Document Gz12d3mVRGBKpgpvQMdJqxLJq

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Americans for Limited Government [media@limitgov.org] 4/25/2018 1:30:34 PM Abboud, Michael [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b6f5af791al842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] Republicans have the power to energize the Trump base in 2018, but time is running out If the Republican establishment spent more time doing what they campaigned on, then maybe their base would be more energized April 25, 2018 Permission to republish original op-eds and cartoons granted. Republicans have the power to energize the Trump base in 2018, but time is running out Congressional Republicans are whining about dozens of GOP incumbents being outraised by Democrat challengers. According to the elite, this is not supposed to happen; incumbents almost always raise more money than challengers. If the Republican establishment spent more time doing what they campaigned on, then maybe their base would be more energized. President Trump threatens to pull out of NAFTA if Mexico fails to stop illegal immigrants and if the wall is not built President Donald Trump on Twitter on April 23 declared that any new deal on NAFTA will be contingent on Mexico getting a handle on illegal immigrants pouring over the southern border and Congress getting its act together to fully fund the southern border wall. All but daring them, nice trade agreement you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it. Mike Pompeo is already a successful peacemaker. Democrats ought to support him At a time when the United States is trying to conduct groundbreaking yet delicate diplomatic relations, it's unconscionable to leave the position of America's top diplomat vacant. Leaving the role empty as a qualified nominee waits would stall peace talks and will enable North Korea to pursue its nuclear agenda -- an agenda that makes many Americans the target of a nuclear missile. Though Democrats think their actions will hurt Trump, their obstruction will ultimately hurt the American people, not to mention their own re-election odds. Do the 180 erased, `hacked' PNC computers constitute obstruction of justice? Rick Manning stated `DNC leadership in apparent collusion with the Obama FBI was given custodianship over key evidence related to whether or not Russia attempted to hack the DNC's computers. At some point since that allegation was initially made in 2016, James Comey's FBI should Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00001 have taken possession of those computers and servers, but failed. Now, more than 180 of the affected computers were erased according to the DNC's own court filing, software removed and operating systems reinstalled, most probably resulting in the destruction of key evidence of what the DNC alleges was a crime. " Margot Cleveland: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million The lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint's allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits. Republicans have the power to energize the Trump base in 2018, but time is running out By Printus LeBlanc In a National Journal article last week, Congressional Republicans whined about dozens of GOP incumbents being outraised by Democrat challengers. According to the elite, this is not supposed to happen; incumbents almost always raise more money than challengers. If the Republican establishment spent more time doing what they campaigned on, then maybe their base would be more energized. The Republicans were given control of Congress because of Obamacare. For four elections the Republican establishment kept saying give us power, and we will get rid of Obamacare. The base rose up and gave the establishment the House in 2010. In 2014, the base came through once again and gave the establishment the Senate. Finally, in 2016 the Republican base gave Republicans control of everything the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The Republicans have only had full control of the government for 16 years out of the last 100, and what did they do with it? Fail. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00002 The only part of the law that was repealed with the individual mandate, which will take effect in January. Republicans were given the House, Senate, and Presidency for many reasons and one of them was getting rid all of Obamacare. The government intrusion into the healthcare market had dire consequences that still reverberate today. Obamacare has stifled job growth and raised insurance premiums for millions of Americans. It was a rallying cry for millions of Republican base voters. Not one Republican ran an election campaign on keeping Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) even stated, "should be repealed root and branch," when speaking about the abomination. Despite the bluster from Republicans in campaigns, most of Obamacare remains intact. The rising national debt was another reason Republicans were able to regain control of the government. For eight years under President Obama, the national debt ballooned to unfathomable numbers just two decades ago. Under Obama, the national debt was raised by 74 percent or $8.588 trillion. Republicans were furious at this and promised to balance the budget if they had control of the government. Last time anyone checked, Congress passed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that would make Obama proud. To add insult to injury, after Republican Congressional leadership worked with the Democrat party to give them almost everything they wanted in the budget, leadership allowed a vote on a balanced budget amendment to take place. The amendment failed with several Republicans voting against the measure knowing it was a meaningless vote because if leadership cared about a balanced budget, it would have had the vote before the omnibus vote. The latest slap in the face to the conservatives of the Republican Party is the news that leadership is working on an immigration bill, that is, amnesty. There is now talk the establishment is working to get an immigration bill passed before the primary, something the less than a third of the American believe should be a priority. President Trump won the election when no one, including the Republican establishment, believed he could. President Trump's stance on illegal immigration was particularly irksome to the establishment since the 2012 Romney election autopsy report had told Republicans to pander to illegal immigrants. President Trump was right, and the establishment was wrong, but the establishment continues to push amnesty. How is passing amnesty going to get the Republican base excited enough to donate money and get out and vote? While it hasn't been the best Congress ever, there are reasons to have hope. There is still time to rally the Trump base that won the election 2016, but time is running out. The Republicans were able to get the tax bill passed with zero help from the Democrat Party. The vast majority of Americans saw their pay increase as a result of the tax reform bill. Millions of Americans were also given bonuses in the thousands as a direct result of the bill. How are Democrats going to campaign on not voting for tax cuts when they had the chance? Not only did the tax bill put more money in people's pockets, it also repealed the individual mandate of Obamacare. It allowed for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The extremely unpopular provision of the healthcare abomination taxed people that could not afford health insurance. The tax cost hardworking Americans thousands a year in penalties. The Democrats are going to have a tough time trying to explain to people that cannot afford insurance their plan to fine them for not being able to afford insurance. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00003 Another high note for the Republicans is the passage of the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. The legislation allows the Secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs to fire employees for cause. Prior to the law's passage, it was almost impossible to fire an employee of the VA for inferior performance. A number of Obama midnight regulations were repealed under the Congressional Review Act as one of Congress' first orders of business. And while the Senate has been outpaced by a snail when it comes to political appointees and some judges, Republicans were able to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court. Despite the Democrat obstruction, the President was able to get his twelfth federal appeals court nominee approved, setting a record for the most circuit court picks confirmed in the first year of a presidency. Republicans have earned a D for their work so far. Not a failing grade but passing by the slimmest of margins. They have the power to bring their grade up, but they had better get to work. With House Speaker Paul Ryan retiring, now is the time for new leadership. Congress must do what they campaigned on, get the debt under control, repeal Obamacare, and secure the border. If you do what you campaigned on, the conservative base will come out in masse and reaffirm the GOP majority. Right now, however, the base is not happy. Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. President Trump threatens to pull out of NAFTA if Hexico fails to stop illega immigrants and if the wall is not built Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00004 By Robert Romano "Mexico, whose laws on immigration are very tough, must stop people from going through Mexico and into the U S. We may make this a condition of the new NAFTA Agreement. Our Country cannot accept what is happening! Also, we must get Wall funding fast." That was President Donald Trump on Twitter on April 23, saying that any new deal on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will be contingent on Mexico getting a handle on illegal immigrants pouring over the southern border. It will also be contingent on Congress getting its act together to build the southern border wall. Once again, Trump is demonstrating that he understands the leverage he possesses absolutely correctly, daring Congress and Mexico to ignore the illegal immigration problem to its own detriment. All but saying, that's a nice trade agreement you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it. Anyone who still doubts President Trump's resolve at this stage to get better deals for the American people has not been paying attention. Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has reaffirmed just last week that it's for good as he spoke of working on a bilateral trade deal with Japan instead. Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords. Trump decertified the Iran nuclear deal and now is considering actively withdrawing from it. Trump challenged the NATO alliance to spend more for its own defense and the allies have responded. Trump only gave South Korea an exemption from the 25 percent steel tariff after it agreed to stop steel dumping and allow more U.S.-made automobiles into its economy. As for Canada and Mexico, Trump has said their exemptions from the steel and also the 10 percent aluminum tariff are contingent on working in good faith on NAFTA renegotiations. Trump has also applied real pressure, in concert with China, on North Korea. A summit is planned, but Trump has said if it's not a good deal on denuclearization, the U S. will withdraw. These are real applications of American power on the world stage. They are not the words of somebody who is bluffing. The President alone can conclude treaties and other foreign agreements. NAFTA itself makes clear in via Article 2205 that the U S. reserves the right to leave. President Trump is not bluffing. Do not doubt him. So, if the President says if Mexico does not start getting illegal immigration under control coming across the southern border, including the caravan of Hondurans still making its way north, then NAFTA is at stake, he means it. If he says Congress had better provide funding for the southern border wall, he means it. That is, if they truly love NAFTA, which is something of a holy relic in the D C. swamp. Given the scorn that was heaped upon Trump in 2016 for opposing NAFTA -- as the American people, Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00005 particularly in the Rust Belt cheered and gave him their votes -- you might come away with the impression that some members of Congress would sell their own children to keep NAFTA. Surely, then, Congress could find the funds to fully fund construction of the southern border wall. And Mexico can get control of its side of the border. Sometimes, proper incentives are needed to get something done. Taking NAFTA hostage may be just the right prescription for President Trump. Let's see if Congress and Mexico start to move. It might take a few more tariffs before they get the message. Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. USA 'TODAY Hike Pompeo is aireacfy a successful peacemaker. Democrats ought to support him. By Rick Manning A casual observer might be surprised to learn that Mike Pompeo is in the midst of a confirmation battle to become President Trump's secretary of state. After all, he's already conducting high-stakes diplomatic negotiations for the United States. On Monday afternoon, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strictly along party lines to confirm Pompeo, the former CIA Director, to the full Senate for confirmation. Not one Democrat voted to Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00006 recommend him. Regardless of that vote, the nomination will go to the full Senate for a vote -- where it will again face entrenched opposition from the Democrats. Over the past several days, a number of Democrats who had been reluctant to put Trump's pick in Foggy Bottom announced that they would vote to confirm Pompeo. Good for them, and good for our national interests. But a number of their peers are still undecided, and if they don't make the right decision, Pompeo might not be confirmed. What's remarkable about this furor over Pompeo's nomination is that it persists even after the public learned that he served as the president's envoy during a secret Easter weekend meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post reported that Pompeo "has taken the lead on the administration's negotiations with Pyongyang," and his meeting with Kim "marks the highest-level contact between the two countries since 2000," when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the late dictator Kim Jong II. The stakes were high: Part of the administration's historic attempts to denuclearize North Korea, the meeting sets the stage for a highly anticipated summit between Kim and Trump himself. And by all accounts, Pompeo's meeting was a success. Afterwards, North Korean officials confirmed that Kim was willing to negotiate potential denuclearization. During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he is "optimistic" the United States can set conditions that will lead to a conversation between Kim and Trump that "will set us down the course of achieving a diplomatic outcome th a t... America and the world so desperately need." He didn't mention the meeting, but it's now clear that it was a source of his optimism. Meanwhile, Trump tweeted that the "meeting went very smoothly and a good relationship was formed." It even earned praise from freguent Trump critic Rep. Adam Schiff, who called the meeting "good news for diplomacy," adding, "I'm glad that the meeting took place." Pompeo's efforts are a concrete step towards a long-held American foreign policy goal of a denuclearized North Korea, and a world free of the communist regime's threats. The successful meeting is just the latest example of Pompeo's preparedness for the role of secretary of state. His impressive resume includes graduating from West Point, earning a law degree from Harvard, and serving as a Congressman. Those credentials are why, when he was up for CIA Director last year, the Senate confirmed him by a 66-32 vote. Since then, he has learned even more about the national security threats and challenges the United States faces around the globe. Yet no committee Democrats recommended him, and some red state Democrats still haven't said how they'll vote later this week. That includes Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla. (Doug Jones, who was elected Senator of Alabama earlier this year, is still on the fence as well.) Though these senators are surely focused on the uphill campaigns they face this fall, now is not the time to play political games: With North Korea's nuclear capabilities on the line, we need stability in the State Department. Besides, voters don't like flip-flopping. How would Donnelly and McCaskill, who voted "yea" for Pompeo as CIA Director, explain a "no" vote now? Would they take a page out of John Kerry's book and say they were for Pompeo before they were against him? At a time when the United States is trying to conduct groundbreaking yet delicate diplomatic relations, it's unconscionable to leave the position of America's top diplomat vacant. Leaving the role empty as a qualified nominee waits would stall peace talks and will enable North Korea to pursue its nuclear agenda -- an agenda that makes many Americans the target of a nuclear missile. Though Democrats Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00007 think their actions will hurt Trump, their obstruction will ultimately hurt the American people, not to mention their own re-election odds. These red state Democrats in the Senate should cease their political games and act quickly to confirm Pompeo. Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government. Do the 180 erased, `hacked* DNC computers constitute obstruction of justice? Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued the following statement calling attention to the DNC civil suit filing stating that "the DNC was required to decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers": "DNC leadership in apparent collusion with the Obama FBI was given custodianship over key evidence related to whether or not Russia attempted to hack the DNC's computers. At some point since that allegation was initially made in 2016, James Comey's FBI should have taken possession of those computers and servers, but failed. Now, more than 180 of the affected computers were erased according to the DNC's own court filing, software removed and operating systems reinstalled, most probably resulting in the destruction of key evidence of what the DNC alleges was a crime. Often, these subsequent actions become the only knowable facts surrounding a criminal activity and if as the DNC alleged in their lawsuit that their computers were hacked by Russian sources, the destruction of that evidence could in itself be a criminal act. "Given the admitted destruction of evidence by the DNC to support their civil suit that absolutely alleges crimes were committed, it is incumbent on the court to ensure that all forensic data, correspondence and all other communications related to the hack be protected and preserved not only at the DNC but at Crowdstrike, the DNC-paid for IT firm that did the only analysis of the DNC systems, and Perkins Coie, the law firm that hired them. "One key consideration for the court might be driven by the raid of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen's legal offices and residence, which is that if attorney-client privilege is void when there's an allegation of potential criminal activity, then the DNC law firm Perkins Coie should subjected to the same standard, or else all evidence obtained in the Cohen raid should be determined to be off limits as a violation of the President's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. There have been obvious violations of federal law by failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign that have been consistently ignored by federal investigators, while the President has been exposed to microscopic scrutiny of every aspect of his campaign. This is partisan double standard threatens the Constitution and the rule of law and must not be allowed to stand." Click here for the full press release. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00008 ALG Editor's Note: In the following piece from The Federalist, Margot Cleveland reports on a recently filed lawsuit in DC that appears to show a money laundering scheme in the Hillary Clinton campaign: Bombsheii: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million By Margot Cleveland The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday's news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia. Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week's federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law. That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint's allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits. From Bundling To Money Laundering Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor's Business Daily: Under federal law, "an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits--it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party." This legal loophole allows "bundlers" to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors--more than $400,000 at a time--filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply. Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer's, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was "extensive evidence in the Democrats' own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton's campaign--in clear violation of federal campaignfinance law." Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00009 On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here's what happened and what the evidence establishes. Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees. FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution. For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF's contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law. Click here for the full story. Americans for Limited Government 10332 Main Street # 326None Fairfax Virginia 22030 United States This email is intended for abboud.michael@epa.gov. Update your preferences or Unsubscribe Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00002431-00010