Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar Dana Shell Smith / Getty Images

BY: Adam Kredo May 15, 2017 1:30 pm

The U.S. ambassador to Qatar, an Obama administration holdover whose family donated hundreds of thousands to the Obama campaign, signaled her distaste for working under President Donald Trump, raising questions about her commitment to the new administration.

Dana Shell Smith, the U.S. ambassador for Qatar who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, took to Twitter last week to express her frustration at Trump's administration, which has been battling negative headlines over a plethora of foreign and domestic issues.

Smith, whose Hollywood executive brother bundled at least $50,000 to $100,000 for Obama during his run for the White House, tweeted that it is "increasingly difficult to wake up overseas to news from home, knowing I will spend today explaining our democracy and institutions."

Smith's public expression of frustration with Trump is raising eyebrows both inside and outside of the administration among those who believe that Obama-era holdovers are working to undermine the current president.

Smith is just one of many current officials who also served in the Obama administration. The Washington Free Beacon, as well as other outlets, has reported multiple times on efforts by these holdovers to undermine Trump and his larger national security agenda. Smith's comments are being viewed as yet another attempt by Obama loyalists to foster skepticism of Trump.

"The Trump administration has been taking a lot of heat from the base for not cleaning out Obama holdovers, and this is exactly what people are talking about," one veteran Middle East adviser who is close to the White House told the Free Beacon. "There are hundreds of Obama supporters who are supposed to be non-political career professionals, but actually see themselves as part of the Resistance."

The goal of these officials, the source said, "is to grind the government to a halt, because they don't like the idea of any Republican administration, let alone this one, being empowered by voters to enact policies."

Smith's brother, Hollywood executive Jeff Shell, was a top campaign bundler for Obama. He raised between $50,000 and $100,000 to Obama during the 2008 campaign season, according to reports.

Obama-era holdovers have become a tense issue for the Trump administration in recent months, with many insiders suspecting that a range of sensitive leaks have emanated from these officials, sources said.

Calls have been mounting inside the administration for Trump and his senior staff to clean house, an issue that is complicated by the narrow pool of officials from which team Trump can choose.

A recent example of this struggle saw Senior National Security Council adviser on Israel, Yael Lempertan Obama holdover who was viewed as "one of the harshest critics of Israel"pushed out of the current administration after a months-long battle.

However, her replacement, Kris Bauman, shares similar views. Bauman has decried the so-called "Israel Lobby" and has called for the terror group Hamas to be included in Middle East peace talks, according to reports.

Trump administration insiders likened the problem to a game of whack-a-mole, a children's game in which players must hit a group of moles as they pop out of their holes.

"The problem is that the Obama administration left holdovers all over the government, so you get rid of one Obama loyalist and the replacement is another Obama loyalist," said one national security insider close to the Trump administration.

"That's already happened multiple times especially with Middle East appointments," the source said, referring to Lempert and Bauman.

Read the original post:
US Ambassador, Obama Holdover, Signals Disdain for Representing Trump - Washington Free Beacon

Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated a generation of minorities. Eric Holder, the attorney general under President Obama, issued guidelines to U.S. Attorneys that they should refrain from seeking long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. I agreed with him then and still do. In fact, I'm the author of a bipartisan bill with Senator Leahy to change the law on this matter. Until we pass that bill, though, the discretion on enforcement -- and the lives of many young drug offenders -- lies with the current attorney general

The attorney general's new guidelines, a reversal of a policy that was working, will accentuate the injustice in our criminal justice system. We should be treating our nation's drug epidemic for what it is -- a public health crisis, not an excuse to send people to prison and turn a mistake into a tragedy.

And make no mistake, the lives of many drug offenders are ruined the day they receive that long sentence the attorney general wants them to have.

Yet today, a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting, primarily because of the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs has disproportionately affected young black males.

Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas. Arrest statistics matter when cities apply for federal grants. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that it's easier to round up, arrest, and convict poor kids than it is to convict rich kids.

I know a guy about my age in Kentucky who was arrested and convicted for growing marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college.

Thirty years later, he still can't vote, can't own a gun, and, when he looks for work, he must check the box -- the box that basically says, "I'm a convicted felon, and I guess I'll always be one."

He hasn't been arrested or convicted for 30 years -- but still can't vote or have his Second Amendment rights. Getting a job is nearly impossible for him.

Mandatory sentencing automatically imposes a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes -- usually related to drugs.

I want to go the opposite way from the attorney general. That's why I've partnered with Senator Leahy and once again will be reintroducing the Justice Safety Valve Act.

This isn't about legalizing drugs. It is about making the punishment more fitting and not ruining more lives.

The legislation is short and simple. It amends current law to grant judges authority to impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum.

In other words, we are not repealing mandatory minimums on the books -- we are merely allowing a judge to issue a sentence below a mandatory minimum if certain requirements are met.

We need this legislation because while there is an existing safety valve in current law, it is very limited. It has a strict five-part test, and only about 23% of all drug offenders qualified for the safety valve.

The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims.

His friend turned out to be a police informant, and he was charged with dealing drugs. Horner pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 25 years in jail.

This young man had been in a car where drugs were found. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one of us might have been in a car in our youth where someone might have had drugs. Before the arrest, according to news reports, this young man was going to be the first in his family to go to college.

Each case should be judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums prevent this from happening.

Mandatory minimum sentencing has done little to address the very real problem of drug abuse while also doing great damage by destroying so many lives, and most Americans now realize it.

I urge the attorney general to reconsider his recent action. But even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to consider bipartisan legislation to fix this problem in the law where it should be handled. Congress can end this injustice, and I look forward to leading this fight for justice.

Read more:
Rand Paul: Sessions' sentencing plan would ruin lives ...

Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated a generation of minorities. Eric Holder, the attorney general under President Obama, issued guidelines to U.S. Attorneys that they should refrain from seeking long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. I agreed with him then and still do. In fact, I'm the author of a bipartisan bill with Senator Leahy to change the law on this matter. Until we pass that bill, though, the discretion on enforcement -- and the lives of many young drug offenders -- lies with the current attorney general

The attorney general's new guidelines, a reversal of a policy that was working, will accentuate the injustice in our criminal justice system. We should be treating our nation's drug epidemic for what it is -- a public health crisis, not an excuse to send people to prison and turn a mistake into a tragedy.

And make no mistake, the lives of many drug offenders are ruined the day they receive that long sentence the attorney general wants them to have.

Yet today, a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting, primarily because of the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs has disproportionately affected young black males.

Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas. Arrest statistics matter when cities apply for federal grants. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that it's easier to round up, arrest, and convict poor kids than it is to convict rich kids.

I know a guy about my age in Kentucky who was arrested and convicted for growing marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college.

Thirty years later, he still can't vote, can't own a gun, and, when he looks for work, he must check the box -- the box that basically says, "I'm a convicted felon, and I guess I'll always be one."

He hasn't been arrested or convicted for 30 years -- but still can't vote or have his Second Amendment rights. Getting a job is nearly impossible for him.

Mandatory sentencing automatically imposes a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes -- usually related to drugs.

I want to go the opposite way from the attorney general. That's why I've partnered with Senator Leahy and once again will be reintroducing the Justice Safety Valve Act.

This isn't about legalizing drugs. It is about making the punishment more fitting and not ruining more lives.

The legislation is short and simple. It amends current law to grant judges authority to impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum.

In other words, we are not repealing mandatory minimums on the books -- we are merely allowing a judge to issue a sentence below a mandatory minimum if certain requirements are met.

We need this legislation because while there is an existing safety valve in current law, it is very limited. It has a strict five-part test, and only about 23% of all drug offenders qualified for the safety valve.

The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims.

His friend turned out to be a police informant, and he was charged with dealing drugs. Horner pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 25 years in jail.

This young man had been in a car where drugs were found. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one of us might have been in a car in our youth where someone might have had drugs. Before the arrest, according to news reports, this young man was going to be the first in his family to go to college.

Each case should be judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums prevent this from happening.

Mandatory minimum sentencing has done little to address the very real problem of drug abuse while also doing great damage by destroying so many lives, and most Americans now realize it.

I urge the attorney general to reconsider his recent action. But even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to consider bipartisan legislation to fix this problem in the law where it should be handled. Congress can end this injustice, and I look forward to leading this fight for justice.

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul: Sessions' sentencing plan would ruin lives - CNN

On "America's News HQ" this afternoon, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed that another senator confided in him that he was surveilled by the Obama administration.

Earlier this week, Paul said reporters have told him they have evidence he was a target of Obama administration spying.

This is the first time that Paul mentioned another senator is also concerned about the Obama administration's surveillance.

He said if this proves to be true, it's a much bigger story than any allegations about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the presidential election.

"It's about your own government spying on the opposition party," Paul said. "That would be enormous if it's true."

Paul told Fox Business Networks Charles Payne on Wednesday that he's asked the White House and the House and Senate intelligence committees to investigate.

He said if the intelligence community is indeed being used for politics, it's a "very, very serious crime."

Paul added that the possible illegal use of intelligence community resources for political purposes raises chilling questions.

They have so much power to collect," Paul said. "I mean, they have the power to collect information, invade your privacy but also to destroy you."

Watch more above, and see the full Fox Business interview below.

McCain on Dems Crying Wolf: 'They Floated Impeachment on Election Night'

Conway on Anderson Cooper's Eye-Roll: I Face Sexism Often in TV Interviews

Acting FBI Director: 'Not Accurate' to Say Comey Lost Support of Rank and File

Enraged Dad to GOP Lawmaker: 'You've Been Single Greatest Threat to My Family'

More:
Paul: Another Senator Told Me He Was Surveilled by Obama Admin ... - Fox News Insider

It is interesting and fascinating, inspiring and frustrating to fight for the cause of liberty.

Once involved, it is very easy to let ones mind wander with regard to the barriers we have to our success in life, as well as the barriers to peace. This is a process in which we are all taught in our formative years that the enemies to these highly prized desires are people, groups, countries, political foes, religions, criminals, and other entities that are not supposedly under the control of the people.

The lessons that formed our thinking during the years that we receive formal education are ingrained in most of us, until we experience a key event that rattles our perceptions and we make a different recognition that the infrastructure that was created for the protection of the people is the very same infrastructure that violates peace, blocks our success, sustains violence, stifles our creativity, limits our freedoms, and destroys the spark in many of us to live our lives to the fullest, essentially standing firmly in the way of the pursuit of happiness and a peaceful world.

For many of us, this realization is a serious wake-up call which ignites a spark that inspires us to do something about this travesty. We are awake, but feel alone and frustrated because so many other people with whom we communicate have either not made this realization, or have already recognized the situation and find it insurmountable to change.

So, we fight the current and begin to fight the system. Some of us are so outraged that we make mistakes and the system destroys us. Some are more thoughtful with respect to their communications, plans and goals that they can help to raise awareness and grow the numbers of people that will subscribe to the fight for freedom. Others fight and become weary from a fight that on occasion feels futile.

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I am prepared for the opposition from those who either strongly support government control, or who simply have not yet made the recognition as to the importance of casting these negative and controlling entities out of the way of self-actualization. What wearies me is the discouragement that I receive from people fighting the same fight as me, because my end goal does not match their end goal.

Having identified government as the culprit in so many violations against the happiness and peace of the individual, I too have been though a deep process of soul searching and analysis of this reality to which I was luxuriously oblivious only a decade ago. I have noticed myriad disastrous and destructive actions promulgated and acted upon by entities of government. It was easy for me to envision a society without government, a world without borders, and a truly free human society it was exhilarating!

Sadly, in my most rational analysis, this utopia cannot and will never exist in a grand scale on a planet in which the vast majority of the inhabitants are indoctrinated with political systems and religious beliefs to the contrary, as well as personal inflictions such as mistrust, fear and paranoia which are the reality of the landscape of life on Earth.

Where there is a void, there will always be a filler of that void. Where there is a weakness, there will be someone taking advantage of that weakness to satisfy whatever their need may be. Governments will always exist. Borders will always exist, unless there is only one government over the entire world, which is the complete antithesis to the growth and happiness of the human condition.

The internal arguments are powerful and with great fervor. Our struggle, the way I see it, is between reality and fantasy. The fantasy is that there will be a sustained period absent any government. The reality is that the entire planet would need to subscribe to this philosophy for it to be possible. While this would be beautiful, it will simply never happen.

If I am to inspire a positive change toward peace, happiness, growth, progress, freedom and individual prosperity, I must be rooted in the real world as it exists today; for if I am to be effective in this goal, I must address the actual challenges we face in order to begin the process of the reduction and removal of these barriers to human success that so many people do not see as barriers.

The road to a resurgence of liberty is a lonely road, and discouragement to the fighters from within our ranks makes this road even lonelier. I have made many friends in this movement, from all spectrums and all viewpoints, and each makes valid and pertinent points.

Today, I appeal to you all for unity within the liberty movement.

How can we be united when we have so many different visions of what the end goal should look like? The immediate answer is simple. We all have a common enemy. That enemy is an over-reaching, violent, oppressive, expensive and destructive government that will never be reduced if we are our own enemies, standing in the way of our progress.

Let us focus on the short term first. Stand together as one in the exposure of the reality of today, and the recognition that each elimination of a barrier to freedom and peace is a victory in its own merit. Let us work together toward each of these smaller goals and experience success together.

If we are to reach a point in which some of us are satisfied with the reductions and want to stop, while others want to keep going that is the time for the debate to begin. The longer we fight amongst ourselves, the longer the establishment will continue to grow itself unfettered. If there is no group that is organized enough to stand in the way of those currently in power, nothing will change and the opportunity to reverse their atrocities will no longer exist. They will simply remove our ability to institute change for the better.

I respectfully call on all of us in the liberty movement: Moderates, radicals, anarchists, and everyone in between to put your battles with each other on hold, so that we all can stand up together against the common enemy that we all have identified.

I look forward to the day when we can once again argue about the end goal because that would mean that we were successful; and the only way we can be successful is to use the strength that we all have as a unified power against tyranny.

Featured image: Libertarian Wing Media

This post was written by Steve Kerbel.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Steve Kerbel is a businessman, author, and former Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Steve Kerbel: Libertarians must unite against our common enemy - Being Libertarian