The new Republican-led Congress is drawing harsh reviews from the public – including most Republicans. Just 23% of Americans say congressional Republicans are keeping the promises they made during last fall’s campaign, while 65% say they are not.
Nearly four-in-ten (37%) say the new Congress has accomplished less than they expected, while 4% say it has accomplished more than expected. About half (53%) say its accomplishments are in line with what they expected.
On both measures, the public’s views are far more negative than they were of the Democratic-led Congress in March 2007, after the Democrats regained control of both chambers following several years of Republican control. Views are also much more negative than they were in April 1995, shortly after the GOP had gained control of the House and Senate for the first time in four decades.
Photo Credit: Pew Research Center
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that just 22% approve of the job performance of Republican congressional leaders, little changed since the summer of 2011. Ratings for Democratic congressional leaders are somewhat better (33% approve).
Unlike after some previous partisan turnovers on Capitol Hill, negative assessments of the new Congress now cross party lines. Today, just 41% of Republicans approve of the job their party’s leaders in Congress are doing. By comparison, in April 2011, 60% of Republicans approved of GOP leaders’ job performance and in April 1995, 78% approved of GOP leadership’s policies and proposals. (Read more from “Negative Views of New Congress Cross Party Lines” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:54:432016-04-11 11:00:51Unprecedented Disgust with DC: Negative Views of New Congress Now Cross Party Lines
Great waves of heat but little light emerged from the controversies surrounding Pope Francis’ recent actions and statements about the Middle East. Each story followed the standard pattern of reporting about Pope Francis:
(a) Pope Francis does or says something.
(b) Secular reporters spin it to the greatest possible benefit of the nearest leftist cause.
(c) Conservatives react to (b) instead of (a) — and who can blame them? They mostly don’t read Italian or obsess about Vatican news.
(d) The Vatican issues a belated and confusing explanation, which appears only in the Catholic press, for a tiny readership.
(e) Some conservative publications accept (d), write about it and reprimand the media. Others don’t.
(f) The nearest leftist cause benefits from the perception of papal support, the whiff of infallibility, and the world moves on. Rinse and repeat.
Pope Francis is not entirely blameless. His sympathies do lean left on many issues, and conservatives have reason to disagree with some of his statements. That being said, two recent stories about Pope Francis and the Middle East are examples of the media pattern above. Pope Francis did not call Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas an “angel of peace.” He called on Abbas to become an angel of peace. That’s starkly different.
Yes, Pope Francis did finalize a process launched by previous popes, which culminated in a document that recognized the PLO entity as a “state.” This is a bad idea, but it’s the fruit of a complex history which one can’t understand without knowing a series of hard truths about the region. These are truths I’ve learned from years of study and from speaking to Arab Christians personally — during almost five years of attending a wonderful Melkite Catholic church in New Hampshire. I will simply list these hard truths, resisting the urge to moralize about them:
1. Christians in the Middle East are mostly hostages of intolerant regimes, dependent on the good will of their Muslim masters. Christians there are unarmed, divided and periodically persecuted as scapegoats for whatever is going wrong at the moment. This has been true for most of their history since AD 800 or so, with a brief respite in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when European powers interfered with the Middle East, setting up colonies and fitfully protecting Christians. That all ended after World War II.
2. With the disappearance of their French and British protectors, many Arab Christians were suspect as agents of foreign influence, so they tried to fit in with their societies by promoting secular Arab nationalism, in the hope that this movement would replace intolerant Islam. The nationalist and socialist Ba’ath party, which once ruled Iraq and still rules Syria, was invented by a Lebanese Christian.
3. At the beating heart of Arab nationalism was opposition to Israel. Christians who signed on to nationalist movements hoped that by fervently fighting the “Zionist enemy” they could prove their patriotism, and win a space where they could survive. Some of the founding members of the PLO were Christians. Ironically, the genocidal, anti-Christian jihadists of Hamas were aided at first by the Israeli secret service, which hoped to divide its Palestinian enemy into warring factions. Oops.
4. Secular Arab nationalism was never very effective, and it began to collapse in the 1970s, to be replaced by Islamist sharia movements. Without the Soviet Union to back them, regimes like Hussein’s Iraq and Assad’s Syria became more brittle and fragile. These regimes tried to shore up their own shaky legitimacy by becoming more fervent in their support for terrorism against Israel. Saddam Hussein, for instance, while he mostly protected Christians, paid bounties for suicide bombers who targeted Jewish civilians.
5. The viciousness of such terrorist attacks hardened Israeli public opinion, and rallied American Christians to support more right-wing governments in Israel. These attacks also fed support for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the proposed overthrow of Bashar al-Assad today. Of course, the collapse of such secular regimes would be terrible news for local Christians, since the only plausible replacement for them would be intolerant Islamist governments. We see that more than a million Christians were driven out of Iraq after the U.S. invaded. The U.S. did little to protect them.
6. Many American Christians don’t know and don’t care about the plight of Middle Eastern Christians. They are more concerned about American security and the defense of Israel.
7. Israelis don’t care much about the fate of Middle Eastern Christians, whom they see (with much justice) as just another bunch of Arabs who hate them. If they thought that American Christian support for Israel depended on its intervening to protect Christians, Israelis might do something in that direction. But it doesn’t, so they don’t.
8. Pope Francis sees protecting Middle Eastern Christians as his primary task in the region. Someone, somewhere, has to take an interest in them. If not him, then who? Pope Francis believes that championing a Palestinian state will buy goodwill from Muslims toward Christian minorities, and perhaps diminish the number killed or ethnically cleansed.
Pope Francis is probably mistaken, as David Goldman has pointed out. The only hope for Christians in the region is for American conservatives to put pressure on Israel to protect them, and on Middle Eastern Christians to give up on their support for dying Arab nationalism. But whether because they have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome, or for some other reason, too many Arab Christians actually prefer Muslims to Israelis. So they are unlikely to cooperate — as we saw from the event where an American Jewish philanthropist, Ronald Lauder, brought together the leaders of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians. Ted Cruz addressed them and in rather tactless language called on them to drop their Ba’athist strategy and support the state of Israel. They booed him off the stage. To his credit, Lauder has continued his humanitarian efforts to help persecuted Christians anyway.
The only short-term hope for Middle Eastern Christians is the survival of secular dictatorships like Assad’s in Syria and el Sisi’s in Egypt. The long-term future of Middle Eastern Christians is probably in the United States of America — if and when we revise our refugee policy to start accepting persecuted Christians instead of their Muslim persecutors. That won’t happen under a Democratic president — and unless we Christians wake up and defend our brothers, it won’t happen under a Republican president, either. Remember that the greatest catastrophe for Christians in the region since the Armenian genocide was while George W. Bush was president and Christian men like Chris Kyle were patrolling the cities of Iraq. (See “10 Hard Truths About Pope Francis, Mid-East Christians and the Palestinians”, originally posted HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:54:352016-04-11 11:00:5110 Hard Truths About Pope Francis, Mid-East Christians and the Palestinians [+video]
By Douglas Earnst. The Boy Scouts of America, an organization with semi-military origins, has put out approved activities for its members, and water gun fights are strictly prohibited.
A blog for the organization’s leaders said May 6 that pointing simulated firearms at people is not allowed.
“Why the rule? A Scouter once told me this explanation I liked quite a bit: A Scout is kind. What part of pointing a firearm [simulated or otherwise] at someone is kind?” said Bryan Wendell on the scouting website
The rule is clarified in the Boy Scouts of America National Shooting Manual, which says “For water balloons, use small, biodegradable balloons, and fill them no larger than a ping pong ball. […] Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot at targets, and eye protection must be worn.”
The manual includes a lengthy list of other prohibited items — boomerangs, crossbows, potato guns, spear guns and throwing stars. Scouts also may not use “marshmallow shooters that require placing a straw or similar device in the mouth.” (Read more from “Boy Scouts of America Bans Water Gun Fights; ‘Pointing a Firearm’ Is Not Kind” HERE)
Fox Host: Boy Scouts Ban On Water Guns Is ‘Emasculating’ Future CIA Agents
By Ahiza Garcia. A Fox News co-host said on Wednesday that a Boy Scouts ban on water guns and limitation on the size of water balloons was proof that boys were being emasculated.
“Outnumbered” co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy, who is married to former MTV “Real World” star and current Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), said the ban would have an effect on future generations of America’s spies and soldiers.
“If we keep emasculating our boys and not letting boys be boys,” Campos-Duffy said, “how are we gonna raise the next generation of hardcore CIA operatives, Navy SEALS?”
“That was a very nice, unloaded question,” former CIA officer and “One Lucky Guy,” Mike Baker said.
Baker ultimately agreed with Campos-Duffy. (Read more from “Boy Scouts of America Bans Water Gun Fights; ‘Pointing a Firearm’ Is Not Kind” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:54:252016-04-11 11:00:52Boy Scouts of America Bans Water Gun Fights; ‘Pointing a Firearm’ Is Not Kind
As a result, the Arizona Department of Economic Security will drop at least 1,600 families – including more than 2,700 children – from the state’s federally funded welfare program on July 1, 2016.
The cuts of at least $4 million reflect a prevailing mood among the lawmakers in control in Arizona that welfare, Medicaid and other public assistance programs are crutches that keep the poor from getting back on their feet and achieving their potential.
Arizona state Sen. Kelli Ward, a co-sponsor of the bill, was on “Fox and Friends” to explain the decision. She said that it wasn’t a popular move, but it was a necessary one. (Read more from “Arizona Slashes Welfare Lifetime Limit from 24 Months to 1 Year” HERE)
There is no denying that Conservative Review has been critical of GOP, but today there is good reason to report that House Republican leadership has actually passed a strong spending bill.
On Tuesday, the House passed the annual spending bill (FY 2016) appropriating funds for the legislative branch of government, and they have once again kept the level of spending flat. The bill would appropriate $3.3 billion for the House of Representatives and all of the legislative agencies. When coupled with the Senate’s own budget bill expected to pass later this year, the House bill will bring the total budget for the entire legislative branch of government to roughly $4.3 billion.
Accordingly, the entire cost of the legislative branch of government represents just .001% of total federal spending, projected to top $3.9 trillion next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
It’s important to note this budget is not only paying for the members of Congress and their staff; it includes all of the investigative and research agencies as well as other positions, such as the Capitol Police. Here is a breakdown of the legislative branch’s budget for some key offices:
House of Representatives: $1.81 Billion
Senate: $1 billion
Capitol Police: $369 million
Congressional Budget Office: $47 million
Architect of Capitol: $494 million
Library of Congress: $591 million
Congressional Research Service: $107 million
Government Accountability Office: $522 million
While there is always wasteful spending to root out in any budget, most seem to agree that this is close to the minimum budget required to operate the legislative branch. Which leads to the real salient question: how is it that the most constitutionally grounded branch of government – the one that represents the people – commands just .001% of the federal budget? The Executive Branch dwarfs the legislative branch in spending by a ratio of 907:1. Even the Judiciary Branch has a bigger budget than Congress, at $6.9 billion.
Consider this: the budget for the Department of Agriculture was $141 billion in 2014, which is 33 times the size of the entire legislative branch; the budget for the Department of Education was $59.6 billion, which is 14 times the size of Congress. And remember, the entirety of Article I in the Constitution is dedicated to the legislative branch, while some of these executive departments and agencies are, shall we say, post-constitutional. The Department of Commerce is slated to receive $8.1 billion for the next fiscal year. The DOC was without a cabinet-level secretary at its helm for an entire year (June 2012- June2013) and nobody even noticed. The EPA, which is just an independent agency (not a full department), costs twice as much as the entire legislative branch of government.
There is something wrong with this picture. How can members of Congress ever have the time and resources to properly engage in oversight over this leviathan?
It is no wonder then Congress has abdicated so much authority to the executive branch over the past few decades. The legislative branch lacks the expertise and resources to keep up with the daily unconstitutional power grabs of the executive agencies.
When the executive branch grows so large that the people’s representatives can no longer exercise proper oversight, that in itself is a sign that the recent model of governance has gone off the rails. The only solution is to downsize the scope of the executive branch to its constitutional mandates, freeing up the people’s representatives to focus on the core missions of government. (Read more from “1 Chart Shows Why Congress Can’t Control Government” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:53:402016-04-11 11:00:52This Single Chart Shows Why Congress Can’t Control Government [+video]
Photo Credit: Quartz Ever since privately owned freight railroads were freed by Congress in 1970 from their public service obligation to operate unprofitable intercity passenger trains—a law that created publicly owned Amtrak—a debate has raged in the US over how much passenger rail service is enough, how fast passenger trains should travel, why passenger trains aren’t profitable, and who should provide the subsidy that keeps them afloat.
Amtrak loses money, as do all rail passenger systems across the globe. . .
While government subsidies keep Amtrak trains running, those sums perennially fall short of fully satisfying Amtrak’s capital-investment needs—like the purchase of new locomotives and passenger cars, plus renewal of track, signals, bridges, and stations.
Among some 500 bridges that along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Washington, DC, and Boston—each a century or more old, and requiring extensive rehabilitation—is one spanning New Jersey’s Hackensack River. It needs a $1.5 billion replacement. New tunnels under the Hudson River to replace 115-year-old twin bores come with a $13.5 billion price tag. Another $1.2 billion is required to replace a 142-year-old tunnel under Baltimore. Overhead catenary delivering electricity to trains dates to the 1930s. New safety systems, which might have prevented the Philadelphia fatal derailment and which are nearing completion along the NEC’s entire length, have siphoned substantial, scarce, dollars. . .
The reason money-losing long-distance trains continue to operate is that the economic arguments for eliminating them fails the political test. Once the good folks of a given state or city lose their once-daily, long-distance train, the congressional lawmakers representing those souls are less likely to allocate tax dollars to the NEC, which still needs those subsidies for capital expenditures. (Read more from “Yes, Amtrak Train Was Sabotaged–by Congress” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:53:012016-04-11 11:00:52Yes, Amtrak Train Was Sabotaged – by Congress
Photo Credit: Cliff Owen FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.
The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.
Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden.
The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions. (Read more from “FBI Admits No Major Cases Cracked With Patriot Act Snooping Powers” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:52:522016-04-11 11:00:52FBI Admits No Major Cases Cracked With Patriot Act Snooping Powers
Photo Credit: Life News Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood is proving its grand lack of “Care. No Matter What” for rape and incest victims. Once again, America’s abortion giant is proving that abortion is its front and center priority – not the well-being and rescue of victimized women.
Planned Parenthood claimed the 20-week abortion ban, just passed by the U.S. House:
Forces sexual assault survivors to wait for 48 hours and survivors of incest who are minors must file a police report to qualify for the exception and access safe, legal abortion
Requires survivors (during their mandated 48-hour waiting period) to undergo compulsory, unnecessary medical treatment or counseling in order to access safe, legal abortion — a senseless delay in their access to constitutionally protected care.
But wait? Planned Parenthood claims to “Care. No Matter What.” And yet the organization has the guts to object to the filing of a police report for minors who have survived incest? It boldly calls counseling for rape victims and medical care for injuries sustained in a rape “a senseless delay”? Even abortion supporters should be able to see this as a new low for Planned Parenthood. (Read more from “Planned Parenthood Says Counseling and Medical Care for Women Victimized by Rape Is Senseless” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:52:312016-04-11 11:00:53Planned Parenthood Says Counseling and Medical Care for Women Victimized by Rape Is Senseless
Billionaire Donald Trump continues to tease a potential presidential run.
Appearing on Fox News Wednesday evening, Trump reiterated he will announce in June what his intentions are in regards to 2016.
“I’m gearing up and we’ll see what happens,” Trump said on “The Kelly File.”
The “Apprentice” star said he wants to make America “great again.”
“I want to make the country great again,” he said. “This country is a hellhole. We are going down fast.” (Read more from “Donald Trump: This Country Is a Hell Hole” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:52:222016-04-11 11:00:53Donald Trump: “This Country Is a Hell Hole”
Two Texas siblings were tired of being harassed on the school bus, so they turned to the Bible to get the bully to stop.
Phoenix and Kingston Walwyn were being taunted and called names on the ride home from school. Instead of encouraging them to retaliate against the bully, their pastor father suggested they give him a Bible.
“We gave it to him and then two minutes later when it was almost his stop to get off, he just said thank you and sorry for all the bad stuff I did to you,” Phoenix said.
Since that day, there has been no more name-calling or bullying, according to Phoenix and Kingston.
The children’s father, Pastor Vaughaligan Walwyn, said on “Fox and Friends Weekend” that after praying and seeking God, he felt the spirit tell him to get the bully a Bible, let him know that Jesus loves him and invite him to church. (Read more from “Siblings Shut Down School Bus Bully With Bible” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-22 01:52:112016-04-11 11:00:53Siblings Shut Down School Bus Bully With Bible
