Lesbian Teacher Bans Cross Jewelry, Plasters Class With LGBT Propaganda

The Christian religious liberty defense group Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the Hillsborough County Public Schools on Thursday to protest a lesbian activist teacher who allegedly banned some of her students from wearing Christian jewelry and turned her classroom into an intolerant, pro-LGBTQ propaganda zone.

Lora Jane Riedas, a math teacher at Riverview High School in Tampa, placed LGBT “rainbow” stickers on her students’ notebooks and decorated her classroom with décor that “blatantly promotes a pro-LGBT agenda,” according to the letter from Liberty Counsel attorneys Richard Mast and Mary McAlister to Hillsborough County schools Superintendent Jeff Eakins.

“I need you to take your necklace off,” Riedas allegedly said to one student wearing a cross necklace. The student, Liberty Counsel’s client, asked “Why?” Then Riedas refused to explain, stating “That’s disrespectful; you have to take it off,” according to the demand letter.

“Our client did not want to be disrespectful, so she took it off, but she felt bad because she felt she was being forced to deny her faith,” said the letter. “All of our clients are afraid to openly wear their cross necklaces in [Riedas’] class anymore.”

Riedas has prohibited at least three students from wearing Christian cross necklaces in her classroom, claiming they are “gang symbols,” according to the Liberty Counsel press release. One of the crosses, a tiny crucifix worn by Liberty Counsel’s ninth grade client, is less than an inch long. (Read more from “Lesbian Teacher Bans Cross Jewelry, Plasters Class With LGBT Propaganda” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Justice Unserved? Should Katherine Russell Be Charged as a Suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings?

What did she know, when did she know it, and how could she not know? Four years after the Boston Marathon bombings, questions remain surrounding the role of Katherine Russell as a potential accomplice to the deadly crimes committed by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Katherine Russell (who sometimes went by her married name, Karima Tsarnaev) has never been charged in connection with the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing terrorist attacks, which killed three, resulted in 17 amputees, and wounded another 240 innocent people.

While the two perpetrators of the attacks have been brought to justice (with Tamerlan’s death and Dzokhar currently locked up in a super max prison), Russell has somehow escaped justice for potentially being an accomplice to a vicious Islamic terror attack on U.S. soil.

She who was born to a “tight-knit” Catholic family in Rhode Island, had excelled in school and enrolled in Suffolk University. Affectionately known to her friends simply as Katie, Russell was described as a popular, friendly person who had everything going for her.

Her life took a radical turn for the worst in 2009 after meeting Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a devout Muslim who would watch radical Islamic videos and generally hated what the United States stands for, according to a neighbor.

Russell converted to Islam in 2010 at the Masjid al Qur’aan in Boston. Later that year, she dropped out of college. She was rarely seen outside of the apartment (other than making her trips to and from work as a home health care assistant) she shared with her husband and young child, according to neighbors. This means that she was almost certainly present as her husband used their apartment (which was smaller than 800 square feet) to make pressure cooker bombs and watch radical jihadi videos.

Her defense team has framed her relationship with Tamerlan as an abusive one. They claim she worked tirelessly, and spent the rest of her time caring for their child and isolated from even the people inside her small home. They say she had no advance knowledge of his plans.

However, there is more than just circumstantial evidence tying Russell to the terrorist act.

Months before the bombing, she conducted online searches on her Macbook computer for “wife of mujahedeen” and “If your husband becomes a Shahid, what are the rewards for you?” prosecutors said during the 2015 trial. Mujahedeen means people engaged in jihad, or Islamic holy war. A Shahid is a martyr for the religion of Islam.

Following the attacks, she seemed to justify the ruthless methods of her husband and brother-in-law, texting a friend: “Although a lot more people are killed every day in Syria and other places. Innocent people.”

She also retained radical Islamic propaganda videos on her personal computer, such as al Qaeda’s infamous “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” video that has provided bomb-making guidance for countless jihadis.

After the bombing, police sought out the help of the local Boston community to help find the suspects they had identified through grainy photos. When pictures of Tamerlan’s face had started to appear on television, Russell called him to inform him, according to police sources, who told The Weekly Standard at the time.

Russell was profiled as someone who was well aware of the planning stages of the attacks in the movie “Patriots Day,” the 2016 film about the Boston Marathon bombings. Her lawyers insist that it unfairly portrays their client, while the filmmakers stand by their research related to her role in the attack.

Since the terror attacks, Russell has jumped around from state to state. She first attempted to move back into her family home in Rhode Island. Although there were signs of initial reconciliation, the efforts to bring her back into the fold failed after she clashed with her family over her Islamic faith, according to one relative.

She found a better fit in the New Jersey home of her late husband’s sisters, Bella and Ailina Tsarnaev, the latter who appears to be a radical Islamist. In 2015, she told her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend that she knew people who could set off a bomb in her home.

Russell has since remarried and had another baby, Ailina Tsarnaev said.

It remains unclear whether prosecutors will ever decide to pursue charges against Russell. She has kept an extremely low profile over the past year. In September 2016, authorities wanted to question her with regard to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s activities. Russell released a statement through her lawyers in September 2016.

“The injuries and loss of life – to people who came to celebrate a race and a holiday – has caused profound distress and sorrow to Katie and her family. The reports of involvement by her husband and brother-in-law came as an absolute shock to them all,” the statement said. (For more from the author of “Justice Unserved? Should Katherine Russell Be Charged as a Suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk (2)

Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question

Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court wasted no time in making his voice heard (literally) before the chamber Monday morning. Among the first questions Justice Neil Gorsuch asked was a positive indicator for originalists who supported his nomination.

Gorsuch’s process of finding the original meaning of the law, as written – one of the more comical non-scandals surrounding his confirmation hearing – has indeed followed him onto his first day on the job, as evidenced by a one-line question he asked from the bench:

“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?”

According to a report at ABC News, the newest justice spent a great deal of time questioning the federal worker’s lawyer about the wording of a statute related to the case, before grilling the Justice Department’s attorney about the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act.

The case in question was Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, which revolves around the proper jurisdiction of a federal census worker’s employment dispute. Perry was the first of three that the once-again fully fledged bench was set to hear on the first day of its last session of the current term.

Despite the long, impressive resume that the Colorado native brings to Justice Scalia’s former seat, only time will tell what kind of jurist Trump’s first pick will turn out to be, and what kind of mark he will leave on the body of constitutional law.

But first impressions do matter, and one like this has been on many people’s wish list for a long time. (For more from the author of “Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election

As far as I can tell, the comment received virtually no response from the media, nor was it deemed worthy of a response. After all, what’s the big deal about a political candidate casually mentioning that he’s living with his longtime girlfriend? Don’t some of our favorite TV couples live together out of wedlock? And don’t some of our friends and neighbors and family members live together out of wedlock?

They certainly do.

And that illustrates the point I’m making. We’ve come a long way in the last 50 years, and where we find ourselves today is far from good.

And that was that. No big deal, no eyebrows raised, and no suggestion that this was anything other than normal.

When congressional candidate Jon Ossoff was asked if he lived in the district in which he was running for office, he explained that he had moved out of the district to support his girlfriend while she finished medical school: “I’ve been living with my girlfriend, Alicia, for 12 years now down by Emory University where she’s a full-time medical student,” he said. “As soon as she concludes her medical training, I’ll be 10 minutes back up the street in the district where I grew up.”

At least one TV commentator did ask playfully when they were getting married. After all, 12 years is a long time to live together without marriage. But the fact they live together and that he’s running for political office wasn’t even worthy of a yawn.

Why should it be?

Today we have gay political leaders, bisexual political leaders, and transgender political leaders, not to mention a president who has been married three times.

We also have leaders like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been going with his girlfriend Sandra Lee since 2005, with plans to marry “some day.” Does anyone imagine that they are not sleeping together?

But once again, that’s the point I’m making.

What is the Meaning of Marriage in Our Culture Today?

It’s not that Ossoff is a terrible filthy sinner because he lives with his girlfriend. After all, it appears that they’ve been in a steady relationship for a dozen years, which means they’ve stayed together a lot longer than many married couples.

It’s just another reflection on the fallen state of our culture. After all, if you can live together for years without being married (and even have kids out of wedlock), and then, once you’re married, divorce for any reason, what’s the meaning of marriage?

For me personally, it was jarring to hear Ossoff’s comments, but not because they were so shocking. It’s because they weren’t shocking at all. That’s what jarred me afresh.

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan running for president (or, governor, for that matter) while living with Nancy rather than being married to her? Or George H. W. Bush living with Barbara? Or Bill Clinton living with Hillary? Or George W. Bush living with Laura? Or Barack Obama living with Michelle? Or even Donald Trump living with Melania?

Even so, how long will it be before an Andrew Cuomo can run for president while not being married to his girlfriend? It surely didn’t stop him from running for governor, and it’s not a big jump from having a longtime girlfriend to living with her.

Again, my point is not to say, “Look at how evil these people are! They are committing the unpardonable sin!”

My point is to say, “Wake up America! Our morals are collapsing before our eyes, and marriage is becoming increasingly meaningless.”

What Happens When We Discount the Sanctity of Marriage

Recent studies confirm what we have known for years: cohabitation is harmful more than helpful.

An April 1 report from the U.K.’s Marriage Foundation announced that, “Cohabiting couples now account for over half of family breakdown despite making up only a fifth of parents.”

A March 21 article noted that, “The level of doubt and mistrust among informal couples is two-and-a-half times the amount of concern about commitment detected among married couples.”

This indicates that something really happens when couples commit to marry, even in our divorce ridden cultures.

Yet it’s not just the couples who are affected. Another March article, summarizing a major, international study, reported that,

According to a recent sociological study, cohabitation has a notably deleterious impact on one particular group: kids. “As marriage becomes less likely to anchor the adult life course across the globe, growing numbers of children may be thrown into increasingly turbulent family waters,” writes Bradford Wilcox in Foreign Affairs.

These are significant findings, and they remind us that there is a large, ripple effect when we tamper with the sanctity of marriage. So, when we hear about a famous, unmarried athlete who is about to have his or her first child, we shouldn’t just think, “How wonderful!” For the sake of that child, we should think, “How much better it would be if the mom and dad were already committed in marriage.”

A Similar Scenario, 70 Years Ago

Writing about events taking place in 2014, Ann Coulter noted that, “In 1947, it was a scandal when Brooklyn Dodgers manager Leo Durocher was alleged to have been having an affair with a married actress, Laraine Day.”

She explains,

Durocher himself was not married, but Day, a Mormon who never smoked or drank, divorced her husband and married Durocher the day after being granted a provisional divorce decree. The divorce wasn’t final, so the judge who signed the decree ordered Day and Durocher to live separately in California. (Yes, this was so long ago, the institution of marriage was still respected in California.)

And they did. She lived with her mother in Santa Monica and Durocher moved into a nearby hotel.

Yet and still, the Catholic Youth Organization withdrew its support for the Brooklyn Dodgers and advised its members to boycott the team as long as Durocher remained manager.

As CYO director Rev. Vincent J. Powell explained in a letter, Durocher was not the sort of person “we want our youth to idealize and imitate,” adding that the CYO could not be “officially associated with a man who presents an example in contradiction to our moral teachings.”

Yes, that was New York City in the late 1940’s. Need I say more?

Acknowledging Our Culture’s Broken Condition

In my forthcoming book, Saving a Sick America, I do lay out a plan for moral and cultural reformation. But that plan for the future starts with one essential ingredient today: We must realize how sick we are.

Mr. Ossoff’s recent comment, as benign as it may have seemed, is another reminder of our broken condition.

Call me Puritanical and prudish if you like. My words will be vindicated over time. (For more from the author of “A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Never Forget: Hero Cop Who Blew Whistle on OKC Bombing Did NOT Commit Suicide

Instead of being treated as the hero he truly was, Sgt. Terrance Yeakey was silenced by his own government in an effort to keep him from exposing their complicity in one of the largest mass murders in American history – which senselessly ended the lives of 168 people, including 19 children.

According to his widow, instead of being showered with accolades by the US government for his heroism, Yeakey was killed, with his death being framed to look like a suicide (although a very poorly staged one) only days before receiving the police department’s Medal of Valor for his heroic rescue efforts on day of the Oklahoma City bombing.

On May 11, 1996, only days after Yeakey’s death, the New York Times ran a story with the headline – ‘A Policeman Who Rescued 4 in Bombing Kills Himself’ – but the bold assertion — that hero cop Sgt. Terrance Yeakey killed himself — couldn’t be further from the truth.

While the NY Times article claimed that Yeakey committed suicide because he was living in such emotional pain from not being able to do more to help the people injured in the bombing, and that he was suffering from intense survivor guilt which he was unable to manage, this information has been repeatedly refuted by Yeakey’s family.

In an effort to further muddy the waters surrounding his death, the Times story went on to claim:

The police are investigating a report that Sergeant Yeakey had violated an order barring him from going near his former wife, said Capt. Bill Citty, a spokesman. Sergeant Yeakey also had a similar order against her, Captain Citty said. Efforts to locate her today were unsuccessful.

Let’s set the record straight.

Sgt. Yeakey’s body was found in a field in El Reno, OK, over a mile away from his abandoned vehicle. There was an extremely large amount of blood found in his vehicle, he had been bound, had rope burn on his neck, ligature marks on his wrists, numerous deep cuts, likely tortured and killed execution-style with a single bullet that entered his right temple at a 45-degree angle. To top it off, no gun was found at the scene of his death — until an FBI agent showed up and suspiciously found a gun in an already thoroughly searched area within 5 minutes of being there.

Sgt. Terrance Yeakey was a 7-year veteran of the Oklahoma City PD, one of the first on the scene of the OKC bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Yeakey became known as a hero after saving the lives of eight people on the morning of April 19, 1995. However, he was uncomfortable being looked at as a hero and didn’t consider himself one, only as a man doing his job.

Far from being suicidal, Yeakey was in the process of achieving some major life goals. He was scheduled for a final interview for a job with the FBI in Irving, TX, and with hopes of being hired to work for the FBI in Dallas. In direct contradiction to the Times‘ nebulous reporting about the Yeakey’s potential relationship trouble, the couple had recently reconciled and had discussed getting remarried.

The real story behind Yeakey’s death, as attested to by his ex-wife, Tonia Yeakey, is that he witnessed things during his response to the bombing which did not agree with the ‘official version’ of events being forwarded by law enforcement and national media at that time and began collecting evidence to support his contentions.

In an interview on AM1300 KAKC, in 1998, Tonia Yeakey clearly exposes the reality underpinning the death of Terrance Yeakey. The extremely important interview with Tonia Yeakey can be heard in the video below — and begins at the 8-minute mark (please watch):

Although no one is sure exactly what Yeakey witnessed, or what exact information he had collected, according to friends and family, he was being intimidated by federal authorities due to his pursuit of the truth and the information in his possession. Additionally, forces within the OCPD were trying to pressure him into signing off on a version of events from the morning of the bombing to which Terry was resistant to do, as he wanted his report to reflect the truth as he witnessed it, according to his ex-wife Tonia.

Essentially, Yeakey was under constant pressure for his refusal to go along with official versions of events during and after the OKC bombing; and because of his refusal to change his story about what he saw that fateful day, he was the target of horrific persecution from his brothers in law enforcement.

Yeakey had compiled his findings in a storage facility outside of El Reno, Oklahoma. Adding weight to the theory that he was “suicided” to keep him quiet, his last known words were,

As soon as I shake these Feds that are following me, I’ll be back and we’ll go to dinner.

Terrance Yeakey was never heard from again.

Immediately upon being notified of Terrance Yeakey’s death, his family insisted that Yeakey had not killed himself — and to this day they maintain that he was murdered and DID NOT commit suicide.

The reality is that there was a high-level federal operation called PATCON, which infiltrated the “patriot movement” across the US, during the Clinton administration, with informants and provocateurs that are likely connected in some way to the OKC bombing. It’s more than probable that Yeakey’s killing was carried out in an effort to cover up the extent to which federal assets, working under PATCON (i.e. informants/provocateurs/infiltrators), were involved in the OKC bombing plot, thus shielding the federal government from potential blowback.

Please watch the extremely informative and startling video below about Sgt. Terrance Yeakey and learn in more detail about the events that surrounded Terry’s death.

Please share this story to help expose this vast coverup — and the murder of a real American hero! (For more from the author of “Never Forget: Hero Cop Who Blew Whistle on OKC Bombing Did NOT Commit Suicide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?

I did not intend to write about this story, but when I saw a picture of the teenager in question, I had to. He is 15-years-old, clearly a biological male. Look at his picture for yourself, mustache and all. As Joy Pullman notes on The Federalist, he has “not taken drugs nor undergone surgery to mimic femininity.” Yet he was allowed to compete against girls in a recent sporting event, and to no one’s surprise, he won — quite handily, at that. Is this what is meant by “equality”?

In recent weeks, we’ve read about a female high-school wrestler who identifies as male and who has been taking testosterone to prepare to “transition” to male. Unsurprisingly, she defeated the other girls, all of whom are not taking testosterone.

We also read about a male weightlifter who now identifies as female. Unsurprisingly, he defeated the women he competed against, setting a new record along the way.

Other examples could be supplied as well, since this is becoming more and more common.

How is This Fair?

How is this fair? How can progressives and liberals and leftists and LGBT activists and their allies think this is right? And do the feminists of the world really want to engage in head-to-head athletic competition with their male peers?

If this was done in the world of professional sports, there would not be a single woman winning, let alone playing at the elite, highest levels.

Not one female basketball player would earn a berth in the NBA. Not one female athlete would make it to the Olympics — in swimming or rowing or weightlifting or skiing or running or jumping or hurdling or boxing. Not one.

Men would dominate in every event, and women would be relegated to cheerleading.

That’s why we have men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s world records and women’s world records. And that why we celebrate the accomplishments of female athletes as females rather than comparing them to males.

There is nothing sexist about this. There is nothing hateful about this. There is nothing condescending about this. This is a matter of fairness, equality and common sense.

At least it should be. Today, common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.

Beat by a Boy

The 15-year-old in question goes by the name of Andraya Yearwood, and as the Hartford Courant reported, Andraya’s first event with female peers was a cause for celebration:

With family, friends and teammates cheering her on at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4×100-meter relay team take second place.

What did this look like in person? One picture says it all, as Andraya leaves the other girls behind, girls who trained so hard for these events, only to be beaten by a boy. And I mean beaten decisively.

But Andraya’s mother had a response to anyone would protest the event:

I know they’ll say it is unfair and not right, but my counter to that is: Why not? She is competing and practicing and giving her all and performing and excelling based on her skills. Let that be enough. Let her do that, and be proud of that.

What kind of logic is that? Because this 15-year-old biological male is competing and practicing and giving his all, that makes it fair and right for him to compete with his female peers? No matter what these other girls do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much they push themselves, they will not be able to keep up with an equally devoted male peer. How is this fair and right to them?

Andraya’s father is also supportive, saying that his son is competing just where he should be competing, also explaining that you are born into a particular body but you grow into being a particular person.

But athletic events are conducted in the body, regardless of how the person inside that body identifies. Yet when people ask Mr. Yearwood, “Why is your daughter running with the girls?”, his response is, “Because she’s my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with girls.”

Not Like the Other Girls

With all respect to the Yearwood family, and with understanding that for them, this was a matter of life and death for their child, what Mr. Yearwood is saying is patently false. His child is not running with the other girls the same way the other daughters are running, just like his child does not have to deal with monthly periods or female hormonal changes, since Andraya is not like the other girls.

“But,” you ask, “what about Andraya? What if Andraya has gender dysphoria? What if identifying as female will save her life?”

That is between Andraya and his family and the Lord. But Andraya’s personal struggles cannot be imposed on everyone else, meaning, as a biological male, he has no business competing with other girls, or, for that matter, sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls. That is not the meaning of equality.

Even according to activist ideology, gender is a social construct but sex is biological. And when it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.

The Inevitable Trajectory of LBGT Activism

In the end, this is just one more example of why I believe LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself.

You cannot wage a winning war against gender distinctions any more than you can redefine marriage while preserving its integrity. As expressed by Joy Pullmann,

It’s a pretty sure bet Americans did not expect tolerance for two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors to become a spearhead for forcing naked boys to shower next to naked girls and make girls second-class players on their own fields.


And so, I appeal to progressivists, leftists, feminists, and LGBT allies and their allies, along with all those who cherish fairness, equality, and justice. Look carefully at the trajectory of your activism, and ask yourself: Is this really the kind of world that you want? (For more from the author of “A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of

A vote on whether to approve a proposal that would allow familial DNA searching in certain criminal cases has been delayed by New York state’s Forensic Science Committee. The controversial proposal has been sent back to a special subcommittee to “tighten up the language.” If approved, the new policy would allow police to investigate family members of New Yorkers whose DNA closely matches DNA found at crime scenes.

Because familial searching has gotten little to no coverage in mainstream media, many people have no idea what it is — or that it’s already being used in California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Ohio.

The FBI describes the investigatory process as follows:

Familial searching is an additional search of a law enforcement DNA database conducted after a routine search has been completed and no profile matches are identified during the process. Unlike a routine database search which may spontaneously yield partial match profiles, familial searching is a deliberate search of a DNA database conducted for the intended purpose of potentially identifying close biological relatives to the unknown forensic profile obtained from crime scene evidence. Familial searching is based on the concept that first-order relatives, such as siblings or parent/child relationships, will have more genetic data in common than unrelated individuals. Practically speaking, familial searching would only be performed if the comparison of the forensic DNA profile with the known offender/arrestee DNA profiles has not identified any matches to any of the offenders/arrestees.

Though familial searching is already being used in ten states and has led to the arrests of numerous violent criminals, it is not always accurate.

“Anyone who knows the science understands that there’s a high rate of false positives,” Erin Murphy, a New York University law professor and the author of Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA told Wired magazine.

Further, civil liberties experts have expressed concern that the method violates personal privacy. According to comments from the New York Civil Liberties Union, “criminal suspicion will attach to innocent persons merely because of their biological relation to a person whose DNA is in the state’s databank.”

David Loftist, the attorney in charge of post-conviction and forensic litigation at the Legal Aid Society, told Gothamist:

You are creating a ‘suspect class’ of citizens. If you have a family member that has been convicted of fare beating, his DNA is in the database. Now all of his family members would be subject to searching in perpetuity.

He also pointed out that the state DNA bank is disproportionately black and Latino, adding, “This creates a dragnet for the entire community now…all of their relatives are possible suspects. It’s a genetic stop and frisk.”

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, however, is a huge advocate for familial DNA searching. “This technology has proven effective at generating important DNA investigative leads in cold cases,” he said. “We have an obligation to use every means at our disposal to identify the murderer.”

The Forensic Committee decided last week that the requirements for initiating a familial search are too broad at this point. It has postponed the vote until a new draft can be completed. The next official meeting is set for June 16th. (For more from the author of “The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muhammad Terror

“Not Terrorism,” But Murder Spree Suspect’s Name is Muhammad, Shouted “Allahu Akbar”, and Had Pro-Muslim Rant on Social Media

Three people are dead in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno on Tuesday, and the suspect was wanted in connection to the Motel 6 killing last week, the Fresno Police Department said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, shouted “Allahu Akbar” as police tackled him to the ground after the shootings which were spread over four locations, Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

The victims appeared to be random, Dyer said.

“These individuals that were chosen today did not anything to deserve what they got,” Dyer said. “These were unprovoked attacks.”

Shot Spotter detected the first gunshots around 10:45 a.m. Muhammad shot into a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) vehicle killing the passenger. The driver sped away and drove to Fresno Police headquarters. (Read more from “Murder Suspect’s Name is Muhammad” HERE)


Police: Killings had “Nothing to Do With Terrorism”

A man wanted in the slaying of a security guard set out to kill as many white people as he could on Tuesday, gunning down three men on the streets of downtown Fresno before he was captured and admitted to the shootings, authorities said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, was arrested shortly after the morning rampage that left three white men dead, police said. Muhammad, who is black, fired 16 rounds in less than two minutes at four places within a block, shooting men who appeared to be going about their day, authorities say.

During his arrest, Muhammad shouted “Allahu Akbar,” but Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the shootings had “nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the statement he made.” (Read more about the murder suspect whose name is Muhammad HERE)


Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?

The Republican Party has become one giant scam PAC. When they are out of power they boldly declare Democrat policies to be illegal and unconstitutional, yet when they get into power they continue the same policies. We’ve already seen this with the Iran treaty and Obama’s executive amnesty, which are still being recognized and enforced by this administration. Now we are facing the same dilemma with the illegal cost-sharing subsidies for Obamacare. It’s one thing to phase out harmful policies over time, but when it comes to illegal executive actions how can they continue administering them for even one day?

Obamacare’s regulations are so crippling and actuarily insolvent that the individual mandate and the open-needed subsidies given to consumers have done nothing to fix the health care problem. In fact, they have only further distorted the market and increased prices. To that end, the Obama administration, in one of the most lawless decisions of a lawless presidency, decided to create an additional layer of subsidies outside of statute to be given directly to insurers. One of those subsidies — referred to as cost-sharing reductions — reimbursed insurers for discounting co-payments and deductibles for low-income enrollees (the premiums were subsidized by the main Obamacare payouts).

The problem with this program, aside from further inflating the cost for those who aren’t subsidized, is that it’s completely unconstitutional. The Obama administration paid insurers billions of dollars outside of an appropriation from Congress. CBO projects that under current policy, this illegal program will cost $130 billion over 10 years.

Last year, in House v. Burwell, the GOP-led House sued Obama for creating his own slush fund without Congress. In a rare victory and through the prism of a legitimate exercise of judicial power — interpreting instead of nullifying a statute — Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with House Republicans in asserting that the cost-sharing subsidies were appropriated without consent of Congress.

One would expect that the minute Tom Price took over HHS, the unconstitutional subsidies would vanish. One would also expect Trump’s lawyers to immediately drop the previous administration’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the constitutionality of those subsidies, right?

Not so fast.

The administration has declined to drop the appeal of the district court’s ruling, and is in fact continuing to offer the subsidies. Thus, what Republican universally regarded as unconstitutional when they were out of power, they are now administering — much like they are illegally handing out work permits to illegal aliens amnestied under Obama.

Some might suggest that Trump is in a lose-lose situation because now that Obamacare is the law of the land, even more states will be without any insurers if he shuts off the subsidies. Trump himself recognized this predicament in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The president said that on the one hand he’d love to see the law collapse, but he fears he would be blamed for the collapse instead of the supporters of Obamacare. Even though he didn’t shut off the spigot immediately, he is entertaining the idea of threatening to suspend the cost-sharing as a means of getting the Democrats to the table.

This is a false dichotomy. The president needs to realize that there is a third option: actually repealing Obamacare and demanding that Republicans support him! As leader of the party, rather than bully conservatives into supporting Obamacare 2.0 he should demand that liberal Republicans get with the program and fully repeal the law and actually solve the health care problem. At that point, there won’t be a need for the illegal subsidies, and in fact, they would only further distort the market. Democrats will never have an incentive at this point to buy into any GOP bill. There is only one option.

Donald Trump must harness his populist appeal against big government and the health care industry by immediately suspending the kickbacks for insurers. It is hard to anticipate the actions of the private sector. But by repealing the coverage mandates of Obamacare with a reasonable transition period, and concurrently making it clear that all subsidies and kickbacks are permanently terminated, insurance companies will have no wiggle room other than to utilize the de-regulation to offer a multitude of market-based plans, including catastrophic and limited benefit plans. They would be forced to compete for consumer demand rather than have a monopoly over the small trough of regulated and subsidized plans.

His message should be unambiguous: “we will not regulate you and we will not subsidize you, go out and compete for consumer demand.” Then he should travel the country and rail against a crony socialist health care system that looks like a grocery shelf in Venezuela instead of one in America. He must demand that the liberal Republicans get onboard with full repeal of Obamacare or he risks violating one of his core campaign promises.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing with an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, New York Democrats are pushing the president in the other direction. Noted health care expert, Ivanka Trump, as well as President Kushner and Gary Cohen, are reportedly pushing to keep the subsidies, while Steve Bannon is arguing that we follow the Constitution. Liberal congressional Republicans, such as Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., are also pushing for a continuation of the subsidies.

Sensing blood in the water, Democrats are now demanding that the subsidies be codified by Congress in the budget bill. Now that Democrats successfully jettisoned all conservative riders from the budget, why not go on offense and demand their priorities? After all, we can’t have a government shutdown. Now, instead of the battle lines over the budget being drawn over defunding refugee resettlement, Planned Parenthood, and the border wall, we must play defense on the cost-sharing subsidies.

Caving on principle begets more capitulation. There is no way to get around not repealing Obamacare but somehow pretending we are repealing it. The path forward is and always was very simple: full repeal of Obamacare with reasonable transition to what GOP has promised in terms of free market health care — or permanent irrelevance and humiliating electoral defeat. (For more from the author of “Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Media Silent as Clinton/Obama-Connected Lobbying Group Registers as Foreign Agent for Pro-Russia Org

The Podesta Group — which was co-founded by John Podesta, the former Hillary Clinton campaign chair, Obama White House senior adviser, and former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton — has filed as a foreign agent for a pro-Russian think tank.

The D.C. lobbying shop’s retroactive paperwork appeared Wednesday on the website of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) office. From 2012-2014, the Podesta Group lobbied for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, which was created to support former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich. He has since fled to Russia after the Ukrainian people rose up against his autocratic rule. Yanukovych was essentially Putin’s puppet, pushing for policies that would alienate Ukraine from Europe and bring it under the umbrella of Russian influence.

The U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, passed in 1938, requires individuals and organizations hired by non-U.S. organizations and foreign nations for the purpose of disseminating propaganda to publicly disclose their activities.

The Podesta Group is run by John Podesta’s brother, Anthony Podesta, who was a major Clinton campaign bundler. Because of his prominent political connections, Anthony Podesta is considered one of the most influential lobbyists in the world. The Podesta Group is consistently ranked as one of the top five most influential lobbying organizations. The firm reportedly earns close to $30 million a year for its efforts.

Disclosures in the foreign agent document reports reveal that the pro-Russia lobbying endeavor involved dozens of meetings with prominent reporters, congressional leaders, and government officials.

Over a three year time period, the Podesta Group was paid over $1 million dollars to lobby for the pro-Russian outfit, according to an accounting of the disclosures from 2012-2014.

The news comes as former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort also reportedly intends on retroactively registering as a foreign agent for work he did for Yanuokovych-tied entities. Manafort also worked as a lobbyist for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, according to reports.

The mainstream media has largely ignored the lobbying efforts of the Podesta Group, even though its co-founder is intimately tied to the past two Democratic presidents as well as the most recent Democratic nominee for president. In its story on the disclosures, the Associated Press did not highlight the Podesta Group’s ties to top Democrats, instead focusing on allegations against Manafort. (For more from the author of “Media Silent as Clinton/Obama-Connected Lobbying Group Registers as Foreign Agent for Pro-Russia Org” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.