless, when Trump said he was leaving the Paris accord, he was trashed by politicians around the world.

The UK’s Theresa May was “dismayed,” and Obama said, “This administration joins a handful of nations that reject the future.”

Cass counters that if “the future is worthless climate agreements … we should be proud to reject.”

Don’t get me wrong: The Earth has been warming, and humans probably contribute to it.

But the solution isn’t to waste billions by making emissions cuts in America while other countries do nothing.

Trump was right to repudiate this phony treaty. It’s good that Pompeo is around to remind him of that.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.” For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit

(Image: Oren Cass/Twitter & Wikicommons)

(JFS Productions, copyright 2018)

1 week ago

Until Democrats come to grips with why Hillary lost, Trump will keep winning

Last weekend, Hillary Clinton spoke in India. There, she continued to struggle publicly with the most humiliating experience of her life, not her husband’s continual sexual misconduct or her State Department’s mishandling of Benghazi but her loss of the presidency to a reality television show host. Hillary’s not over it. And she never will be.

That much was obvious from her incredible, palpable anger at the American public. She first explained that Trump voters are stupid poor people: “what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”


But Clinton wasn’t done. She then stated that Trump voters are ignoramuses who still stumble out to their outhouses in the middle of the night and stoop over a hole in the ground while reading old copies of Ku Klux Klan newsletters. Those people, she said, fell prey to Trump’s racist “Elmer Gantry” pitch: “you didn’t like black people getting rights. You don’t like women … getting jobs. You don’t want to … see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

For good measure, Clinton tore into women who voted for Trump as well — and suggested that they are all little Tammy Wynettes standing by their men. “(W)e don’t do well with married white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.” Yes, women who voted Republican only did so because they are afraid that ol’ Bob is going to come home, get the beatin’ stick out of the closet and start a-whoopin’ and a-whalin’ on the little woman.

And then, Democrats wonder why they had trouble winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Here’s the reality: None of this is true. The average Trump voter outearned the average Clinton voter, and 86 percent of Trump voters were employed, about the same percentage as Clinton voters. Tribalism in voting exists on both sides: The intersectional politics of the Democratic Party is inherently race based, and Trump successfully responded to that sort of politics in reactionary fashion. As to the notion that married women didn’t vote for Clinton because of their husbands, 52 percent of married women voted for Trump; 53 percent of married women voted Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, and 51 percent voted for Republican candidate John McCain in 2008. Married women vote differently than single women not because of pressure from their menfolk but because they often have children, value family over career more than single women and are older than single women on average.

But here’s the point: Clinton represents a nasty, vengeful take on populations she has trouble winning over. That nastiness has filtered through the Democratic Party, which is firmly convinced that it’d be better off drilling down into population groups it thinks are interested in tearing down the system along with them than reaching out to populations it has lost. If Democrats continue with that quest, they’ll alienate the very voters who gave Trump victory in 2016.

(Image: MSNBC/YouTube)

Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief of

(Creators, Copyright 2018)

2 weeks ago

Trump’s Tariffs: Seen beneficiaries, unseen victims

There are a couple of important economic lessons that the American people should learn. I’m going to title one “the seen and unseen” and the other “narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs.” These lessons are applicable to a wide range of government behavior, but let’s look at just two examples.

Last week, President Donald Trump enacted high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Why in the world would the U.S. steel and aluminum industries press the president to levy heavy tariffs? The answer is simple. Reducing the amounts of steel and aluminum that hit our shores enables American producers to charge higher prices. Thus, U.S. steel and aluminum producers will earn higher profits, hire more workers and pay them higher wages. They are the visible beneficiaries of Trump’s tariffs.


But when the government creates a benefit for one American, it is a virtual guarantee that it will come at the expense of another American — an unseen victim. The victims of steel and aluminum tariffs are the companies that use steel and aluminum. Faced with higher input costs, they become less competitive on the world market. For example, companies such as John Deere may respond to higher steel prices by purchasing their parts in the international market rather than in the U.S. To become more competitive in the world market, some firms may move their production facilities to foreign countries that do not have tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. Studies by both the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition show that steel-using industries — such as the U.S. auto industry, its suppliers and manufacturers of heavy construction equipment — were harmed by tariffs on steel enacted by George W. Bush.

Politicians love having seen beneficiaries and unseen victims. The reason is quite simple. In the cases of the steel and aluminum industries, company executives will know whom to give political campaign contributions. Workers in those industries will know for whom to cast their votes. The people in the steel- and aluminum-using industries may not know whom to blame for declining profits, lack of competitiveness and job loss. There’s no better scenario for politicians. It’s heads politicians win and tails somebody else loses.

Then there’s the phenomenon of narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. A good example can be found in the sugar industry. Sugar producers lobby Congress to place restrictions on the importation of foreign sugar through tariffs and quotas. Those import restrictions force Americans to pay up to three times the world price for sugar. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that Americans pay an extra $2 billion a year because of sugar tariffs and quotas. Plus, taxpayers will be forced to pay more than $2 billion over the next 10 years to buy and store excess sugar produced because of higher prices. Another way to look at the cost side is that tens of millions of American families are forced to pay a little bit more, maybe $20, for the sugar we use every year.

You might wonder how this consumer rip-off sustains itself. After all, the people in the sugar industry are only a tiny percentage of the U.S. population. Here’s how it works. It pays for workers and owners in the sugar industry to come up with millions of dollars to lobby congressmen to impose tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar. It means higher profits and higher wages. Also, it’s easy to organize the relatively small number of people in the sugar industry. The costs are borne by tens of millions of Americans forced to pay more for the sugar they use. Even if the people knew what the politicians are doing, it wouldn’t be worth the cost of trying to unseat a legislator whose vote cost them $20 a year. Politicians know that they won’t bear a cost from sugar consumers. But they would pay a political cost from the sugar industry if they didn’t vote for tariffs. So they put it to consumers — but what else is new?

(Image: President Donald J. Trump signs the Section 232 Proclamations on Steel and Aluminum Imports. White House/Flickr)

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


3 months ago

Mistakes and biases exist, but conservatives should root for news media’s success in 2018



(Opinion) Many national news media made many mistakes in covering President Trump and Republicans in his first year. Too many mistakes, in fact, to simply write off as honest errors. Over the past few days, numerous editorial writers and contributors at the Washington Examiner have been reflecting on the media failures of 2017, while offering solutions to improve this year’s coverage.

Here’s a quick observation I gathered from these thoughtful media critiques, as well as a suggestion to conservatives which I think, if accepted, will help conservatism prosper in 2018:

The news media is extremely important, and conservatives ought to root for its success for conservatism’s sake.

First, whether conservatives like it or not, CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times have a very wide audience. Many Americans turn to them for news, relying on their editorials and other columns to develop their own opinions. There’s a tendency in conservatism, particularly among Republican politicians, to take this for granted and to assume that these media’s bad or biased coverage is realized by enough people. It’s not, as responses to the recently passed tax reform bill demonstrate.

Overall, the Republican tax reform package is good economic policy, of the sort that many non-conservative politicians used to support, including President Obama. Non-conservative taxpayers would also appreciate what the tax bill does for them, if not for its distorted presentation in the media. I’ve read countless editorials blasting Republicans for raising low and middle-income taxpayers’ liability, an entirely disingenuous analysis of the bill.

Accuracies, mistakes and all, the media and the work they do are highly consequential. The president and others (mostly the president) wish that the Times would die and CNN would go bankrupt, but neither is going away. Rather than rooting for their failure, conservatives ought to implore them to do a better job. It’s their policies at stake.            

Conservatives must continue critiquing the news media, but refrain from making it a central political argument in 2018.

Too many conservatives, I think, revel in errors like the one Brian Ross committed over at ABC, because it furthers their argument that the media sucks. Hoping it will help their political case, conservative politicians and pundits often turn to such media failures as fuel.

I do sympathize with the president and his media bashing reflex, considering most of their failures directly relate to him. Although, I don’t think the president sympathizes with himself. From what I can tell, he welcomes the fight, either because he likes conflict, expects it will help him politically, or both.

If President Trump’s meager approval rating improves this year, it will be because more voters embrace his policies, not because they realize the media has been after him all along.

Media fail, sometimes simply because its people make mistakes, but more often because so many have biases which cause them to publish pre-determined conclusions, or to conclude things that shouldn’t be concluded at all. They also get a lot of things right. Conservatives must recognize failures and address them, while maintaining a measured approach because media coverage isn’t zero-sum.

Jeremy Beaman is a Yellowhammer News contributor in his final year at the University of Mobile. He also writes for The College Fix.

Follow him on Twitter @jeremywbeaman and email him at

3 months ago

Did the FBI conspire to stop Trump?

Former FBI Director James Comey and President Donald J. Trump (Wikicommons)
Former FBI Director James Comey and President Donald J. Trump (Wikicommons)



The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?

Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?

A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.

Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.

Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?

Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here:

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.

Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.

On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton — to discuss golf and grandkids — seconded Comey’s decision.

And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?

First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.

Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” — the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.

Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.

After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.

Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.

One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.

Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.

For there a Russian connection has been established.

Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.

And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?

Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.

Let’s review the bidding.

The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.

In Dec. 26’s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”

If this is true, a critical question arises:

Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?

Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.

Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.

Is history repeating itself — with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United States?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


3 months ago

In its first year, Trump’s Interior Dept claims its legacy ‘second only to Teddy Roosevelt’

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr & Wikicommons)
(Gage Skidmore/Flickr & Wikicommons)



The Interior Department (DOI) has published a list of its accomplishments during President Donald Trump’s first year in office based on 10 principles, which include conservation, tribal sovereignty and responsible development.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s top priority is to “[c]reate a conservation stewardship legacy, second only to Teddy Roosevelt,” according to a DOI press release. The DOI said that goal had been met though a decision to increase access to public lands.

The DOI said it met this goal by opening “public access to the Sabinoso Wilderness which contains some of the most pristine sportsmen opportunities in the country” and expanding “hunting and fishing access on 10 National Wildlife Refuges,” as well as defending “a mineral withdrawal near the Grand Canyon and supports a withdrawal north of Yellowstone.”

All in all, the DOI has been one of the most successful of the Trump administration agencies, largely implementing the president’s plan to end the “war on coal” and promote “energy dominance.” The administration also put an emphasis on expanding access for sportsmen.

Zinke reversed several Obama administration policies he believed harmed public access to federal lands, including rescinding a ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackles and signing an order to expand hunting and fishing access.

The Trump administration also moved to expand offshore oil and gas exploration, as well as wind energy use, and review the Obama-era decision to protect the Sage Grouse by putting millions of acres of land under stricter federal control.

“The President promised the American people that their voices would be heard and that we would prioritize American interests, and I’m proud to say that this year the Department of the Interior has made good on those promises,” Zinke said in a statement.

“We ended the war on coal, and we restored millions of acres of public land for traditional multiple use,” Zinke said. “We expanded access for recreation, hunting and fishing on public lands, and also started looking at new ways to rebuild our National Parks. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Next year will be an exciting year for the Department and the American people.”

Probably the most controversial Trump administration decision with respect to public lands was to shrink the boundaries of two Utah national monuments by more than 2 million acres.

Trump signed proclamations in December to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments, which were opposed by Utah Republicans and many locals living around the monuments’ borders.

For environmentalists, it was just another reason to oppose Trump’s public lands agenda. Environmentalists, tribal officials and the outdoor gear company Patagonia sued over the decision to shrink the monuments.

Environmental activists also mocked Zinke’s list of accomplishments, in particular his comparison with former President Teddy Roosevelt, who signed historic conservation laws.

 Zinke listed shrinking the Utah monuments as meeting Interior’s goal to “[r]estore trust and be a good neighbor.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 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 of our original content, please contact
3 months ago

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall joins the legal fight against US sanctuary cities



A coalition of 11 states filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 22 to urge the overturning of a lower court ruling and to enforce the executive order given by President Trump to oppose sanctuary cities.

The West Virginia and Louisiana-led brief has been supported by Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and now, Alabama.

The argument poses that the creation of sanctuary cities undermines the constitutional right of President Trump to enforce immigration policies.


The top 11 news, faith and culture headlines of 2017





Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, today is our last In Perspective of 2017. We look down through the years and it is history, or “His Story.” Today, I’d like to talk a look of “His Story” through 2017: I’m going to go through a series of headlines and get you to react. It’s going to be rapid fire.

First off, January 20th, Donald Trump is inaugurated.


DR. REEDER: A populist presidency riding a populist wave and appeal. General Eisenhower was somewhat of a populist movement out of his military fame and then General Grant out of the Civil War, but most applicable would be Andrew Jackson that defies conservative and liberal definitions. It’s more or less a movement of the people and for the people by profession and promoted policies.


TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, another headline from this year is terrorism and how it came to schools and churches.

DR. REEDER: You not only have the ISIS terrorist threats, but you’ve also had the various terrorist activities against churches and schools and massacres. That, of course, is something that’s promoted by the tenor of the culture and what was considered, at one time, sacred places now become a killing field. However, God’s people must not be deterred. We will assemble to worship, and we will give praise to our God and we will confess our Savior to this world.


TOM LAMPRECHT:  If ISIS has not been defeated, they’re certainly on the run.

DR. REEDER: Clearly, what’s being done is much more effective than what’s been done in the past. All of their territory has been removed from them. They still have a means of communication and “lone-wolf,”  “strikes” – which really aren’t lone-wolf as they’re nurtured and developed through social media – but the “ISIS armies” have been pretty well destroyed and all the land has been retaken and that is both a strategic and tactical victory that civilization ought to applaud.


TOM LAMPRECHT: The rogue regime in North Korea and their launching of missiles.

DR. REEDER: Yeah, this is a headache that has faced many presidents ever since the Korean Conflict that established North Korea and it has been a proxy state for communism, in general, but now is a rogue state on its own through the cult-like leadership of Kim Jung-Un. Tom, it remains to be seen whether this will lead to armed conflict or can the president’s initiatives with Russia and China be successful in choking off North Korea economically and relationally.


TOM LAMPRECHT: Perhaps the biggest story of the year: the accusations of Trump and Russian collusion leading to Clinton corruption, leading to the firing of Jim Comey.

DR. REEDER: My dad used to say, “The worm has turned a little bit,” in that most of the discussion now is the uncovering of Clinton collusion with governmental activity and Clinton collusion with Russia and other states that were giving to the “Clinton Foundation” and finding their way into the Clinton campaign. And, individuals in the Trump campaign, there were charges against them, but it was pretty much outside of campaign activity.

What’s been most enlightening is the uncovering of FBI politically motivated investigations and pronouncements that affected Andrew McCabe, who has led the FBI, and then, of course, the previous leader, Comey, who was fired and that move to fire him seems to be affirmed by the present discoveries, as well. However, what is really being seen here, Tom, is another big story for the year and that is the loss of confidence in government structures.


TOM LAMPRECHT:  Neil Gorsuch is sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia.

DR. REEDER: Many people, of course, who had great difficulty in who they were going to vote for ended up voting for President Trump because of his stated list of nominees for Supreme Court justice and that was pretty much their only reason. Well, they were repaid this year as Neil Gorsuch replaced the empty seat of Justice Scalia and has proven to be an insightful originalist or strict constructionist as a justice.


TOM LAMPRECHT: California wildfires and three major hurricanes.

DR. REEDER: And famines and earthquakes – multiple disasters. Of course, we are reminded of what the Bible says that one of the things that we are to be aware of is that the birth pains of, “natural disasters” or, “acts of God” will continue alerting us to the final end of all things in the Judgement seat.

And we continue to both hear of these increasing climactic dynamics that are going on from weather, and earthquakes, and the famines, and the hurricanes and all of those situations that have brought tremendous challenges to nations, in general, and our own nation, in particular. We need to continue to pray for the people of Puerto Rico, whose infrastructure and its fragile nature was fully exposed in these disasters.


TOM LAMPRECHT: Speaking of natural occurrences, the solar eclipse.

DR. REEDER: Where we were, it was 97 percent a solar eclipse and quite the experience for everyone, reminding ourselves of the intricacies of God’s creation and how there is no way that this that we enjoy and see can possibly have come into existence by chance, but the laws that govern us are so intricate throughout God’s creation in the heavens and the earth that, in fact, there must be a Lawgiver and that Lawgiver, praise the Lord, has revealed Himself in His Word and, praise the Lord, has made a way for us to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ. Through Him, all things were created and, in Him, we can be redeemed.


TOM LAMPRECHT: One of the biggest stories of the year, sexual harassment, hashtag #metoo.

DR. REEDER: The very industries, such as the media, and such as news and such as politics and the government – that have promoted the sexual revolution – which is, in fact, sexual anarchy and it’s sexual devolution – are now having the result of it come back upon them with these power plays in the workplace, and in the media, and in the entertainment field and in the government and now women who have been harassed are speaking up and there are certain consequences. Of course, I’m reminded of what my mother used to tell us all the time: “Your sins are going to find you out.” I’m sure that’s in the Bible somewhere – if it’s not directly, of course, the Bible says, “What a man sows, he reaps.”

We have sown sexual anarchy and we are reaping its destructive effects in the lives of people, most notably, these women that have come out with the hashtag, #metoo, “I also was harassed.” You cannot have sexual deportment that is appropriate without sexual ethics that put sex within the boundaries of marriage between one man and one woman. And, by God’s grace, may the Gospel so move our hearts that we will embrace God’s great gift of sex in its proper place, which would lead to proper deportment, at least the restraint of sinful sexual advances would be again restored instead of the encouragement of it by our government, by our media and by our news agencies.


TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, we did see some positive movement when it came to religious freedom.

DR. REEDER: Yes. We’re very grateful for the protection of hospitals, of church ministries and also of various rulings that protected the First Amendment and the first affirmation of the First Amendment, which is the free practice of religion, even the repeal of the Obamacare mandate of participation and provision of abortifacients by this president.


TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, I started out this program by saying “History is His Story.” That was seen in our final subject that I want to cover for today’s broadcast, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

DR. REEDER: And, this year, we remember that glorious moment when Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses that erupted into the Reformation, which not only impacted the church, but became the basic underlying force to give us what today is known as western civilization with all of its inadequacies and its imperfections.

The advancement of the work of the Gospel, whereby men and women were saved, the Reformation of the church, the revival of the church, and the resulting Great Awakenings – Gospel Awakenings – and how many of us do labor and pray that God would circle back around and give us another Reformation and another Great Awakening in our own country today because, ultimately, that is our great need. As you go through all these stories, Tom, we actually had over 100 significant events. We’ve pared it down to a few of these to make comment upon and to remind our listeners of, but there is much more to be seen as well.


Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

3 months ago

More Americans name Trump or Obama — rather than Pope Francis or Billy Graham — their most-admired man


Americans are more likely to say that President Donald Trump is the man they admire most as opposed to Pope Francis or the Rev. Billy Graham, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.

But former President Barack Obama beat all three.

On the women’s side, Americans were most likely to name Hillary Clinton as the woman they admired most—even though her favorability rating is at an all-time low.

Clinton beat out Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey—as well as Queen Elizabeth II and Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton.

In a survey of 1,049 adults living in the United States, conducted Dec. 4-11, Gallup asked this question: “What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?”

It then combined the first and second choices and ranked people by the percentage of respondents who named them. (See the full survey results and historical trends by clicking here.)

The top men were: 1) Barack Obama, 17 percent; 2) Donald Trump, 14 percent; 3) Pope Francis, 2 percent; 4) Rev. Billy Graham, 2 percent; 5) John McCain, 2 percent; 6) Elon Musk, 2 percent; 7) Bernie Sanders, 1 percent; 9) Benjamin Netanyahu, 1 percent.

Three tied for No. 10: The Dalai Lama, 1 percent; Mike Pence, 1 percent; Jeff Bezos, 1 percent.

Gallup asked the same question about women.

The top women were: 1) Hillary Clinton, 9 percent; 2) Michelle Obama, 7 percent; 3) Oprah Winfrey, 4 percent; 4) Elizabeth Warren, 3 percent; 5) Angela Merkel, 2 percent; 6) Queen Elizabeth, 2 percent; 7) Condoleeza Rice, 1 percent; 7) Melania Trump, 1 percent; 9) Nikki Haley, 1 percent; 10) Princess Kate, 1 percent; and 10) Beyonce Knowles, 1 percent.

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton finished first this year, the percentages citing them as one of their two most admired people has been declining. As Gallup explained:

“The 2017 survey marks the 16th consecutive year Clinton has been the most admired woman. She has held the title 22 times in total, more than anyone else. Eleanor Roosevelt is second with 13 wins. Obama has now been named the most admired man 10 times, trailing only Dwight Eisenhower, who earned the distinction 12 times. Obama won all eight years he was president, plus 2008 — the year he was first elected — and this year, his first as a former president.

“But Clinton’s and Obama’s standings this year are more tenuous than in the past. The 9% who name Clinton is the lowest percentage she has received since 2002, when 7% named her in another close first-place finish. Clinton won the title this year in the same poll she registered a personal low favorable rating. This indicates she remains top of mind for enough people who like her to be named more than any other woman in response to the open-ended question, finishing ahead of some women who may be better liked overall but are not as prominent in people’s minds.

“The percentage of adults naming Obama as the most admired man is down from 22% last year, but he has been at or near 17% in several other years.

More Americans—25 percent–could not name a single man or woman they admired most than named Obama and Clinton.

See the historical list of most admired men and women in the Gallup survey going back to 1946 by clicking here.


3 months ago

You don’t have to like this President to acknowledge the obvious




The stock market is booming. Consumer confidence is soaring. The unemployment rate is falling. The economy is getting more robust every day. And President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have just hit a new low.

Congratulations, Trump. You are the president of a loyal base whose members adore you. The bad news, Mr. President, is that almost no one else does.

According to a new CNN poll, just 35 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling his job. Fifty-nine percent disapprove. The poll was taken before Congress passed the new tax law, so he may get a bump in the next round of polls. But it’s unlikely to be more than just a bump. The economy is already barreling ahead — and that hasn’t done much for his approval numbers.

So what’s going on? I’m not exactly going out on a limb to suggest his low approval numbers have a lot to do with his tweeting, his bluster and his pettiness. In short, a lot of Americans think he’s temperamentally unfit for office.

But you don’t have to admire this president, or even like him, to acknowledge the obvious: that more than a few journalists — like most other liberal Democrats — won’t rest until he’s out of office.

Trump thinks they just make stuff up to hurt him — or at least that’s what he says. Who knows if he actually believes it. His loyal base believes it and that may be all he needs to keep the “fake news” narrative going.

But here’s another explanation: Contrary to popular belief, journalists are only human and so, from time to time, they make mistakes.

But mistakes, if they’re really just that and not something more nefarious, should go in both directions. Funny, but when reporters make mistakes about this president, they all seem to go in just one direction — the anti-Trump direction.

If these were simply honest errors, some of them, just by chance, would help the president. But they don’t. So what should we make of it?

To say journalists have a liberal bias and detest this president isn’t exactly breaking news. When it comes to Donald Trump, a lot of journalists figure if the sun rose in the east today, he must have done something wrong and they’re going to prove it. So they let their journalistic instincts lapse; they let their guardrails down. Instead of being skeptics, they become gullible patsies, taking in all sorts of later discredited information peddled by anonymous sources — as long as it makes the president look bad.

They put out false information about collusion with the Russians, for example, because they want to believe that he conspired with his pal Vladimir Putin to rig the election. Collusion, after all, could lead to impeachment, the holy grail.

And if, heaven forbid, you criticize them for sloppiness or for going overboard, you’re accused of being a Trump sycophant who wants to put a stake through the heart of the First Amendment and democracy itself.

But how would these same journalists respond if it were Barack Obama or President Hillary Clinton who was under investigation by a special prosecutor who loaded up his team with Republican donors? How would they react if a lead FBI investigator texted his mistress that candidate Clinton “is a (expletive) idiot” and that they needed an “insurance policy” in case she somehow won the election?

We know how they’d react: They’d say the deck was stacked against the Democrat. They’d be outraged. And for good reason.

Yes, Donald Trump, with his egocentricities, his thin skin, his unnecessary quarrels with critics, and a lot more, gives the media plenty of ammunition to use against him. It’s as if he’s saying, “I just loaded the gun for you reporters who hate me; here it is; ready, aim, shoot me.”

Still, there are times when I wonder why he wastes so much time and energy beating up on the press when, thanks to their not so hidden contempt for him, they do such a good job beating up on themselves.


3 months ago

United Nations is ‘hive of scum and villainy’ and it’s time to defund it



Last week, Democrats and many in the mainstream media became highly perturbed by the Trump administration’s suggestion that the United States might tie continued foreign aid to support for its agenda abroad. Foreign dictators agreed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spent the last year arresting dissidents, announced, “Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey’s democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear.”

Herein lies the great irony of the United Nations: While it’s the Mos Eisley of international politics — a hive of scum and villainy — and it votes repeatedly to condemn the United States and Israel, the tyrannies that constitute the body continue to oppress their own peoples. Among those who voted last week to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem were North Korea, Iran, Yemen and Venezuela. Why exactly should the United States ever take advice from those nations seriously?

We shouldn’t. And we should stop sending cash to an organization that operates as a front for immoral agenda items.

The United Nations spends the vast majority of its time condemning Israel: According to UN Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council issued 135 resolutions from June 2006 to June 2016, 68 of which were against Israel; the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization only passes resolutions against Israel; and the U.N. General Assembly issued 97 resolutions from 2012 through 2015, 83 of which targeted Israel.

Meanwhile, the U.N. has done nearly nothing with regard to Syria. It has instead suggested that Israel turn over the Golan Heights to the Syrian regime. The U.N. can’t even successfully prevent the slaughter of the Rohingya in Myanmar. But they certainly have something to say about whether the United States ought to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

One of the great lies of the Obama administration was that diplomacy is a foreign policy. We often heard from it that the only two alternatives were diplomacy and war. That was the stated reason for pursuing a one-sided nuclear deal with Iran that left Iran with burgeoning regional power and legitimacy. “What? Do you want a war or something?” it asked.

But the moment that the Trump administration uses tools of diplomacy, including financial pressure, to achieve American ends, the left complains. Would it prefer war? Diplomacy is a tool, not a foreign policy, and the use of diplomacy to pressure other nations to follow our lead is not only smart but also necessary. That is why the Trump administration was exactly right to negotiate a $285 million cut to the U.N.’s budget. Now we ought to slash our contributions to the counterproductive organization, since we pay one-fifth of the total bill.

The U.N. has always been a foolish fantasy, a League of Nations knockoff that’s been about as productive and twice as irritating. It’s an outmoded organization that’s outlived whatever small usefulness it once had. There’s no reason for us to continue cutting checks to prop up regimes that condemn us publicly for exercising the most basic standards of morality.

Ben Shapiro, 33, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of



Here’s what Trump got right (and wrong) in his national security speech

President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks regarding the Administration’s National Security Strategy (White House/Flickr)
President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks regarding the Administration’s National Security Strategy (White House/Flickr)






Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, yesterday, we talked about the tax package that was passed by Congress. There was another news story that made headlines last week and that was Donald Trump’s national security strategy speech.

To highlight the four pillars of that speech:

  • Protect the Homeland
  • Promote American Prosperity
  • Preserve Peace Through Strength
  • Advance American Influence.


DR. REEDER: Tom, it was given the name “The Sustainment Strategy of America First or American Greatness or American Exceptionalism” as the nickname it was given.

Every president in recent history has had a national security speech, but what is interesting is, our last two presidents, President Bush, it took him 20 months before he made one and it was on the heels of 9/11 and President Obama made his speech of “leading from behind” as a national security strategy and he made his speech, I think, it was 16 months. Now, President Trump has done so in less than 12 months.

It doesn’t make it good or bad – it’s just interesting. He had a team fully focused on this and this was something very important to him in terms of his promises in the campaign and so General McMaster, and Dina Powell and Nadia Schadlow were the ones that had been working so hard on it.

Nothing in it should surprise anyone, but I will confess the coherency of it somewhat surprises me and then there were a couple of things in it that did encourage me, overall. Let’s walk our way through that.


First of all, this national security strategy very much is a “peace through strength,” which has been the mantra of every president from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the present except for President Obama. Every president has gone the route of “peace through strength.”

I actually like the way the speech said it: “If we do not build a military capable of winning any war, then we will not be capable of keeping the peace.”

If you have a military that is so overwhelmingly strong, then except for this terrorist approach to war, the regular conventional warfare, people are not going to want to do that because they know it is to their ultimate destruction.

This “peace through strength,” he put a big emphasis on technology. He did talk about increasing the number in our military forces of soldiers, and sailors and marines. He did mention also, over the next 12 months, of increasing the size of the navy to a 355-ship navy.


One of his pillars in this is the importance of economic strength. Economic strength is what undergirds military strength and military strength should allow creativity and economic industrial activity.

However, he also made the point that he wanted to build the military from home-based factories and home-based manufacturing and home-based technological development – that the two work together. That was very much what Eisenhower developed and warned against – it’s called the “Military Industrial Complex” – but, very clearly, that in this speech he tied the two together.

He also gave a statement that provided somewhat of a moral underpinning to his America First idea. He made the point, “What I mean by America First is what I would expect, any leader of any nation that I’m talking with, I would expect them to be concerned for the country they’ve been elected to represent first.”


He also did something that no other president has done in this: He actually called out, in the speech, Russia and China as threats to America’s security. Here is a guy being accused of colluding with Russia – being too close to them – but it’s interesting how, on his personal level, he keeps reaching out to their leaders trying to build a bridge but, in the public arena, he is identifying them as, right now, economic enemies and potentially military enemies and we have to be ready to defeat them on both fronts.

He also made a commitment to renewing the integrity of our relationship with our allies. To sum up, he said we’re going to protect the homeland, meaning our people and our economic well-being and our virtues.


America is rightly so – this needs to be understood – America should not be seen in its strength in terms of an ethnic superiority of any one element of America, but of its values that are represented in its founding documents.

Now, he never defined virtues and values. I’m hoping that’s what somebody will point out to him – the values and virtues that are encased in our founding documents.

He also made the point that national security is tied to economic well-being and prosperity, again, the home industries being foundational for the military strength of the nation and, in the “peace through strength,” that he affirmed that as a strategy and that he would advance the interest of our values in other nations, but he is not going to engage in nation-building.

And, personally, I would say that is exactly what I think a government should be doing. A government is not a church to evangelize our way of life upon other people.

We can attract people to our way of life, we can use our strength to defend people who are under attack by despots and tyrants and we can be there for our allies, but our call is not to go into nations and undermine one national government to institute our own national government, but to have the kind of government and nation that will attract people to what we do.


Now, what was absent in it, I did not hear the resounding note of what is absolutely crucial to America – and many presidents have done this so it’s not unpresidential – and that is the spiritual strength of the people.

While I do not believe the government is to pick and choose losers and winners in the field of religion, it is to recognize the importance of it. That’s why, in the First Amendment, the first affirmation is the free practice of religion.

A government where the Constitution is king, a government that is a republic that works by consensus and covenant and a government of laws must be a government of a people who are a moral people. If we are not a moral people, then capitalism becomes greed and then people will find ways for segments of society to dominate other segments of society.

We need to be a moral people and that means the government must see, first of all, the value of the free practice of religion, protect the free practice of religion, promote the free practice of religion and affirm it publicly through its presidential proclamations.

I found that element missing. That’s an element that I’m hoping at least others within his cabinet and within his leadership team will promote.


A country will not stay strong just because it has a great economy and just because it has a great military. Its ability to sustain an economy and a military is directly related to the moral fiber of a nation and that’s related to the soul of a nation and that is no more than the sum impact of influential dynamics of a strength of spirituality. In our country, it has been two great awakenings and I’m praying for another great awakening.

Then again, having made that critique of the president, I would say the responsibility for the spiritual dynamic of this nation does not rest upon him – it rests upon the church of Jesus Christ and people like me. I need to get about the business about the Great Commission, making disciples; the Great Commandment, loving the Lord with all my heart, soul and mind and my neighbor – all my neighbors – as myself; and I need to be about a great commitment to lay down my life for Christ to reach this nation and to reach the world.

Tom, let me be very specific: The church of Jesus Christ needs to be sharing and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ – that He died for our sins and that He rose again – and you can know the eternal security of a relationship with Christ and you can share it and give it away to others. That’s what I am speaking of our strategy to reach a nation so that we might reach all the nations.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

3 months ago

Unlike Nixon, Trump will not go quietly

Real estate mogul and 2016 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at CPAC in 2011 (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned.

The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself.

First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

In Russiagate, the underlying crime — the “collusion” of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC — has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established.

Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump.

Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser.

Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.

This is what security advisers do.

Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.

Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn.

But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority.

And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been “extremely careless” in transmitting security secrets over her private email server.

We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement described Clinton as “grossly negligent,” the precise statute language for an indictment.

We also now know that helping to edit Comey’s first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel — to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey’s predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller.

Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weissmann, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump’s travel ban.

FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in texts to his FBI lady friend.

Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton’s email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.

In Mueller’s tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary’s campaign and Russian spies — to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign — has been fairly well established.

By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on Trump.

Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels.

While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey’s FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents.

There are credible allegations Comey’s FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump — and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.

This week, we learned that the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.

Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree?

Is Mueller’s Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?

There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment.

Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him.

Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner’s sword fall with dignity.

If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.

In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there’s gonna be a “whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


3 months ago

Congress shows awful, predictable apathy at shocking diversity visa lottery effects




Capitol Hill’s national security priorities are screwier than a Six Flags roller coaster.

Instead of immediately shutting down one of America’s stupidest visa programs, which helped bring us yet another murder-minded jihadist this week, bipartisan Beltway politicians are pushing to preserve and expand the illegal immigration pipeline. Republicans and Democrats in Congress want a “fix” for the Obama administration’s executive amnesty covering nearly 700,000 illegal immigrants — and they want it pronto.

Translation: Protecting border-hopping “DREAMers” is a more important priority in Washington than protecting Americans from infiltrators exploiting the diversity visa lottery.

You remember the hue and cry over the diversity visa lottery, right? It was just seven short weeks ago when America discovered that New York City truck jihadist Sayfullo Saipov, who ruthlessly mowed down eight people on a bike path, had entered our country from Uzbekistan in 2010 by pure, random luck through the DV lottery program. President Donald Trump called on Congress to end it.

Saipov followed in the footsteps of Hesham Hadayet, the Egyptian-born LAX jihadist who gunned down two people at Israel’s El Al airlines counter in 2002 and gained entry through his lottery-winning wife; Imran Mandhai, the Pakistan-born jihadist who plotted National Guard armory bombings in Florida and gained entry through his parents’ lottery luck; Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, another Uzbek jihadist and lottery winner convicted of supporting terrorism; Syed Ahmed, a Pakistan-born jihadist and DV recipient convicted of terrorism-related activities in the U.S. and abroad in 2009; and Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a Hamas leader deported for terrorism activities in 1997 who had snagged a green card thanks to the DV lottery program’s original iteration.

Up to 55,000 lucky winners a year have secured permanent residency visas (green cards) through the diversity visa lottery since 1990, which put them on the path to American citizenship ahead of millions of other foreigners patiently waiting to come to this country. The green card lotto winners’ spouses and unmarried children under 21 all get lottery passes into the country, too, no matter where they were born. Chain migration extends the families’ winnings. And so on, and so on, and so on.

As I’ve reported tirelessly since 9/11, when counterterrorism experts and immigration watchdogs united against the fraud-riddled, ill-conceived DV lottery, applicants don’t even need a high school education. No outstanding abilities, training or job skills are necessary. Illegal aliens are eligible if a legal family member wins the jackpot. Tens of thousands are pouring in from terrorism breeding grounds through the lottery unvetted, unmonitored and unassimilated.

Justice Department investigators recently discovered one Somali woman who won the DV lottery and subsequently recruited an entire fake family, including a phony husband and two fictitious adult children, all of whom came to the United States and later gained U.S. citizenship based on their false claims.

A U.N. probe found human traffickers forcing dozens of diversity visa lottery winners into listing young female sex slaves as their “family members” to gain entry in the U.S.

And a State Department official testified in 2011 that in Bangladesh, “one agent is reported to have enrolled an entire phone book so that he could then either extort money from winning applicants who had never entered the program to begin with or sell their winning slots to others.”

As usual, however, Congress has done precisely nothing to stop the ruinous racket created by the late Teddy Kennedy and signed off by President George H.W. Bush as a social engineering experiment to admit more “underrepresented” immigrant minorities into the U.S. The latest bill containing an end to the DV lottery program, the “RAISE Act,” sponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue, is gathering dust. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s latest call to the State Department for a “full-scale” review has yielded no movement.

And now, here we are, with yet another DV lottery beneficiary in custody for yet another jihad attack. Bangladeshi Akayed Ullah arrived here with a golden ticket obtained through a relative who won the visa lottery. Before strapping on his failed suicide vest on Monday in an attempt to inflict “maximum destruction” on commuters at the New York Port Authority bus terminal, Ullah was the minor child of a sibling of the original ticket holder, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Seven weeks ago, Sen. Jeff Flake smugly tweeted to President Trump that the DV lottery program would have been killed if only the Gang of Eight illegal alien amnesty had been signed into law. In D.C., you see, stupid government programs will only die if hitched to even bigger, more reckless legislative abominations.

Washington priorities at work.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on



3 months ago

Trump congratulates Democrat Doug Jones on ‘hard-fought victory’; says he knew Moore couldn’t win


“Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory,” President Trump tweeted Tuesday night, after the Democrat narrowly defeated conservative Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama special election for Jeff Sessions’ Senate seat.

Trump also noted, “The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!”

Trump endorsed Republican Luther Strange in the primary, but when Moore won, the president repeatedly urged Alabama voters to choose Moore, despite allegations of Moore’s inappropriate relationships with teenage girls, one as young as 14, when Moore was in his 30s.

In his first tweet of Wednesday, Trump said he knew Moore could not win: “The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election.  I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!”

With 100 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday night, Jones had 671,151 votes, or 49.9 percent, compared to Moore’s 650,436 votes, or 48.4 percent. There were 22,819 write-in votes, many of which might have gone to Moore were it not for the controversy surrounding him.

According to CBS News exit polling, Democrat Jones got 96 percent of the black vote, while Moore got 68 percent of the white vote. Fifty-one percent of independents voted for Jones; and 57 percent of women and 60 percent of young people also voted for Jones.

Moore has not yet conceded the race, but there seems to be no question that Mr. Jones will be coming to Washington.

“When the vote is this close, it’s not over,” Moore told supporters at his election night rally. He complained about being “painted in an unfavorable and unfaithful light,” and said he will let the “process play out.”

Jones told his supporters he’s been “waiting all my life, and now I just don’t know what the hell to say.”

“At the end of the day, this — this entire race has been about dignity and respect. This campaign — this campaign has been about the rule of law. This campaign has been about common courtesy and decency and making sure everyone in this state, regardless of which ZIP code you live in, is going to get a fair shake in life. And let me just say this, folks, to all of those — all of my future colleagues in Washington, to all — I had such wonderful help.

“But I want to make sure, in all seriousness, there are important issues facing this country, there are important issues of health care and jobs and the economy. And I want to — I would like, as everyone in the entire probably free world knows right now, we’ve tried to make sure that this campaign was about finding common ground and reaching across and actually getting things done for the people,” Jones said.

(By Susan Jones, courtesy

3 months ago

NYC Terror Suspect: ‘Trump, You Failed To Protect Your Nation’

President Donald J. Trump (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead/Flickr)
President Donald J. Trump (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead/Flickr)




New York City terror suspect Akayed Ullah posted “Trump, you failed to protect your nation” on Facebook just prior to executing a botched terror bombing of the subway system.

Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi who moved to the United States on a family immigrant visa in 2011, attempted to cause major damage Monday morning with a homemade pipe bomb at a bus terminal close to Times Square, but the explosion only injured five people.

A criminal complaint filed Tuesday reveals that prior to the bombing, Ullah made a Facebook post that stated: “Trump you failed to protect your nation,” according to NBC News.

Ullah has so far been charged with material support for a terrorist organization, use of weapons of mass destruction and bombing of a public place. He was not previously known by law enforcement to have any terror ties.

Prosecutors are expected to discuss the charges more in-depth later on Tuesday.

One law enforcement source told CNN that Ullah detonated the bomb because he was upset at Israel’s recent “incursion into Gaza.”

It’s not clear exactly what Ullah meant by that comment, but over the weekend, Israel targeted Gaza with airstrikes in response to rockets fired by Hamas. Those rockets came amid President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Follow Jonah Bennett on Twitter

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 of our original content, please contact

How to put Trump’s U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem in historical and biblical perspective

The Old City of Jerusalem (Etienne Valois)
The Old City of Jerusalem (Etienne Valois)






Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, I want to take you back to last Wednesday. President Donald Trump allowed a 1995 law that was passed by Congress requiring the relocation of the United States embassy in Israel to move to Jerusalem.

Now, this was passed back in 1995, yet presidents were given a loophole that allowed successive presidents – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – the option to issue waivers every six months to delay the embassy move.

Donald Trump, last Wednesday, said, “The time has finally come. We’re moving the embassy.” He was praised by Benjamin Netanyahu, but he was condemned by many other world leaders. Harry, your thoughts? How important is this?

Historical and Scriptural Context

DR. REEDER: Let’s go back, Tom, and set this in historical context. Jerusalem is, historically, what was called a Jebusite city in the Bible. It is one that was conquered by David and became his seat of rule.

From that Jebusite city, just up the side of the spur of the hill where it was originally located, was a place that had become very important in the life of the people of Israel. First of all, it was the spot where Abraham had brought Isaac.

That same place became the threshing floor of Araunah, where David secured that as a place to build the Temple. This became known as the Mount Zion, which became precious in the sight of the lives of God’s people.

Thus, the quote, “Compact city of Jerusalem with its walls,” had been built in the days of David and then, in the days of Solomon, the temple had been placed there.

Therefore, you can read the psalms and you can read the accounts of the scripture of how Israel had become identified with it because not only was the Temple there, the house of David had built the palace, Solomon’s portico was established there and, most importantly, the Holy of Holies, which became the dwelling place of the Lord by His divine appointment where his Shekinah Glory had dwelt in that place, the Temple became the spot of teaching and worship and the gathering of God’s people.

The fulfillment of the Old Testament promises are not only located in Jerusalem, but located there most profoundly through the fact that it was there that Christ came and cleansed the Temple twice, and it is there that He came and died on the cross at Mount Calvary and, from outside of Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives, is where He ascended into Heaven so it becomes the focal point of the atoning work of God in the covenant of grace.

It becomes not only a place where the Old Testament people of God revere and identify with, but it becomes that point of fulfillment and, therefore, the expansion of the grace of God to all the nation from the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, there, in Jerusalem.

Therefore, it becomes a very pointed and precious place. Now, fast forward: Israel, of course, is dispersed from Jerusalem in the days of the Roman Empire and maintains dispersed pretty much throughout all the nations as fulfillment of prophecy.

And then, interestingly – and many would see this, also, as a fulfillment of the prophecy – the nation of Israel is reestablished after World War II. Now, Jerusalem becomes a point of conflict again as an Israeli State is established. But, as it is established, the Balfour Declaration is interpreted and fulfilled in a way that I think it was not designed by the United Nations.

And, under the leadership of Britain, the Balfour Declaration is eviscerated in that the land over the Jordan River – which was to be the place of what, today, is called the Palestinians – was taken and made, more or less, an English protectorate, almost, and now known as the Nation Jordan, which left the Palestinian people with no place to go and became an issue there in the land of Israel as the Palestinians are left there and the Israeli State is begun.

And then you have the War of 1967 in which the Israeli State which was established is attacked and they repelled the attack by the various Arab nations and, in so doing, they take control of the City of Jerusalem.

They later establish it as their capital and declare it to be their capital. And then, in 1987, the United States affirmed its support of Israel to declare the city of Jerusalem as its capital.

And then, in 1995, the United States affirms that its embassy is to go in Jerusalem but, yet, they prolong its establishment and, as you have already mentioned, declare that it is up to the president to determine when, and if and how – in light of the various peace discussions – yet, every president runs on the campaign promise that Jerusalem is to be the capital of Israel and the embassy of the United States is to go there.

Trump’s Position

Now, President Trump said, “Look, this use of Jerusalem as an item of negotiation has utterly failed. Let’s quit doing it. Let’s go ahead and do what I was instructed to do so my report is not going to be on the reason why I’m not going to do it but, on the contrary, I am going to do it.

Now, the question is how is everybody going to respond to it? Some branches of the evangelical churches see this as another step in the fulfillment of prophecy. Other Christians, such as myself, just see it as an instrument of United States foreign policy, which actually may strengthen the peace negotiations by placing the United States embassy there.

President Trump is being opposed by the British prime minister and the German prime minister. That doesn’t hold a lot of weight with me because I believe it is British failure to carry out the Balfour Declaration that has created this problem.

The entire, what today is, Jordan should actually be the Palestinian State, but it was a make-believe kingdom that was put together under British control in 1948 instead of doing what was supposed to have been done, which was to make that the place for the Palestinians to have their own state with a full territory and in the location in which most of their people had resided throughout the years. Instead, it made them a people without a location because of the British decision.

It’s going to be interesting to see. The prediction is this may create another Intifada and renewed terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and around Jerusalem, although the Israeli government welcomed this as an appropriate step of what’s been promised.

Processing as Evangelicals

As evangelicals, whether you see this as a fulfillment of end-time prophecy or you see it as simply knowledgeable foreign policy in supporting a nation – that every nation ought to have the right to declare its own capital within the borders that it controls – it’s very clear from the Bible that we, as evangelicals, should pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

And, for me, that means two things:

  1. That this step may open up even further opportunities for sharing the Gospel, which is the gospel of peace that, when men and women are reconciled to God, they can become reconciled to each other.
  2. As well as negotiated peace because you and I, as evangelicals, must remember that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are Palestinians. They are trying to wade their way through this. The Palestinian Christian population is under intense persecution and I’m praying that, somehow, this may actually help them. I’m not sure, but I want to pray in that direction.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ came to us through the nation of Israel and I believe God has made a promise in the Book of Romans that the Gospel is going to go back to this nation of Israel.

I do not look for the Temple to be rebuilt, I do not look for the sacrifice system, I do not look for the priesthood to be reestablished as some of my Christian brothers do, but I do look for the fulfillment of all of those in Jesus Christ establishing the Gospel.

I do look for that to go back to the Jewish people with promised success as the Gospel goes to the Jew first and also to the Gentile.

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, we are out of time for today. On Tuesday’s edition of Today in Perspective, I’d like to revisit with you the Masterpiece Cake Shop oral argument, which took place last week.

DR. REEDER: Yes, the oral argument started and it continues to be under advisement of the Supreme Court. Let’s take a few moments to look at what has now been revealed since our last program.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

3 months ago

David Limbaugh: Republican Trump critics and intramural conservative battles are missing the boat



I am probably too exercised over the never-Trump faction, because in the end, it’s doubtful it is strong enough numerically to make a significant impact on our electoral politics, but it still bothers me to witness intramural conservative battles.

I have no quarrel with those who once self-identified as never-Trumpers but now appraise his actions and statements on a case-by-case basis instead of reflexively opposing his every move. My frustration is with those who obsess over Trump and lie in wait to pounce on any real or imagined Trump misstep like panting dogs drooling under the choice slab of beef hovering above them.

I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, but these are the types of conservatives whose tweets relentlessly savage Trump and harshly judge other conservatives who dare to support or defend him — on darn near anything. They mock and judge, judge and mock, preen and point, point and preen, forever lamenting the end of decency among many conservatives and the death of the Republican Party.

They excoriate conservatives for allegedly abandoning conservatism, painfully oblivious to their hypocrisy in often making their case on hyper-leftist shows with conservative-hating hosts and guests or fawningly retweeting leftists who have as much contempt for any conservative as they do for Donald Trump.

These critics argue that conservative Trump supporters have been tainted by their association with Trump, yet they jump in bed with those who haven’t a stitch of conservatism in their entire anatomy. They’re not just freely cohabiting foxholes with leftists; they are gradually drifting their way on policy.

They wouldn’t be as annoying if they weren’t so sanctimonious about their professed conservative purity and so judgmental about conservatives generally supportive of Trump, which brings me to what inspired this column.

A prominent Republican Trump critic with whom I’m friendly on Twitter betrays increasing dismay over the perceived betrayal of conservative Trump supporters. That we aren’t alongside the naysayers lambasting Trump at every juncture, that we aren’t mortified by every Trump tweet, is agonizingly disillusioning to him.

This week, he tweeted dolefully, “In the end, there will only be two groups of conservatives: those who sold out to Trumpism, and those who didn’t. The policy differences among us pale next to that one major division.”

Do you smell the judgmentalism — the rush to judge the motives of friends on the right? Note the language — we have “sold out to Trumpism,” which is inarguably a sweeping moral condemnation of conservative Trump supporters.

It can’t be that the countless millions of us believed — correctly — that Trump would be light-years better than Hillary Clinton as president or that, horrors, the critics were wrong. It can’t be that we support Trump’s major advancements in deregulation, his stellar judicial appointments and his efforts to cut taxes and repeal the abominable Obamacare individual mandate. It can’t be his support of the military and national defense, his refreshing and contagious bullishness on America or his election alone, which stands as the greatest impediment to the further advancement of Obama-Clinton leftism. Oh, did I mention that Trump declared Jerusalem the official capital of Israel, as opposed to his presidential predecessors who merely paid lip service to the goal? And did you notice that the economy is smoking along at 3.3 percent growth?

In addition to their insufferable conceit, the critics are embarrassingly out of touch with and grossly underestimate rank-and-file conservatives, which is the most egregious consequence of their arrogance. The tens of millions of conservative Trump supporters numerically dwarf his hand-wringing critics — a reality that is inaccessible to them in their self-constructed bubble. They either don’t realize how outnumbered they are or have contempt for the majority who don’t share their narrow moralistic calculus. Millions of everyday American conservatives — even if they don’t wholly approve of Trump’s style, manners or idiosyncrasies — are cheering Trump on and grateful he has stopped the Democrats in their tracks and is moving the country back to the right.

So, as I’ve written before, I don’t believe there is a serious schism in the grass-roots conservative movement. I don’t believe that constitutional conservatives who are now supporting Trump have sold their souls or jettisoned their principles. They have not sold out; they have bought into the big picture.

I don’t contend that Trump is a constitutional conservative, but he is advancing conservative policies more than any president in a long time — probably more than, say, Mitt Romney would have been able to. I don’t agree that by supporting Trump, conservatives have ceded control of the party to an undefined populist movement — and certainly not to an alt-right cabal. If anything, Trump is moving more toward conservatism than conservatives are moving toward populism.

I have no animus for the malcontented Trump haters on the right and strive not to judge them — though I strongly disagree with them. But I sure wish they would quit judging the millions upon millions of the rest of us, whom they manifestly don’t understand.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.


4 months ago

Dr. Daniel Sutter: Who actually pays the corporate income tax?



The Senate passed a tax bill last weekend. The details must be ironed out in conference negotiations with the House, but the plan includes a corporate income tax overhaul. This was a campaign promise of President Trump, and is long overdue.

The corporate income tax does not apply to all businesses, only those organized as corporations, which include most recognizable national businesses. Washington currently taxes corporate income above a modest threshold at 35 percent, the highest rate of any developed nation. The top rate will fall to 20 percent, in line with other countries. Our rate is high now in part because we are one of three developed nations not to have cut corporate taxes since 2000.

The U.S. also currently taxes profits earned by the international subsidiaries of American firms, as opposed to just domestic earnings. The 35 percent rate, less any taxes paid to another nation, essentially applies to all earnings everywhere. The Senate bill would end worldwide taxation.

The corporate income tax affects many business decisions. The tax has fueled corporate inversions, which is when an American company reincorporates in another nation. Burger King and Fruit of the Loom, for instance, have renounced their American corporate citizenship.

Inversions are for tax purposes and do not move all operations or even the headquarters overseas, but are still troubling.

American companies also keep significant earnings overseas, perhaps as much as $2.6 trillion, to avoid our taxes. The Senate bill allows repatriation of these profits with payment of a 14 percent tax. Lowering our top rate and ending worldwide taxation should end this problem.

Few companies, though, pay the full corporate tax. The Government Accountability Office found that around 70 percent of all corporations – and 20 percent of the most profitable – pay no corporate tax in a typical year, due to tax breaks. The corporate tax has raised about 10 percent of Federal tax revenue since the 1980s, versus 30 percent in the early 1950s. We do not really rely on the corporate income tax to fund Washington.

Modest revenue generation does not imply no harm to our economy. The tax particularly impacts companies unable to secure breaks from Congress. And when CEOs focus on avoiding corporate taxes, they are less likely to improve their products and services or lower costs. A focus on avoiding taxes slows economic growth.

Many Americans, I think, still like the idea of making rich corporations pay. Only the corporate tax does not ensure this. Taxes often get shifted, meaning that the people sending a check to the government may not really pay the taxes. Consider the example of gas taxes, which gas stations “pay.” Higher taxes generally increase the pump price, effectively passing on some of the tax to drivers. The potential for tax shifting makes the analysis of who really pays taxes relevant and challenging.

Appearances can be deceiving, and politicians count on this with corporate taxes. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz writes in a textbook, “Politicians like to give the impression to voters that someone else pays the corporate tax. But the reality is that households, workers, consumers, and investors pay the tax, just as they pay any other tax.”

Economists are unsure who really pays the corporate tax, partly because the answer depends on many factors. Candidates include a corporation’s customers, its workers, and investors across the economy. Even if the owners pay, which is likely at least in part, not all stockholders are rich. Many Americans own stocks through pension plans.

I personally believe that we should keep taxes and spending low. When we tax ourselves, I think that we should use taxes with clearly understood incidence. This makes the burden of government transparent, encouraging informed decisions by citizens.

The corporate income tax fares poorly in this regard. The tax today is like a con game, one riddled with exemptions for privileged firms. Reform is long overdue.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

4 months ago

Refugee admissions to U.S. down 83% in first two months of FY18

(Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Flickr)
(Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Flickr)

Refugee admissions to the United States were down 83 percent in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.

A total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.

Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the initiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

The weekend announcement comes amid a sharp drop in the number of refugees admitted to the United States during the first two months of fiscal year 2018.

The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.

In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.

In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).

Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).

The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.

By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).

The religious breakdown of those 18,300 refugees was: 48.1 percent Christian, 43.6 percent Muslim, 2.4 percent Buddhist, 1.7 percent Hindu, 0.9 percent Kirat and 0.3 percent Jewish.

The figures reflect clearly the differences in the two administrations’ approach on refugees.

The last full fiscal year of the Obama administration saw 84,994 refugees admitted. President Trump has proposed a refugee admission ceiling of 45,000 for FY 2018, the lowest ceiling set by an administration since the Refugee Act was passed in 1980.

Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.

In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal.”

In September last year, a summit at the U.N. adopted a consensus declaration – the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants – expressing countries’ political will to protect the rights of refugees and migrants and share the responsibility for doing so.

Although they stopped short of making any binding commitments, the leaders undertook to work by 2018 towards consensus on a global compact on sharing the refugee burden.

Haley said Sunday the New York declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”

She said no country has done more that the U.S. in providing support for migrant and refugee populations across the globe, “and our generosity will continue.”

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

Miroslav Laják, the president of the U.N. General Assembly – who received the formal notification of withdrawal – said he regretted the decision.

“The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world,” the Slovak diplomat said in a statement released by his spokesman on Sunday.

“As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome.”

The U.S. withdrawal from the initiative came on the eve of a three-day global gathering beginning in Mexico on Monday to take stock of how and where the process is going.

(Courtesy of

4 months ago

Pat Buchanan: North Korea’s ‘little rocket man’ and his risky game to get respect




In the morning darkness of Wednesday, Kim Jong Un launched an ICBM that rose almost 2,800 miles into the sky before falling into the Sea of Japan.

North Korea now has the proven ability to hit Washington, D.C.

Unproven still is whether Kim can put a miniaturized nuclear warhead atop that missile, which could be fired with precision, and survive the severe vibrations of re-entry. More tests and more time are needed for that.

Thus, U.S. markets brushed off the news of Kim’s Hwasong-15 missile and roared to record heights on Wednesday and Thursday.

President Donald Trump took it less well. “Little Rocket Man” is one “sick puppy,” he told an audience in Missouri.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council that “if war comes … the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed.” She then warned Xi Jinping that “if China does not halt the oil shipments” to North Korea, “we can take the oil situation into our own hands.”

Is Haley talking about bombing pipelines in North Korea — or China?

The rage of the president and bluster of Haley reflect a painful reality: As inhumane and ruthless as the 33-year-old dictator of North Korea is, he is playing the highest stakes poker game on the planet, against the world’s superpower, and playing it remarkably well.

Reason: Kim may understand us better than we do him, which is why he seems less hesitant to invite the risks of a war he cannot win.

While a Korean War II might well end with annihilation of the North’s army and Kim’s regime, it would almost surely result in untold thousands of dead South Koreans and Americans.

And Kim knows that the more American lives he can put at risk, with nuclear-tipped missiles, the less likely the Americans are to want to fight him.

His calculation has thus far proven correct.

As long as he does not push the envelope too far, and force Trump to choose war rather than living with a North Korea that could rain nuclear rockets on the U.S., Kim may win the confrontation.

Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.

What does Kim want?

Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.

Earlier administrations — Clinton, Bush II, Obama — have seen many of these demands as negotiable. And accepting some or even all of them would entail no grave peril to U.S. national security or vital interests.

They would entail, however, a serious loss of face.

Acceptance of such demands by the United States would be a triumph for Kim, validating his risky nuclear strategy, and a diplomatic defeat for the United States.

Little Rocket Man would have bested The Donald.

Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. deterrent would be called into question. South Korea and Japan could be expected to consider their own deterrents, out of fear the U.S. would never truly put its homeland at risk, but would cut a deal at their expense.

We would hear again the cries of “Munich” and the shade of Neville Chamberlain would be called forth for ritual denunciation.

Yet it is a time for truth: Our demand for “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” is not going to be met, absent a U.S. war and occupation of North Korea.

Kim saw how Bush II, when it served U.S. interests, pulled out of our 30-year-old ABM treaty with Moscow. He saw how, after he gave up all his WMD to reach an accommodation with the West, Moammar Gadhafi was attacked by NATO and ended up being lynched.

He can see how much Americans honor nuclear treaties they sign by observing universal GOP howls to kill the Iranian nuclear deal and bring about “regime change” in Tehran, despite Iran letting U.N. inspectors roam the country to show they have no nuclear weapons program.

For America’s post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:

Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.

Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.

We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” 


4 months ago

Pat Buchanan: ‘Yemen today is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, and America’s role in it is undeniable’



Our aim is to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission,” said First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill.
He was speaking of Germany at the outset of the Great War of 1914-1918. Americans denounced as inhumane this starvation blockade that would eventually take the lives of a million German civilians.

Yet when we went to war in 1917, a U.S. admiral told British Prime Minister Lloyd George, “You will find that it will take us only two months to become as great criminals as you are.”

After the Armistice of Nov. 11, 1918, however, the starvation blockade was not lifted until Germany capitulated to all Allied demands in the Treaty of Versailles.

As late as March 1919, four months after the Germans laid down their arms, Churchill arose in Parliament to exult, “We are enforcing the blockade with rigor, and Germany is very near starvation.”

So grave were conditions in Germany that Gen. Sir Herbert Plumer protested to Lloyd George in Paris that morale among his troops on the Rhine was sinking from seeing “hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal from British cantonments.”

The starvation blockade was a war crime and a crime against humanity. But the horrors of the Second World War made people forget this milestone on the Western road to barbarism.

A comparable crime is being committed today against the poorest people in the Arab world — and with the complicity of the United States.

Saudi Arabia, which attacked and invaded Yemen in 2015 after Houthi rebels dumped over a pro-Saudi regime in Sanaa and overran much of the country, has imposed a land, sea and air blockade, after the Houthis fired a missile at Riyadh this month that was shot down.

The Saudis say it was an Iranian missile, fired with the aid of Hezbollah, and an “act of war” against the kingdom. The Houthis admit to firing the missile, but all three deny Iran and Hezbollah had any role.

Whatever the facts of the attack, what the Saudis, with U.S. support, are doing today with this total blockade of that impoverished country appears to be both inhumane and indefensible.

Almost 90 percent of Yemen’s food, fuel and medicine is imported, and these imports are being cut off. The largest cities under Houthi control, the port of Hodaida and Sanaa, the capital, have lost access to drinking water because the fuel needed to purify the water is not there.

Thousands have died of cholera. Hundreds of thousands are at risk. Children are in danger from a diphtheria epidemic. Critical drugs and medicines have stopped coming in, a death sentence for diabetics and cancer patients.

If airfields and ports under Houthi control are not allowed to open and the necessities of life and humanitarian aid are not allowed to flow in, the Yemenis face famine and starvation.

What did these people do to deserve this? What did they do to us that we would assist the Saudis in doing this to them?

The Houthis are not al-Qaida or ISIS. Those are Sunni terrorist groups, and the Houthis detest them.

Is this now the American way of war? Are we Americans, this Thanksgiving and Christmas, prepared to collude in a human rights catastrophe that will engender a hatred of us among generations of Yemeni and stain the name of our country?

Saudis argue that the specter of starvation will turn the Yemeni people against the rebels and force the Houthi to submit. But what if the policy fails. What if the Houthis, who have held the northern half of the country for more than two years, do not yield? What then?

Are we willing to play passive observer as thousands and then tens of thousands of innocent civilians — the old, sick, weak, and infants and toddlers first — die from a starvation blockade supported by the mighty United States of America?

Without U.S. targeting and refueling, Saudi planes could not attack the Houthis effectively and Riyadh could not win this war. But when did Congress authorize this war on a nation that never attacked us?

President Obama first approved U.S. support for the Saudi war effort. President Trump has continued the Obama policy, and the war in Yemen has now become his war, and his human rights catastrophe.

Yemen today is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, and America’s role in it is undeniable and indispensable.

If the United States were to tell Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that we were no longer going to support his war in Yemen, the Saudis would have to accept the reality that they have lost this war.

Indeed, given Riyadh’s failure in the Syria civil war, its failure to discipline rebellious Qatar, its stalemated war and human rights disaster in Yemen, Trump might take a hard second look at the Sunni monarchy that is the pillar of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


4 months ago

Trump: If NFL players shun the national anthem, it’s ‘almost as bad as kneeling!’

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


President Donald Trump reacted negatively to a report that the National Football League (NFL) is considering keeping players inside their locker rooms during the playing of the National Anthem before games.

Players have protested by kneeling, raising fists, and sitting during the Anthem at games, prompting public backlash and sharp public rebukes from Trump. In response, NFL owners are, reportedly, considering a rule that would require players to stay out of sight during the Anthem.

But, shunning the National Anthem is “almost as bad as kneeling,” Trump Tweeted in reponse to the news:

“The NFL is now thinking of a new idea – keeping teams in the Locker Room during the National Anthem next season. That’s almost as bad as kneeling! When will the highly paid Commissioner finally get tough and smart? This issue is killing your league!”

Trump has, previously, called for the suspension or firing of players who disrespect the National Anthem.

(By Craig Bannister, courtesy