This Is What EPA’s Been Spending Millions on for Their ‘Special Agents’ – It’s Ridiculous

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.

Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books.

“Protecting the environment just got real. With millions of dollars spent on military style weaponry, the EPA is now literally ensconced with all institutional force,” said Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Open the Books and the author of the report.

“Our report discovered that when the EPA comes knocking they are armed with a thousand lawyers, arrest/criminal data, credit, business and property histories, plus a ‘Special Agent’ with the latest in weaponry and technology,” Mr. Andrzejewski added . . .

The special agent “enforces the nation’s laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist in the prosecution of criminal conduct that threatens people’s health and the environment,” according to the EPA’s website. (Read more from “This Is What EPA’s Been Spending Millions on for Their ‘Special Agents’ – It’s Ridiculous” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Common Core-Aligned Writing Lesson on Gun Debate Fuels Claims of Political Agenda

/1 Comment/in , /by

Common Core backers are sneaking a social and political agenda into nationalized curriculum, say critics, who now have new ammo in a writing lesson plan for teachers that they say gives a slanted perspective of the gun debate.

A study guide dubbed, “The Battle Over Gun Control,” authored by KQED, a northern Californian affiliate of National Public Radio, and the nonprofit, taxpayer-subsidized National Writing Project, states that “moderate gun control” measures introduced following the Sandy Hook school massacre were deep-sixed by the “powerful political influence” of the NRA. Second Amendment advocates say the wording, in supplemental material designed to help teachers plan instruction, frames the debate in a one-sided fashion aimed at influencing young minds.

“The issue took center stage in December, when a lone gunman entered an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 children and six adults in one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history,” reads an intro from the guide. “Yet, months down the line, the issue remains highly controversial: An attempt to enact moderate new gun control measures this spring was voted down in the Senate, due in part to the powerful political influence of gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.”

Concerned parents and longtime critics of Common Core say that this is just another example of flaws associated with the federally-imposed standards. While Common Core itself is not technically a curriculum, it drives classroom lessons by imposing a standard, nationalized test. Both private and nonprofit curriculum providers tout their material for its alignment with the standards tested in the Common Core examinations.

“This guide shows that the common core philosophy of education is coming to all schools.” Alice Linahan, founder of Voices Empower, a grassroots organization that opposes Common Core, told FoxNews.com. “It’s a shift from teaching fact to teaching attitudes, belief and behavior.” (Read more from “Common Core-Aligned Writing Lesson on Gun Debate Fuels Claims of Political Agenda” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Government Than America Needs or Wants

/2 Comments/in , /by

This summer, while the attention of Americans has been focused on enjoying their family and friends, two dangerous, increasingly lawless, federal government agencies — the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission — have been preparing to substantially restrict the public’s access to homeopathic remedies. We all need to take this threat seriously.

The Arrogance of Power

It is predictable that people in each profession believe that they have special insight. Lawyers believe they are the experts on the Constitution — a document written by and for the People. Physicians believe that they are the experts on the human body, but each of us knows ourselves better than anyone else can. Physicians want deference because they are “scientists.” But most are no more scientists than I am — just clinicians who fall into repetitive patterns, refusing to believe that something that a patient came up with could ever work better than whatever they prescribed. And when the medical establishment cannot persuade others that their opinion of today is a moral certainty, they turn to Government to use all of its coercive power to give them a victory they never earned in the marketplace.

Before describing the current threat to homeopathy, and what can be done about it, however, it is important to return to First Things: From whence does the federal government derive the power to override the judgment of individual Americans as to their own personal healthcare decisions?

When America was the Land of the Free

There once was a time that the People who ratified the United States Constitution in 1789 were treated with a degree of respect by those chosen to serve in national leadership positions. For over a century and a quarter after the founding of this nation, the People were largely free to make intensely personal decisions about their own healthcare, with only a few boundaries, primarily emanating out of the common law — such as the prevention of outright fraud. After all, the federal government was given no enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 over healthcare — and to the extent that any government has any authority over private healthcare decisions, it was to be exercised by the individual states under their limited “police power.”

Even those national political leaders who were fully persuaded that they knew best how to run other people’s lives felt constrained to resist the temptation. Before they “did good,” they asked a threshold question — “Do we have in government the constitutional authority to impose our will on the People?” Of course, it would be wrong to think that politicians, as a class, were ever mostly noble and courageous, for after all, in a wonderfully curious verse, Daniel warns about rulers having one common denominator: they are “the basest of men.” Daniel 4:17. However, during this early period in the nation’s history, even the worst elected officials seemed to understand that the U.S. Constitution ruled over them: that the Constitution is the People’s law that governs the government.

Prior to the Progressive Era, the federal government largely treated Americans as grown-ups, able to make their own decisions, and either benefit from those decisions, or accept the consequences of those decisions. University of Chicago Law Professor David Currie’s wonderful three volume series on The Constitution in Congress demonstrates that the debates in Congress over the constitutionality of proposed laws were often sophisticated clashes, vastly more thoughtful as to what often passes for argument before the current U.S. Supreme Court. Those in Congress repeatedly expressed concern as to whether proposed laws were constitutional. Famously, Congressman Davy Crockett once opposed a popular bill to appropriate money to aid a widow of a naval officer for one simple reason: “We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.” While there are still a few, such men of conviction generally no longer serve in Congress.

The Rise of the Administrative State

These days, limits on government power do not receive much consideration anywhere. In Congress, the highest priority of any member is to be re-elected. Therefore, with an eye to the next election, members of Congress need and want deniability whenever they want something done which will offend the People. Frequently, complicit members of Congress wanting to serve a large, powerful and wealthy constituency (e.g. Wall Street, Big Pharma) rely on administrative agencies to do their dirty work. They stand back and pretend to be powerless, as if they had no authority to intervene.

In the modern era, Congress delegates broad rule making power to administrative agencies ignoring the Constitutional command that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Article I, Section 1. Congress then adds the executive power to enforce those rules. It then completes the package by entrusting these agencies with adjudicatory (judicial) power. The Courts complete the circle by generally refusing to give serious review to administrative actions, citing the need for judges to give deference to bureaucrats, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Deference to the bureaucrats helps create a short work day for the judges.

The Administrative State has grown so powerful that another brilliant University of Chicago Law Professor, Philip Hamburger, published last year a book addressing the question Is Administrative Law Unlawful? His conclusion: the modern administrative law is best understood as a reversion to the English King’s thoroughly lawless prerogative courts, typified by the Court of Star Chamber which was abolished in 1640.

The Framers never envisioned the modern administrative state. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison echoed Montesquieu when he explained that the Constitution could never permit it: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicia [l] in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Indeed, Madison virtually invited us to resist monstrosities such as the FDA and the FTC: “Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.” Indeed, it is past time to inspire a universal reprobation of the FDA and the FTC.

When Homeopathy was Respected, and Honored

There once was a time that those who swam against the prevailing currents by resisting a corrupt establishment received accolades. On January 31, 1900, the U.S. Congress passed an Act of Congress (31 Stat. 709) providing for the creation of a monument in Washington, D.C., dedicated to a foreign physician who was one of the great reformers of his era: Christian Friederich Samuel Hahnemann. On June 21, 1900, the monument was dedicated by President William McKinnley, a believer in homeopathy.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places describes Hahnemann as “the first foreigner not associated with America’s independence to be represented in sculptural form in Washington, D.C.” and only “the second doctor to gain sculptural recognition.” Described by the U.S. Department of the Interior as “precocious and brilliant,” Hahnemann’s abilities as “a consummate linguist, the master of German, Latin, Greek, French, Italian, English, Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew, and Chaldaic” alone should have deserved some honor. But it was his institution of “mild and humane treatment methods” while serving as “the Superintendent of the Insane Asylum at Goergenthal” and as a member of the “Faculty of Medicine at the University of Leipzig,” and as “Hofrath, or Councilor of State” that he grew to fame. Id.

And it is utterly fascinating that the official Department of the Interior records explain clearly that Hahnemann “attempted to legitimize the medical profession and free it from its barbaric practices.” Hahnemann stood against “medical orthodoxy” of the day that “relied on over drugging and bleeding.” Id. Today, at least the medical establishment has abandoned one of those two treatment modalities.

What the FDA is Planning

The FDA has announced that it is conducting an evaluation of:

its current enforcement policies for drug products labeled as homeopathic from scientific, risk, and process perspectives [and] whether and how to adjust the current enforcement policies to reflect changes in the homeopathic product marketplace. [80 Fed. Reg. 16327 (emphasis added).]

The FDA states that it has permitted what it terms “homeopathic drugs” to be marketed without prior FDA approval under FDA Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 (June 9, 1988) (“CPG”). The CPG also sets forth the labeling requirements for “homeopathic drugs.” The FDA notice asserts authority to control homeopathic remedies when it asserts that the “FDA has not reviewed this class of products for safety and efficacy.” 80 Fed. Reg. 16328. The FDA’s assertion that homeopathic remedies constitute “drugs” is essential for it to assert control over homeopathic remedies, but, as discussed below, that claim is specious.

If you don’t believe the FDA is now seeking to exercise new, broader control over homeopathic remedies, consider the following questions on which the FDA has asked for comment:

What are consumer and health care provider attitudes towards human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

What data sources can be identified or shared with FDA so that the Agency can better assess the risks and benefits of drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

Are the current enforcement policies under the CPG appropriate to protect and promote public health in light of the tremendous growth in the homeopathic drug market? Are there alternatives to the current enforcement policies of the CPG that would inform FDA’s regulatory oversight of drugs labeled as homeopathic? If so, please explain.

Are there areas of the current CPG that could benefit from additional clarity? If so, please explain.

Is there information regarding the regulation of homeopathic products in other countries that could inform FDA’s thinking in this area?

A large majority of human drug products labeled as homeopathic are marketed as OTC drugs. These products are available for a wide variety of indications, and many of these indications have never been considered for OTC use under a formal regulatory process. What would be an appropriate regulatory process for evaluating such indications for OTC use?

Given the wide range of indications on drug products labeled as homeopathic and available OTC, what processes do companies currently use to evaluate whether such products, including their indications for use, are appropriate for marketing as an OTC drug?

Do consumers and health care providers have adequate information to make informed decisions about drug products labeled as homeopathic? If not, what information, including, for example, information in labeling, would allow consumers and health care providers to be better informed about products labeled as homeopathic? [Emphasis added.]

Filing Comments with the FDA

The FDA held public hearings on April 20 and 21, 2015 on this topic and then opened up for comments, using the federal governments www.regulations.gov website.

On behalf of the United States Justice Foundation, we filed comments opposing the FDA’s power grab. The initial comment period closed August 21, 2015, with the FDA receiving over 8,600 comments. But there were so many demands to extend the comment period, that the FDA relented, and Comments now may be filed until November 9, 2015.

Although there is no guarantee that the FDA will listen to anyone, we each need to suspend disbelief, and take advantage of this opportunity to let them know exactly what we think of their plan. Comments can be filed by email or on line.

Homeopathic Remedies Are Not Drugs

However, in seeking comments, the FDA ignores the threshold question: does the FDA have any statutory, or, indeed, constitutional authority to sit in judgment over the choice of Americans to use homeopathic remedies? It is our contention that the FDA has no such authority.

The FDA purports to exercise authority over homeopathy under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq. The FDCA defines a “drug” as, inter alia:

articles recognized in the … official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States … and … articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals…. [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(A)-(B) (emphasis added).]

The basic statutory definition of a drug as including “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” employs language so broad that the definition could encompass virtually every substance that is consumed or comes in contact with the body.

For example, a bottle of water now sold at the corner 7-Eleven could be said to be “intended for use in the … cure of” thirst — which presumably has not yet been classified as a “disease” by modern medicine. However, if that same bottle of water was “intended for use in the … cure of” the medical conditions of Dehydration or Polydipsia — it would be a drug, by this definition.

Clearly, the “intent” of the person selling the substance cannot determine whether a substance is a drug. The statutory definition is overinclusive, as in the case of water, but it is also underinclusive, as it would exclude a pharmaceutical if it was not advertised to address a medical condition. This cannot be the way Congress intended to define a “drug.”

One of the defining characteristics of a pharmaceutical drug is that it has serious toxicity — a key characteristic shared by all pharmaceutical drugs. Because of that toxicity, the federal government limits public access, to protect the public. That rationale does not apply to homeopathy. Where the reason for the rule does not apply, so also should not the rule.

Indeed, when one school of medicine attempts to use the government to quash another school of medicine, that can be a good indication that those demanding the protection of the public have been losing market share. What cannot be accomplished in the marketplace can be imposed by government. Pharmacy Professor Richard Henry Parrish II explains the historic pattern of certain health care providers turning to government to accomplish by compulsion what they could not do by persuasion:

Government became the arbiter of pharmaceutical fact because the professions of pharmacy and medicine, as well as the pharmaceutical industry, could enforce their standards only through police powers reserved to government … at the expense of others’ rights of association, speech, and property. [Richard Henry Parrish II, Defining Drugs: How Government Became the Arbiter of Pharmaceutical Fact, Transaction Publishers, (2003), p. 132.]

FTC Joins the Attack on Homeopathy

Simultaneously, the FTC has opened up another front in the fight against homeopathy. This was to be expected, as the FTC and FDA have long worked in tandem in seeking to shut down access to alternative healthcare. The FTC issued an announcement that it would accept comments, and deadline for comments is now November 20, 2015.

The FTC also scheduled a “workshop” to be held on September 21, 2015, described as “homing in on homeopathy.” Such language triggers the mental image of a drone locked in on an “enemy of the state.” The agenda for the workshop makes it clear that the FTC is thinking about how deceptive advertising laws might be used “as possible remedies to address” homeopathic product claims. (Evidencing inter-agency cooperation, the FTC agenda also lists two FDA employees as panelists.)

Interestingly, the FTC also submitted comments to the FDA in the FDA’s rulemaking, together with an August 21, 2015 press release. The FTC urged the FDA to amend or repeal its current regulatory framework, so that the FTC would be able to freely regulate homeopathy. The FDA’s framework — the 1988 Compliance Policy Guide — requires homeopathic products to contain an indication for use. Yet the FTC complains that the FDA does not “require sellers to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the indication for use.” The FTC’s desire is to force homeopathic remedy manufacturers to comply with its scientific substantiation policy, something entirely unsuited for homeopathy.

Conclusion

Although American pharmaceutical manufacturers might prefer to suppress homeopathy so that they may be better able to market their drugs domestically and internationally, such would be a profoundly corrupt motive for the FDA to sanction. For many decades, the FDA has thus far understood that homeopathic remedies are virtually devoid of side effects, inexpensive, and found by millions to be effective for them. Thus, such remedies are completely different from toxic pharmaceuticals, and for these reasons, the FDA has recognized personal choice diversity in health care choices.

Applying the system for government-mandated pharmaceutical drug regulation to homeopathy would have a major ramification on the rights of citizens in a free society: It would stop citizens from acting in their own best interest, and would shift consequent responsibility to professionals and to government. The federal government has neither jurisdiction nor warrant to change direction now and interfere with the right of citizens to have unfettered access to homeopathic remedies. (For more from the author of “More Government Than America Needs or Wants” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This GOP Candidate Holds Double-Digit Lead on Clinton in New Poll

/1 Comment/in , /by

Four Republican presidential candidates lead Hillary Clinton nationally in head-to-head match-ups, according to a new poll.

The Fox News survey released on Tuesday shows Ben Carson running the strongest against Clinton, with the retired neurosurgeon taking 50 percent, compared to only 39 percent for the former secretary of State.

Donald Trump leads Clinton by 45 percent to 40, Jeb Bush leads Clinton 44 to 40 and Carly Fiorina leads Clinton 42 to 39, the poll found.

While it can be dangerous to read too much into any poll this early in the presidential contest, the Fox News survey will give ammunition to those arguing that Vice President Biden would be a stronger Democratic candidate than Clinton.

Biden leads all of those same Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups. He’s up on Trump by 50 percent to 37, Bush by 46 to 41 percent and enjoys leads of 46 to 42 percent over both Carson and Fiorina. (Read more from “This GOP Candidate Holds Double-Digit Lead on Clinton in New Poll” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Putin Derides ‘Weak’ U.S. Policy as Diplomats Discuss Syria

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Andrey Biryukov and Dana Khraiche. Russian President Vladimir Putin once again derided American policy on Syria as weak and lacking objectives, as his air force continued bombing raids to support Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“I don’t really understand how the U.S. can criticize Russia’s actions in Syria if they refuse to have direct dialogue,” Putin told reporters Thursday during a visit to Astana, Kazakhstan. “The basic weakness of the American position is that they don’t have an agenda, though we’re keeping the door open” for high-level discussions, he said.

Amid growing friction over the Russian military intervention that began Sept. 30, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry countered that Russia must make “good on its commitment, repeated many times, to help” the U.S.-led, 65-member coalition fighting to defeat Islamic State terrorists.

“The point we have made to the Russians, however, is that it would be totally self-defeating to the point of farce to try at the same time to prop up Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime, which seems to be precisely what Moscow wants to do,” Kerry said Thursday in a speech at Indiana University’s School of Global and International Studies in Bloomington, Indiana . . .

Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed Syria by phone on Thursday and expressed satisfaction on the progress of military talks to improve “security in the Syrian airspace in the context of anti-terrorist actions,” the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said in a statement on its website. The U.S. has emphasized that the “technical” talks are limited to reducing the risk of a conflict between their aircraft in the skies over Syria. (Read more from “Putin Derides ‘Weak’ U.S. Policy as Diplomats Discuss Syria” HERE)

__________________________________

Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice

By Steven Lee Meyers and Eric Schmitt. Two weeks of air and missile strikes in Syria have given Western intelligence and military officials a deeper appreciation of the transformation that Russia’s military has undergone under President Vladimir V. Putin, showcasing its ability to conduct operations beyond its borders and providing a public demonstration of new weaponry, tactics and strategy.

The strikes have involved aircraft never before tested in combat, including the Sukhoi Su-34 strike fighter, which NATO calls the Fullback, and a ship-based cruise missile fired more than 900 miles from the Caspian Sea, which, according to some analysts, surpasses the American equivalent in technological capability.

Russia’s jets have struck in support of Syrian ground troops advancing from areas under the control of the Syrian government, and might soon back an Iranian-led offensive that appeared to be forming in the northern province of Aleppo on Wednesday. That coordination reflects what American officials described as months of meticulous planning behind Russia’s first military campaign outside former Soviet borders since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Taken together, the operations reflect what officials and analysts described as a little-noticed — and still incomplete — modernization that has been underway in Russia for several years, despite strains on the country’s budget. And that, as with Russia’s intervention in neighboring Ukraine, has raised alarms in the West.

In a report this month for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel argued that Mr. Putin had overseen the most rapid transformation of the country’s armed forces since the 1930s. “Russia is now a military power that could overwhelm any of its neighbors, if they were isolated from Western support,” wrote Mr. Gressel, a former officer of the Austrian military. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s February, March 2015 Golf Vacations and Fundraisers Cost Taxpayers $4,436,245.50 in Travel Expenses Alone

/3 Comments/in , /by

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that Barack Obama’s February and March 2015 travel for golf vacations and fundraisers totaled $4,436,245.50 in taxpayer-funded transportation expenses. The documents regarding the Obama travel expenses came in response to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by Judicial Watch.

To date, the Secret Service has not provided requested information, as required by FOIA, regarding security costs.

Using the Air Force’s official cost estimate of $206,337 per hour, the newly released records obtained by Judicial Watch show:

Obama’s February 14, 2015, golf outing to Palm Springs required a five-hour flight, costing taxpayers a total of $1,031,685.

Transportation for Obama’s February 19 day trip to Chicago cost taxpayers $619,011.00.

Transportation for Obama’s March 2015 fundraising trip to Los Angeles cost taxpayers $1,980,835.20.

Obama’s March 28, 2015, golf outing to Palm city required a 3.9-hour flight, costing taxpayers $804,870.30 . . .

Records released earlier this year by Judicial Watch showed that Michelle Obama’s 2014 trip to China cost more than $360,000 in air transportation costs. Judicial Watch uncovered an expensive combination of trips by the Obamas to Africa and Honolulu, which cost taxpayers $15,885,585.30 in flight expenses. The single largest prior known expense for accommodations was for Michelle Obama’s side-trip to Dublin, Ireland, during the 2013 G-8 conference in Belfast, when she and her entourage booked 30 rooms at the five-star Shelbourne Hotel, with the first lady staying in the 1500 square-foot Princess Grace suite at a cost of $3,500 a night. The total cost to taxpayers for the Obamas’ Ireland trip was $7,921,638.66. To date, the known travel expenses of the Obamas and Vice President Joe Biden exceed $61 million.(Read more from “Obama’s February, March 2015 Golf Vacations and Fundraisers Cost Taxpayers $4,436,245.50 in Travel Expenses Alone” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Panel OKs Concealed Guns in ‘Gun-Free’ Zones in This State

/0 Comments/in , /by

Individuals with special permits would be allowed to bring concealed firearms inside schools and other “gun-free” areas under legislation advanced Tuesday by a Senate committee.

The bills, approved 4-1 along party lines by the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, would let people apply for an exemption to carry their concealed weapon into areas that are currently off limits, including schools, child care centers, sports arenas, large concert halls, bars, places of worship, hospitals, dorms and college classrooms. It would also prohibit people from openly carrying guns in those areas, which permit holders are currently allowed to do under Michigan law . . .

At a crowded hearing, supporters of the legislation said it would allow more people to responsibly carry guns and help prevent mass shootings, contending that shooters target “gun-free” areas where they know victims are not armed. They also argued it would address a loophole that has led to the court fights. (Read more from “Senate Panel OKs Concealed Guns in ‘Gun-Free’ Zones in This State” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

X-Rated Audio Shocks Customers at Target Store

/0 Comments/in , /by

Shoppers at a Target store in San Jose stopped in their tracks Wednesday morning when a sexually explicit recording began blaring over the store’s public address system.

Chris Minor, who was shopping at the Westgate Mall store, said the material was X-rated and had profanities. Minor recorded the incident, along with the reactions of fellow shoppers, on his cell phone. Customers, which included mothers with babies, were stunned . . .

“I felt violated, and my body said wait a minute, this ain’t right. So I was uneasy,” he said. “I thought it may have been Halloween related, maybe an employee playing games, but this was rated-X material, which made me feel very uncomfortable. I was taken aback, very frustrated, and appalled, and angered by what I heard,” Minor told KPIX 5.

Minor said the store apologized over the PA system, and then the explicit recording started again. (Read more from “X-Rated Audio Shocks Customers at Target Store” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 BIG Lies From the Democratic Debate Just Got Exposed, and Americans Need to Know It

/7 Comments/in , /by

The truth was a casualty of Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate.

Hillary Clinton shaded the facts about her use of a private email account while she was Secretary of State and fudged her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., wrongly placed the United States as the world’s leader in wealth and income inequality.

Clinton, whose defense of her private email server has shifted repeatedly over time, said during the debate that what she did was “allowed by the State Department.” However, Clinton was supposed to turn over her personal emails to the Department at the end of her tenure, not two years later as she did. Also, using a private account for all her work emails was “inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies,” according to congressional testimony of Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives.

Clinton recently spoke out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement among Pacific Rim nations. Debate host Anderson Cooper called out Clinton on her changing positions at Tuesday night’s debate . . .

Clinton told Cooper that when the trade deal was unveiled, she “hoped” it would be the “gold standard” for agreements.

However, that’s not what she said.

(Read more from “3 BIG Lies From the Democratic Debate Just Got Exposed, and Americans Need to Know It” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Are Furious With CNBC Over What They’re Doing to the Next GOP Debate

/4 Comments/in , /by

A nearly 90-minute conference call between CNBC and representatives of Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday turned heated over a CNBC decision regarding the next GOP primary debate.

Many of the Republicans complained about a CNBC plan to drop opening and closing statements to allow more time for questions from moderators at the event, scheduled for Oct. 28 at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The plan was included in a memo the network distributed prior to a conference call that claimed the campaigns had already agreed to the format change, Politico reported.

Eliminating opening and closing statements would allow a more “free flowing discussion, lively candidate interaction, fair treatment of all candidates,” the memo stated, according to Politico.

But during the call, it was clear the campaigns weren’t going along.

The first to object was Ed Brookover, a campaign strategist on the Ben Carson campaign. Two sources on the call told Politico that Brookover threatened to take his concerns public. (Read more from “Republicans Are Furious With CNBC Over What They’re Doing to the Next GOP Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.