Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Coalition Letter to The Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions III

Updated February 14, 2018 — Click here for letter text: Coalition Letter requesting a Special Prosecutor to investigate U.S. counter-intelligence possible spying on Presidential candidates

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We the undersigned write to urge you to adopt Senator Lindsey Graham’s call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the possibility the U.S. counter-intelligence apparatus may have involved itself in the last Presidential election by spying on one of the two nominees for president.

The integrity of our counter-intelligence apparatus and our elections are already profoundly at risk because of what has already been disclosed to the public. Even the suggestion our national security’s counter-intelligence capability was manipulated as the result of opposition research activities paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President campaign and/or by the Democratic National Committee and was deployed against domestic political figures must be investigated to the fullest extent possible.

It is only by careful inquiry conducted by an independent and impartial investigation that the American people’s confidence can be restored in our electoral process and the nation’s counter-intelligence organizations. Anything less will continue to cast doubt that will hang over the nation like a cloud for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Dan Perrin,Council to Reduce Known Cyber Vulnerabilities

Jerry Rogers, Capitol Allies

Andrew Langer, Institute for Liberty

Deroy Murdoch, Political Commentator

Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association

David W. Wallace, Political Commentator

Norm Singleton, Campaign for Liberty

Seton Motley, Less Government

Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation

George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom

Peter Roff, Frontiers of Freedom

 

 

Rethinking #NeverTrump?

The Constitution

Either major candidate, should he or she be elected, enters the presidency damaged, with massive amounts of distrust from their political opposition.  But whereas Sec. Clinton engenders, really, only the distrust of Republicans (and a handful of so-called progressives), Mr. Trump will enter the presidency with massive distrust from a much-wider cross-section of his colleagues in Congress (in both houses).

And therein lies the silver lining…  with Republicans, from leadership on downward, deeply concerned with the manner with which Donald Trump will execute his presidency, there is an opportunity for these Republicans to exert enormous pressure on the executive branch to rein in that branch’s power.  Moreover, with Democrats nearly-united in opposition to Trump, there is even more of an opportunity to achieve what those distrustful of the unitary executive and executive branch overreach have been trying to do for nearly two decades:  meaningful reform and reduction in the power of the President and his appointees—clear legislative language that prescribes precisely how laws are to be implemented, authoritative oversight of agency operations, and a real willingness to use budgetary tools to push back against executive branch mischief.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the interplay between Congress and a Clinton presidency.  Should Republicans maintain control of Congress and Sec. Clinton gets elected president, the GOP cannot count on Democrats to work to rein executive branch power.  And should the GOP lose control of Congress in 2016 or 2018, with a Clinton presidency we would see the same wholesale abrogation of responsibility that brought the American people massive expansions of executive branch power under Presidents George W. Bush (from 2001-2007) and Barack Obama (from 2009-2011).

It is a mind-boggling concept—the idea that choosing Donald Trump could lead to a fundamental return to the basic constitutional precepts upon which this nation was founded.  But one has to recognize that this would be done in spite of the president—most likely without his support (if not his downright opposition).  But that’s why the founders separated the powers of government, specifically to prevent one branch from getting too powerful, and, in doing so, to protect individual rights.

So yes… it is possible that a vote for Donald Trump could represent a vote for a return to the principles of individual liberty.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/rethinking-nevertrump-how-a-trump-presidency-could-result-in-limited-presidential-power/#ixzz4PRydm0gg

The Langer Cast: Civil conversation for civil society.

We get a surprise phone call from the “streets of the Bronx.”

Andrew and I give a preview of next week’s midterm elections, and discuss Hillary Clinton’s boneheaded statement last week that businesses don’t create jobs.

We talk about why civil society matters and why race hustling is failing.  Then we talk about cronyism in the lame duck session.

Finally, we circle back to the tour of the Bronx – I remember growing up in the North Bronx near the Tracey Towers, and Andrew discusses his Dad’s family in Crotona Park and Riverdale. We talk about the importance of family, community, and that it’s never too late to give thanks and show gratitude.

Music on this week’s show: The Sweet, Run DMC, Pilot, Joe Jackson, Stevie Wonder, War.

https://soundcloud.com/man…/the-langer-cast-31-a-bronx-tale…

http://www.stitcher.com/podc…/relm-network/the-langer-cast-2

https://itunes.apple.com/podca…/the-langer-cast/id824436935…

http://langerpopp.libsyn.com/