Aug. 17, 2020
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
U.S. intelligence agencies need to stop interfering in presidential elections
On Aug. 7, the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued an assessment stating, “We
assess that China prefers that President Trump — whom Beijing sees as
unpredictable — does not win reelection.” The assessment was reminiscent of the
Jan. 2017 assessment issued by DNI prior to President Trump’s inauguration
finding Russia had sought to help him defeat former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton: “We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a
clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton.” The 2017
statement for DNI was designed to knee-cap President Trump on his way into
office, and to legitimize the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation
into the Trump campaign and then the White House on false allegations that
Trump and his campaign were Russian agents. It was a pretext to take down
President Trump. At a time when the American people are already losing
confidence in our nation’s security institutions, presidential administrations
issuing more assessments about foreign adversaries preferring the incumbent
party’s opponents does two things: 1) it politicizes intelligence agencies; and
2) it delegitimizes other intelligence gathering designed to avert real and
present threats to national security. Given, then, the history involved with
DNI’s prior assessment, the intelligence community should recognize that
issuing an ill-advised statement that China wants President Trump to lose in
November might similarly affect the presidential race — and stop interfering in
presidential politics and elections.
Video: ALG explains its controversial ad about President Trump's Medicare prescription drug pricing plan
ALG President Rick
Manning explains his decision to do a cable TV ad campaign against the
president’s proposal to tie Medicare prescription drug prices to a those
dictated by foreign socialist governments. Hear why he says it is a step toward
socialized medicine.
Video: Price controls on Medicare prescription drugs will just shift costs to non-Medicare patients
Spending caps on
Medicare prescription drugs will only pass along higher drug costs to
non-Medicare patients, creating a disparity that advocates of socialized
medicine can then exploit as evidence that the way to control costs is via a
government takeover of pricing or expanding to Medicare for All.
We need FDA reform to lower drug costs, not Medicare spending caps based on foreign governments’ price controls
As President Trump
wrestles with trying to rein in the high cost of medicine in the United States,
he is contemplating an executive order and a proposed rule from the Center for
Medicare & Medicaid Services that would set Medicare Part B prescription
drug costs based on an International Pricing Index (IPI). The problem is that
the IPI includes countries that utilize socialized medicine and artificial
price controls. Here, President Trump is mistakenly focused upon the symptom
rather than the cause of the problem. The symptom is the cost, the cause is the
incredible barriers to approval and pernicious middlemen known as Pharmacy
Benefit Managers which make medicines more expensive. The real victims of
foreign price controls are those whose hope lies in medical breakthroughs.
Whether it be for treatments and cures for the Chinese-originated virus,
finding ways to slow or end crippling degenerative diseases like Lou Gehrig’s
Disease or Multiple Sclerosis or for the development of innovative biologic
treatments which are becoming prevalent in treating and beating previously
untreatable cancers, it is time to confront those foreign nations who are
ripping us off, rather than emulating them. What do you think?
Richard Grenell: Israel-UAE breakthrough proves Trump's critics wrong — again
“Thursday’s
historic announcement that the U.S. brokered a normalization agreement between
Israel and the United Arab Emirates — the first Gulf Arab state to announce
formal relations with the Jewish State — has the D.C. establishment with its tail
between its legs once again. Especially now that so many have accepted
prominent roles with the Biden campaign, they might want to consider where they
went wrong. I’d recommend starting with why even the prospect of a Biden
administration has been enough to push Israel and many of its Arab neighbors
closer together. During the Obama-Biden years, the U.S. prioritized bringing
Iran ‘in from the cold’ over regional stability and violence reduction. It also
considered Western Europe a higher authority on revolutionary changes to the
Middle East balance of power than the U.S. allies who actually live there. The
threat of a return to those ways of thinking, and the desire to maximize the
advantages of the current administration, helped ink the deal that many saw as
impossible. Rather than instigate a new round of doomsday predictions and
too-cute-by-half analyses of how Thursday’s news is somehow “bad” for anyone
but the Iranian mullahs, the experts and campaign officials who got this issue
so wrong might want to revisit some other previous assumptions.”
U.S. intelligence agencies need to stop interfering in presidential elections
By Robert Romano
On Aug. 7, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued an assessment stating, “We assess that China prefers that President Trump — whom Beijing sees as unpredictable — does not win reelection.”
Once again, U.S. intelligence agencies are getting involved with American presidential electoral politics, this time issuing an assessment alleging that China wants to see President Donald Trump defeated by former Vice President Joe Biden.
The press statement explained, “Many foreign actors have a preference for who wins the election, which they express through a range of overt and private statements; covert influence efforts are rarer. We are primarily concerned about the ongoing and potential activity by China, Russia, and Iran.”
The assessment was reminiscent of the Jan. 2017 assessment issued by DNI prior to President Trump’s inauguration finding Russia had sought to help him defeat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton… [and] the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump’s chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect.”
The 2017 statement for DNI was designed to knee-cap President Trump on his way into office, and to legitimize the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and then the White House on false allegations that Trump and his campaign were Russian agents who had helped Moscow hack the Democratic National Committee and put its emails onto Wikileaks.
It was a pretext to take down President Trump.
It was only more than two years later that Special Counsel Robert Mueller debunked that conspiracy theory, writing in his March 2019 report, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” and “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”
In testimony before House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 24, 2019, Mueller put a fine point on it, stating, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.”
A 2018 poll by Axios at the height of the Mueller investigation showed 47 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable view of the FBI, with only 38 percent of Republicans having faith in the bureau.
In other words, the investigation of President Trump by intelligence and counterintelligence agencies undermined public attitudes toward the nation’s national security apparatus.
After the revelations by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his Dec. 2019 report, however, that faith has been completely shattered.
And it is already leading to a conviction with, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty to falsifying an email to help keep the Justice Department’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against the Trump campaign.
According to Horowitz’s report detailing FISA abuses, “SSA 2 received an email from the OGC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison’s June 15 response email concerning Page’s historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the OIG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison’s response email had been altered. Specifically, the words ‘and not a ‘source…’ had been inserted in the Liaison’s June 15 response after the word “[digraph].” Thus, the Liaison’s email was altered to read: ‘My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] ‘[digraph]’ and not a ‘source’ but the [documents] will explain the details.’”
The Horowitz report also detailed that the FBI hid other exculpatory evidence that would have cleared President Trump of any wrongdoing from the Justice Department and the FISA report. That included that the primary sub-source used by former British spy Christopher Steele in the DNC and Clinton campaign-paid for dossier that was used by the FBI had contradicted Steele’s findings in a Jan. 2017 interview by the FBI before Trump was even sworn into office.
According to Horowitz, “the Primary Sub-source made statements during his/her January 2017 FBI interview that were inconsistent with multiple sections of the Steele reports, including some that were relied upon in the FISA applications. Among other things, regarding the allegations attributed to Person 1, the Primary Sub-source’s account of these communications, if true, was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’…”
The loss of public confidence in intelligence and counterintelligence agencies is the consequence of getting directly involved in presidential electoral politics on false grounds and undermining the peaceful transfer of power from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.
It’s akin to the boy who cried wolf. That is why at a time when the American people are already losing confidence in our nation’s security institutions, presidential administrations issuing more assessments about foreign adversaries preferring the incumbent party’s opponents does two things: 1) it politicizes intelligence agencies; and 2) it delegitimizes other intelligence gathering designed to avert real and present threats to national security.
Given, then, the history involved with DNI’s prior assessment — that it was a pretext to an expansive counterintelligence and criminal investigation by the outgoing Obama administration into the incoming Trump administration on false grounds — releasing a statement implying that China prefers Joe Biden raises similar questions.
Namely, what is the evidence? Is China trying to infiltrate the Biden campaign? What are they doing to ensure President Trump’s defeat in November? Are these false allegations, too?
The DNI doesn’t really tell us, instead vaguely warning, “China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China. Although China will continue to weigh the risks and benefits of aggressive action, its public rhetoric over the past few months has grown increasingly critical of the current Administration’s COVID-19 response, closure of China’s Houston Consulate, and actions on other issues. For example, it has harshly criticized the Administration’s statements and actions on Hong Kong, TikTok, the legal status of the South China Sea, and China’s efforts to dominate the 5G market. Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential race.”
But, wouldn’t China issue statements “pressur[ing] political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests” or “deflect and counter criticism of China” or “harshly criticized the Administration’s statements and actions on Hong Kong” in a non-election year?
The evidence is even thinner: “Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential race.”
Of course Beijing recognizes that its action can impact public attitudes. But so should the DNI. That is, the intelligence community should recognize that issuing an ill-advised statement that China wants President Trump to lose in November might similarly affect the presidential race — and stop interfering in presidential politics and elections. Enough is enough.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: http://dailytorch.com/2020/08/u-s-intelligence-agencies-need-to-stop-interfering-in-presidential-elections/
Video: ALG explains its controversial ad about President Trump's Medicare prescription drug pricing plan
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfKzrK2d7X0
Video: Price controls on Medicare prescription drugs will just shift costs to non-Medicare patients
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXCZ50ZW_yM
We need FDA reform to lower drug costs, not Medicare spending caps based on foreign governments’ price controls
By Rick Manning
$2.6 billion! That’s how much Tuft’s University research says it costs to bring a new drug from the research lab to the pharmacy counter.
As President Trump wrestles with trying to rein in the high cost of medicine in the United States, he is contemplating an executive order and a proposed rule from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services that would set Medicare Part B prescription drug costs based on an International Pricing Index (IPI). The problem is that the IPI includes countries that utilize socialized medicine and artificial price controls. Here, President Trump is mistakenly focused upon the symptom rather than the cause of the problem. The symptom is the cost, the cause is the incredible barriers to approval and pernicious middle-men known as Pharmacy Benefit Managers which make medicines more expensive.
The president is also mistaken in using foreign socialized medicine countries to determine U.S. drug prices. Besides the point that this runs counter to the America First DNA which courses through President Trump veins, a recent statement by the National Council on Disabilities argues against using the IPI for setting US drug prices as it “relies on quality-adjusted life years (QALYS) – a formula used to assess the value of medications by assigning a lower value to the life of a person with an illness or disability.”
The truth is outsourcing medicine pricing to foreign countries does violence to the American value that markets determine prices instead of bureaucrats. Rather than bemoaning that foreign price controls rip off American consumers by creating artificially low prices abroad which get made up by higher prices here at home, the president should demand that these countries open up their pricing models so that the costs of creating a cure for Alzheimer’s or cancer are borne fairly.
Because the real victims of foreign price controls are those whose hope lies in medical breakthroughs. Whether it be for treatments and cures for the Chinese-originated virus, finding ways to slow or end crippling degenerative diseases like Lou Gehrig’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis or for the development of innovative biologic treatments which are becoming prevalent in treating and beating previously untreatable cancers, it is time to confront those foreign nations who are ripping us off, rather than emulating them.
Beyond jaw-boning countries with socialized medicine to quit free-riding on new medicine development, the president can take two actions which would have an immediate impact.
He took an initial step in reining in drug middlemen through his Executive Order on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) who pocket rebates intended for the customers, driving prices up. However this can be taken further by forcing the federal PBM contract(s) to be re-competed with the winners being those who pass substantial rebate savings on to the consumer.
Another step that the president can take today is to apply the same streamlined standards that the FDA enacted in 1987 for medicines to treat AIDS to all medicines under FDA review. AIDS has gone from a death sentence to something patients can live with, and the expedited approval standards have encouraged research and development of these life-saving treatments. To lower prices today and in the future, the president should immediately replace his socialist country price control Executive Order with an Order which expands the AIDS approval process to include all medicines and tests.
It is beyond obvious that cutting the cost and time of bringing innovative treatments and cures to market generates more, diverse treatment choices for doctors and patients. And we all know that choice creates competition which drives down price.
The lessons learned about the irrational roadblocks identified in the federal government approval process during the COVID-19 fight should also inform President Trump that costs and as a result, prices can be cut through systemic reforms at the FDA and elsewhere.
America has the greatest inventors in the world, by changing the rules of the FDA approval process and safely streamlining that approval process, more capital would flow to drug development creating more treatments in a shorter time frame at a lower cost to the consumer. The classic, win, win, win that this president is famous for creating as he works his art of the deal magic.
Rick Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/14/government-creates-the-high-drug-costs-it-then-seeks-to-fix/
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured oped from The Hill, senior fellow of Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy Richard Grenell praises President Donald Trump successfully brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and United Arab Emirates:
Israel-UAE breakthrough proves Trump's critics wrong — again
By Richard Grenell
For nearly four years, Washington foreign policy experts and Obama administration alumni warned that the Trump administration was jeopardizing any prospects for Middle East peace. By withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, we were told, the U.S. would alienate itself from its allies. By moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, it would inflame the anger of millions of Arab Muslims. By recognizing Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, it would estrange the Arab states. By maintaining close relations with the Israeli government, it would imperil the lives of Palestinians.
With such a grim record of prediction, Thursday’s historic announcement that the U.S. brokered a normalization agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates — the first Gulf Arab state to announce formal relations with the Jewish State — has the D.C. establishment with its tail between its legs once again. Especially now that so many have accepted prominent roles with the Biden campaign, they might want to consider where they went wrong.
I’d recommend starting with why even the prospect of a Biden administration has been enough to push Israel and many of its Arab neighbors closer together. During the Obama-Biden years, the U.S. prioritized bringing Iran “in from the cold” over regional stability and violence reduction. It also considered Western Europe a higher authority on revolutionary changes to the Middle East balance of power than the U.S. allies who actually live there. The threat of a return to those ways of thinking, and the desire to maximize the advantages of the current administration, helped ink the deal that many saw as impossible.
Rather than instigate a new round of doomsday predictions and too-cute-by-half analyses of how Thursday’s news is somehow “bad” for anyone but the Iranian mullahs, the experts and campaign officials who got this issue so wrong might want to revisit some other previous assumptions.
Sanctions on Iran were supposed to escalate tensions in the Persian Gulf. Expelling Iran from global oil markets was supposed to destabilize the region. The assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was supposed to trigger World War III. Bringing troops home from Iraq and Syria was supposed to be a capitulation to Russia. Altering the U.S. attitude toward greater Turkish action in the region was supposed to be a needless provocation to Russia. (Either way, it’s always about Russia.) And, most importantly of course, it was an outrage to Western Europe.
Critics who have lamented the Trump administration’s supposed abandonment of allies somehow missed the years of effort it put into building consensus where it counts. Just because an agreement is local, doesn’t receive the blessing of the European Union, and is negotiated outside the walls of the United Nations, does not make it any less “multilateral.” The Biden-world understanding of agreements such as these is that they must take place in the context of the G-20, and must be led by a consensus which, first and foremost, serves the interests and self-image of the “P5+1” or “E3+3.” The consent of the regional stakeholders who actually have to live with the consequences of these agreements is seen as largely irrelevant.
As the Washington establishment and their Potemkin candidate panic about a historic diplomatic achievement that serves U.S. interests, keep an eye on next steps. One possible issue on the horizon is Lebanon. That long-suffering country, Israel’s northern neighbor, is undergoing another heartbreaking period of instability and tragedy, largely imposed by the violent predations of the terrorist organization Hezbollah. For the past three and a half years, the Trump administration has relentlessly squeezed the Iranian terror proxy, chasing it out of international finance, clamping down on its transnational money-laundering schemes, and cooperating with allies such as Germany to eliminate its fundraising and recruiting activities on European soil.
The Trump administration now should consider conditioning current levels of aid to Lebanon (America is its largest foreign-aid donor) on the weakening of Hezbollah’s influence, and a normalization path between Beirut and Jerusalem. The White House also should lean heavily on France for cooperation.
But here’s the difference between the Trump administration and November’s alternative: Just as with all other regional issues, President Trump with a policy that he believes serves the U.S. national interest, then cooperates with the U.S. allies who have the most skin in the game. Joe Biden and his army of “experts” surely will spend this fall arguing the opposite: That the U.S. must begin by being ashamed of its own interests, then reach out to like-minded progressives who will agree to impose their preferences on ordinary people elsewhere in the world.
President Trump has now proven that not starting new wars, bringing U.S. troops home, and signing peace deals is only possible when an outsider ignores the Washington foreign policy establishment.
To view online: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/511921-israel-uae-breakthrough-proves-trumps-critics-wrong-again
