“Siri” tried to butt in on Thursday’s White House press briefing.
The virtual iPhone personal assistant unexpectedly interjected when a reporter was asking Press Secretary Josh Earnest about the Iran nuclear deal, and whether President Obama was “upset” he couldn’t get any Republicans on board.
A virtual voice could be heard in the room answering: “Sorry, I’m not sure what you want me to change.” (Read more from “‘Siri’ Interrupts White House Press Briefing, Answers Iran Question” HERE)
By the end of the year, San Francisco’s county jails will be among the first in the nation to house transgender inmates by their gender preference, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said Thursday.
Currently, San Francisco County puts transgender inmates in an isolated wing of its downtown jail facility. But under the policy announced Thursday, Mirkarimi said, he hopes to have transgender inmates living with their preferred population before 2016.
But transgender inmates who choose to remain in segregated housing or to continue living with other inmates who share the gender they were assigned at birth can do so, according to Kenya Briggs, a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office . . .
Inmates who seek to have their housing status changed will be subject to a review process, but Mirkarimi said housing decisions will not be solely based on an inmate having gender reassignment surgery or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
“It’s not going to be based on genitalia alone. We will have an advisory committee, experts that help represent the transgender population,” he said. “There will be complicated incidences where we’ll have to decide if this is the proper fit or not.” (Read more from “San Francisco Jails to House Transgender Inmates Based on Gender Preference” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2015-09-10 23:26:412015-09-10 23:26:41UTTER INSANITY: San Francisco Jails to House Transgender Inmates Based on Gender Preference
By Jennifer Agiesta. Donald Trump has become the first Republican presidential candidate to top 30% support in the race for the Republican nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll, which finds the businessman pulling well away from the rest of the GOP field.
Trump gained 8 points since August to land at 32% support, and has nearly tripled his support since just after he launched his campaign in June. The new poll finds former neurosurgeon Ben Carson rising 10 points to land in second place with 19%. Together, these two non-politicians now hold the support of a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, and separately, both are significantly ahead of all other competitors.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush stands in third place with 9%, down 4 points since August, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz holds fourth place with 7%. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker follow at 5%, with all other candidates at 3% or less, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who notched the only other statistically significant shift in the poll by falling 5 points since August.
Trump’s gains come most notably among two groups that had proven challenging for him in the early stages of his campaign — women and those with college degrees. While he gained just 4 points among men in the last month (from 27% in August to 31% now), he’s up 13 points among women, rising from 20% in August to 33% now. Trump has also boosted his share of the vote among college graduates, increasing his support among those with degrees from 16% in August to 28% now. Among those without degrees, he stands at 33%, just slightly higher than the 28% support he had in August.
Trump has also catapulted ahead of the rest of the field among Republicans who back the tea party movement, from 27% support in August to 41% now. Among that group in the new poll, Carson follows with 21%, and Cruz, another candidate with an anti-Washington message, holds third with 11%. No other candidate tops 5% among tea partiers. (Read more from “Poll: Donald Trump Surges to 32% Support” HERE)
__________________________________________
Front-Runner Status Challenged? Polls Show Clinton Trailing Sanders in Iowa, NH
By Fox News. Just days after a New Hampshire poll showed Hillary Clinton slipping further behind Bernie Sanders in the vital early primary state, a fresh survey shows the Vermont senator narrowly edging ahead of her in Iowa as well.
The Quinnipiac University poll shows Sanders leading Clinton 41-40 percent.
The results are well within the margin of error and represent a virtual tie in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. But together, the polling in New Hampshire and Iowa indicates Clinton’s front-runner status is now being challenged in the primary season’s two lead-off contests.
“Obviously the campaign is delighted,” Sanders Press Secretary Lilia A. Chacon said in a statement. “People and Iowans are responding to a message based on issues. The more people know about Bernie the more they like him.”
The Clinton campaign is stressing that they always thought this would be a “close race.” (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-10 23:25:182015-09-10 23:25:18Poll: Donald Trump Surges to 32% Support
Two out of three Hispanics oppose the establishment’s campaign to increase the annual inflow of migrants into the United States., according to an Aug. 20 report by Gallup . . .
[This is] bad news for Jeb Bush, who claims he can boost the one-in-four Hispanic support for the GOP by inviting more foreign blue-collar and college-graduates to compete for the jobs sought by American Hispanics . . .
Sixty-four percent of each group of Hispanics want migration to be reduced or leveled, said Gallup, which released the report under a misleading headline, “U.S. Support for Increased Immigration Up to 25%.”
Twenty-six percent of self-identified Hispanics born in the United States, all of whom can vote, want legal migration to be reduced. However, the percentage of Hispanics opposing increases may be much higher, partly because a growing number of Hispanics now identify themselves as core white Americans . . .
A late-August poll by Rasmussen showed that 54 percent of whites, 38 percent of blacks, and 42 percent of “others,” most of whom are Hispanics, believe illegal immigration is “very serious.” An additional 51 percent of blacks, and 29 percent of “others,” say illegal immigration is “somewhat serious.” (Read more from “Two out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-10 23:23:242015-09-10 23:23:24Two out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase
Kayla Mueller, the American humanitarian aid worker held captive by the Islamic State, was killed by the terrorist group despite previous reports that she died in a Jordanian airstrike, according to another hostage.
BBC reported that a Yazidi woman held as a “slave” by now-deceased Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) second-in-command Hajji Mutazz said the terrorist group was responsible for Mueller’s death.
While it was previously reported that Mueller was repeatedly raped by IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the terrorist group has alleged that the American hostage was killed in a building destroyed by Jordanian airstrikes.
However, according to the since-escaped Yazidi woman, Amshe, the IS second-in-command informed her that Baghdadi killed Mueller when he was finished abusing her . . .
“We killed her because she is an American,” he allegedly continued. “If Obama wanted to he could tell Bashar [al-Assad, the Syrian president] to stop bombing us. Ten of our women and children die every day. This is our revenge. We will kill any American citizen we capture. If any Western government refuses to put pressure on Bashar, we will kill their citizens too.” (Read more from “ISIS’ Second-In-Command on Kayla Mueller: ‘Her Stupid Government, We Killed Her'” HERE)
“The United States should take its responsibility in the disheartening refugee crisis in Europe as its controversial Middle East policies resulted in wars and chaos that displaced large numbers of people,” hectors China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua.
They dwell on the photo of the drowned Syrian toddler — who was not in the process of fleeing from Syria when he died — and the horrid deaths of 70 refugees in a smuggler’s truck in Austria.
China is not generally noted for its genial indulgence of lawbreakers, especially when there are national security implications, but it expects the United States to throw caution to the winds. “Even though it has remained relatively ‘quiet’ on this matter, the United States actually has an inescapable responsibility on what happens today in Europe and the Middle East,” Xinhua pontificates . . .
If you’re waiting for some massive groundswell of public sympathy for refugees to change the Chinese Politburo’s mind about settling some Syrians in their territory, the Hong Kong Free Press notes that the Chinese public is “overwhelmingly against the idea,” because they think “China is not responsible for turbulence in the Middle East, many Chinese people are still living in poverty and that the refugees won’t want to come to China anyway.”
That latter point sounds pretty dismal, and indeed some Chinese spoke poorly of their own nation, with one arguing that “China cannot provide refuge, because we the Chinese look more like refugees”… but others pointed out the refugees were more interested in migrating to the generous welfare states of Europe. (Read more from “China: USA Must Take More Syrian Refugees; We’ll Take Zero, Thanks” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-10 23:20:252015-09-10 23:20:25China: USA Must Take More Syrian Refugees; We’ll Take Zero, Thanks
The New York Times has come under fire from Jewish organizations for launching a website aimed at tracking how Jewish lawmakers are voting on the Iran nuclear agreement.
The online chart, which tracks whether lawmakers who opposes the accord are Jewish, is being criticized as anti-Semitic in nature and an attempt to publicly count where Jews fall on the issue, which some have sought to turn into a debate about dual loyalty to Israel.
The feature, titled “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” includes a list of legislators currently opposing the deal.
Critics say the chart feeds into a larger narrative promulgated by the Obama administration that Jewish Americans oppose the deal because they feel that it would endanger Israel. The issue of dual loyalty—or claims that lawmakers are more loyal to Israel than America—has become a trademark criticism of administration supporters seeking to discredit opponents of the Iran deal.
“Though more Jewish members of Congress support the deal than oppose it, the Democrats against the deal are more likely to be Jewish or represent Jewish constituencies,” the Times writes on the site. (Read more from “New York Times Launches Congress ‘Jew Tracker'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-10 23:17:002015-09-10 23:17:00New York Times Launches Congress ‘Jew Tracker’
The Pentagon’s most secure laboratories may have mislabeled, improperly stored and shipped samples of potentially infectious plague bacteria, which can cause several deadly forms of disease, USA TODAY has learned.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention flagged the practices after inspections last month at an Army lab in Maryland, one of the Pentagon’s most secure labs. That helped prompt an emergency ban on research on all bioterror pathogens at nine laboratories run by the Pentagon, which was already reeling from revelations that another Army lab in Utah had mishandled anthrax samples for 10 years . . .
Moreover, officials point out that continuing testing has shown the suspect samples of plague contain a weakened version, and not the fully virulent form that was of concern to lab regulators at the CDC.
There is no danger to the public from the plague and encephalitis specimens found in the labs, said Army spokesman Dov Schwartz. After extensive testing, no danger has been found to scientists and researchers who have worked with the vials, he said. Final test results are expected by the end of the month.
However, for the first time since the scandal broke in May about an Army lab’s botched handling of anthrax, the Pentagon is now acknowledging that worries now extend to other lethal agents that it studies. In addition to the plague samples and some additional anthrax specimens, the CDC has raised concerns about military labs’ handling of specimens created from two potentially deadly viruses that are also classified as bioterror pathogens: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus and Eastern equine encephalitis virus, which can cause rare but serious illnesses in people, including deadly inflammation of the brain. (Read more from “Latest Military Lab Concerns Involve Plague Bacteria, Deadly Viruses” HERE)
There’s a controversy brewing around Lubbock regarding an unappetizing school breakfast photo depicting what appears to be a tortilla shell with three tater tots and a few bacon bits.
KCBD reports the meal photo was shared by local parents on Facebook as an example of the puny offerings served up in schools under Michelle Obama’s “healthy” school food regulations, and the news site attempted to track down where the image originated.
Officials in several area school districts, however, are denying responsibility for the failure as area parents continue to flood KCBD’s Facebook page with other examples.
Lubbock resident Maria Mendoza appears to have first posted the image to Facebook on Sept. 8 with a caption that read:
“My daughter sent me a picture what her school is serving them this morning(.) This isn’t enough food for high school kids. And during lunch they get 35 mins and there is (sic) so many kids that come don’t get through the line and than (sic) they’re late for class. Not enough seating either some have to sit on the floor to eat their lunch”
(Read more from “Schools Scramble to Deny Responsibility for Paltry Michelle Obama Breakfast” HERE)
Religious Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have been under strict scrutiny by the activist courts for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for simple, peaceful, and innocuous displays of religious symbols. Some of these religious symbols, such as a replica of the Ten Commandments, or references to God, such as the one in the Pledge of Allegiance, have been a part of this country since its founding. Yet, the legal community feels that anything short of eradicating public display of Judeo-Christian symbols violates the constitutional directive against establishing a national religion. Why shouldn’t paganism and secular agenda items, which are adhered to with more fervor and devotion than any major religion, be subjected to the same scrutiny?
Let’s be clear, nobody is being fined or thrown into jail for not being a Christian. Nobody has had their property rights violated for opposing Christian beliefs. On the other hand, individuals are now being jailed or fined for not servicing homosexual weddings. And I’m not just talking about Kim Davis. There have been endless cases of private business owners who have been fined or forced to abandon their livelihood for refusing to service the homosexual religion with their private property and private labor.
At what point is this not a government-sponsored religion infringing upon the most unalienable rights of religious liberty and property rights, in violation of the Establishment Clause? As James Madison wrote in an essay on Property in 1792, “conscience is the most sacred of all property.” His original draft of the First Amendment was even more effusive than the final version adopted by Congress. “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed….”
Yet, we now have actual property rights and the most sacred property – conscience – being forced to yield to a new super right – an entitlement to force states to redefine marriage – in order to service the fervency of the homosexual agenda. How can this be anything but the establishment of a national religion?
In 2013, just two years before Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy played legislature and God from the bench, he declared marriage to be fully within the domain of the states. In the Windsor case striking down DOMA, when it was convenient to invoke state power over marriage, Kennedy cited the following precedent from Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942):
“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” (Page 17)
He went on to say that “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” And “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”
Kennedy also admitted that “until recent years,. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” (Page 13)
How could it be that a state like Kentucky, which did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law; it merely defined marriage as it had always been defined, as Kennedy conceded, and exercised its “exclusive province” over marriage to reinforce that interpretation with 75% of the vote, is now in contempt of court just two years later? How can this man have the power to overturn his own writings just two years prior in order to assert a new federal right superseding everything the state has ever done in defining marriage?
The only answer is that Kennedy has created a national religion in the year 2015 that will coerce state officials and even private land owners to obey the homosexual religion or face jail time. Who else would go to jail for peacefully declining to sign a document like that? A gay Texas judge is not being threatened with jail time for refusing to marry heterosexual couples, even though that was the law of the land since the state’s founding.
This is exactly what our Founders had in mind when they prohibited the establishment of a national religion. They did not mean to eradicate all religious symbolism, they merely desired that one religious denomination not persecute the other and violate their unalienable rights. That is exactly what is occurring under this pagan inquisition.
Ask yourself this question: why should Christianity and Judaism be any worse off – precisely because they are “deeply rooted in history and tradition” – than a new religion that is the antithesis of something rooted in our history and tradition? Does the fact that the homosexual agenda is not deeply rooted – the very litmus test required to assert a fundamental right – instill it with more legitimacy to imprison violators than the Christian religion which has been the dominant religion since the founding of the country? Why should the display of the Ten Commandments at government buildings garner less legitimacy than Obama’s display of the rainbow at the White House?
During the House floor debate over the First Amendment on August 20, 1789, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” [Emphasis added].
Here’s a parting question: if the primary concern of Madison was to ensure that the elected branch of the federal government not compel individuals by the force of law to service a particular religion (as opposed to the innocuous display of religious symbols or public prayer), what would he say about an unelected branch of government compelling individuals to serve paganism in any manner contrary to their conscience? (For more from the author of “At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-09-09 22:26:472015-09-09 22:26:47At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?
“Siri” tried to butt in on Thursday’s White House press briefing. 
