Holland allowed a 20-something sexual abuse victim to be euthanized last year after doctors convinced her that treatment for her mental disorders was hopeless, according to The Daily Mail.
Euthanasia is a rampant problem in the Netherlands where it has been legal since 1973. Numerous reports indicate on-going abuses, including the killing of infants, the disabled and elderly without their consent.
Mentally ill patients also have been targeted for euthanasia. In the most recent case, the young woman was a victim of sexual assault who struggled with severe mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress, anorexia, chronic depression and hallucinations, according to the report. Along with being suicidal, she also had physical difficulties that kept her bedridden most of the time, the report states.
One psychiatrist told the young woman that her case had “no prospect or hope… The patient experienced her suffering as unbearable.” Despite a second doctor’s more positive outlook on her condition and recommendations for intense therapy, the young woman apparently gave up hope and allowed doctors to euthanize her about a year ago in Holland.
The Dutch Euthanasia Commission only recently released documents about her death, the report states. (Read more from “Woman Dealing With Depression, Anorexia Euthanized When Doctors Decide She Can’t Be Cured” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-42.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:09:552016-05-14 23:40:36Woman Dealing With Depression, Anorexia Euthanized When Doctors Decide She Can’t Be Cured
It hurts. To run for President of the United States, to get to the final round of primaries, and lose both a key primary and the hope of winning period? To be out there and have your family out there and lose? Yes, it stings.
But a word about Senator Ted Cruz.
Yes, yes, I know he is a conservative’s conservative. That is precisely why I have repeatedly suggested him for the second half of a Trump ticket, something that seems highly unlikely at this point. (Although Trump himself told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly the other night on the subject of Cruz for Vice President: “He really competed hard and tough, so I respect Ted. He’s certainly a capable guy, so it’s something we can think about.”) Here here!
But let’s be candid. Here is a Breitbart headline and part of a story that reflects the problem.
Poll: 70 Percent of Ted Cruz Supporters Now Dislike Donald Trump
Almost 7-out-of-10 of Sen. Ted Cruz’s supporters have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump, and fewer than 30 percent have a favorable view of the New Yorker, according to survey data from Morning Consult.
As the Breitbart story also points out, this wasn’t always the case.
This wasn’t always the case. At the end of 2015, of all his challengers, Trump’s favorable numbers were highest among Cruz supporters. More than half of Cruz’s backers, 53 percent, had a favorable view of the real estate developer. Just 39 percent of Cruz supporters had an unfavorable view of Trump.
By comparison, 60 percent of Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters had an unfavorable view of Trump and just 38 percent had a positive opinion.
The positive feelings between Trump and Cruz supporters were even more reciprocal in the other direction. Among Trump’s backers, 61 percent had a positive view of Cruz, while only 21 percent had a negative view.
Among Trump’s supporters, in fact, Ted Cruz had a higher favorable rating than any other rival for the nomination.
Each were the top second choice of the other’s supporters.
One minute Trump and Cruz supporters were buds. Then not. Houston, we have a problem.
So let me start discussing this problem here, from the Trump side.
Certainly I am not in agreement with most of the Wall Street Journal’s “Cruz Postmortem” editorial. The WSJ says that Cruz had a “ruin-to-rule campaign strategy” and that it “crashed”. Said the WSJ:
The reasons for this crash go back to Mr. Cruz’s strategy to run for President that began from his earliest days in the Senate in 2013. He calculated he couldn’t stand out in the presidential pack if he merely attacked President Obama and Hillary Clinton. So he and his allies at the Heritage Foundation and the Mark Levin talk-radio right put together a strategy to inflame populist resentment against the GOP Congress and catapult Mr. Cruz to the White House.
In the narrative they contrived, true conservatives are forever betrayed by the corrupt leaders of what Mr. Cruz called “the Washington cartel.”
Thus they set up impossible feats of strength like the ObamaCare government shutdown, or phony tests of political purity on drones and gun control. Mr. Cruz also saw immigration as a wedge for the base and made it his signature.
What is incredulous here is the assignment of Cruz’s actions in the Senate as a cynical strategy to get elected president. Long before Ted Cruz appeared in the Senate there were plenty of people like me who agreed with, to quote the WSJ, “the Heritage Foundation and the Mark Levin talk-radio right” on the subject of a Washington Establishment gone off the rails. It took absolutely zero calculation for Ted Cruz to understand what was — and remains — a serious problem in American government. In the last few weeks I have had many, many conversations with Trump supporters. To a person they agree with some variation of what the WSJ scorns as the Heritage and Mark Levin talk-radio right.
I have repeatedly reiterated my support for Cruz as Trump’s VP. Why? Precisely because I believe as a conservative’s conservative he would add immeasurably to a Trump ticket and, critically, be the “conservative in the room” when it came time to decide about Supreme Court appointments and for that matter the entire appointments to the entire federal judiciary.
But this begs the obvious question. Why wasn’t I there for Ted Cruz for the top job?
Well aside from my support of Donald Trump – I was pro-Trump, decidedly not anti-Cruz — it appeared to me that — at least at this point — Senator Cruz was unable to reignite the fabled “Reagan coalition” in its modern incarnation. Which is to say a massive coming together of Americans from all walks of life — ages, income, gender, geography, race, and religion, not to mention Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans — around the core tenets of conservatism. And in doing so, move that coalition into the American future as the dominant force in American political life.
As the campaign launched, I confess I was uncertain of just how Cruz would play in my neck of the woods — the Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic states that range roughly from Maryland to Maine. And to confirm my suspicions, there were eventually the actual primary results. Yes, Cruz did carry Maine through its Republican State Convention. But alas, that was it. In fact, everywhere else in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states Senator Cruz got absolutely trounced in Republican primaries, some of them “open” and some of them not. Here in my home state of Pennsylvania, Trump carried all 67 counties, something that has never been done before by any presidential, senatorial or gubernatorial candidate in an open primary — in either party. There was no question in my mind that Donald Trump could carry Ted Cruz’s home state of Texas. There was considerable question whether Ted Cruz could carry Donald Trump’s home state of New York.
This cannot — must not — be ignored. In fact, this is an opportunity for Cruz moving forward.
Senator Cruz is frequently described in awed tones as a great Princeton debater, the star of Harvard Law and so forth. All to the good. But every single person who runs for the Presidency of the United States is humbled somewhere along the line by their political and human shortcomings as candidate or chief executive. Their success in either category comes because they reach inside themselves to acknowledge their problem, confront it — and move on.
If I may, again respectfully? I winced when I heard the Cruz presser early on in the day of the Indiana primary. Where he suddenly let loose in an emotional tirade with a vituperative frustration about Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. In truth, it reminded me of this moment — which, I acknowledge one has to be old enough to recall. As preserved here in its original grainy black and white, this was known as “Nixon’s last press conference.” After losing a tight presidential race to JFK, Richard Nixon ran for governor of California two years later in 1962. He lost. Humiliated, exhausted and bitter, against the advice of his aides, he descended into the ballroom of a Los Angeles hotel the morning after the election and proceeded to launch an emotional tirade against the press. Among his lines, he said this was his “last press conference” and sarcastically said the press should think about how much they will miss him because “you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” Suffice to say, it was mistake. A Grade-A political disaster that was used to haunt him for years to come. His enemies had an absolute field day. Within days ABC News was airing a show called “The Political Obituary of Richard Nixon” in which they gloated at his presumed political demise. In the White House, a dictaphone captured his old rival JFK talking with California Governor Pat Brown who had just defeated Nixon. Nixon was called “psychotic” a “nut” and “paranoid”. Not good.
The “last press conference” may have made Nixon feel better, but he finally came to his political senses. After quietly retreating awhile, moving to New York to start anew, by 1966 he was re-emerging as a much refreshed, solid, very polished and professional candidate. He had made his mistakes – and he had learned from them. Among other things he hired a young media savvy guy named Roger Ailes to do his media work in 1968. If nothing else, the success of Nixon in 1968 was a classic case of the candidate who confronted his problems directly, corrected them (never in 1968 was he not facing the spotlight without being rested and on his smiling professional game) and as a result finally winning the prize.
There is nothing wrong with losing a race for president. When Ted Cruz stood at that podium the other day surrounded by his family, notably his mother and wife Heidi — the latter whom I know and who is one of the world’s classiest human beings — he and they had every right in the world to be proud of his accomplishments as a candidate. In this corner, there is the distinct belief not just that he will be back. I believe he should be back.
But to come back implies the hope that after a time of well deserved rest, Senator Cruz will in his methodical, data-driven fashion sit down and try and figure out not just where he went wrong but what he did right and what he needs to do to make sure that the next time – or the next (it took Reagan three tries) – he can finally hit the political bullseye and be elected president.
The thought here is that the WSJ did in fact get one thing right in that editorial. This:
The Texan’s lost opportunity was to expand his appeal beyond his most conservative base of support and coalesce mainstream Republicans. He never tried to break out of his factional ghetto, as if excoriating the establishment and transgender bathroom laws could motivate a majority to defeat Mr. Trump’s plurality.
Inelegantly put, perhaps, but from here it would seem to be all too true. The other week I attended my first Trump rally. It was here in Central Pennsylvania. The Farm Show Complex, the largest venue in the capital city of Harrisburg, was almost filled literally to the rafters. An informal survey showed these folks numbering almost 10,000 in number to be a virtual conservative dream. Middle class, blue collar, lots of well-to-do and well-educated folk all rubbing shoulders with the less so. All passionate about The Donald. And yes, there were lots of talk radio fans in the crowd. Fans of Rush, Sean, Mark, Glenn and Laura.
There is no reason in a future American politics that all those Donald fans can’t be passionate about Ted Cruz. But they are not to be scorned, much less condescended to. In point of fact it is a huge mistake for Ted Cruz or his supporters to suddenly adapt the GOP Establishment elitist attitude and look down their noses at these Trumpians when in fact they have so much in common.
The Trump supporters I met at that rally are good, solid, decent Americans. They have responded to Donald Trump for a whole host of reasons. One Trump supporter stopped me in the local grocery store to relate that he had had a stroke and although recovered his dealings with Obamacare were a nightmare. He was decidedly unhappy. What he saw in Donald Trump was someone with a record of getting things done — a man of action. Ted Cruz was, notably, never mentioned. That’s not a diss, either. It is simply revealing of exactly why this one Trump supporter was supporting Trump.
Again, it is important as we move along here to face the hard reality that Donald Trump is where he is today because millions of people affirmatively set out to quite deliberately vote for him. Deriding his supporters, berating and condescending them is a guarantee that they will be permanently turned off — to Ted Cruz or any other conservative who thinks that at a later date they can approach these people and win their votes in a future campaign.
And Trump supporters? This is no time to gloat. Winning brings with it the responsibility of leadership. The obligation to listen, to respectfully consider honest dissent, to sit down and discuss. The fact of the matter here is that lots of very good, very honest and very conservative Americans voted for someone other than Donald Trump. A lot of them voted for Ted Cruz, and it is likewise critical to understand why. There is much, much common ground here in the Trump-Cruz dynamic, as that Breitbart story above noted when it said:
At the end of 2015, of all his challengers, Trump’s favorable numbers were highest among Cruz supporters. More than half of Cruz’s backers, 53 percent, had a favorable view of the real estate developer. Just 39 percent of Cruz supporters had an unfavorable view of Trump.
The only thing that has changed since the end of 2015 was the inevitable. To wit, a hard campaign that produced a Trump victory rather than a Cruz victory. And most assuredly, if Ted Cruz had won, I certainly would have been supporting him and it would correctly have been expected that other Trump supporters get on board as well.
This is an ongoing discussion. But for now?
No, it is not a good idea to elect Hillary Clinton by default. It is time to keep building the conservative movement. To understand just why it’s that a lot of genuine conservatives went out of their way to vote for Donald Trump, without the slightest animus towards Ted Cruz. And it is decidedly a moment for Ted Cruz and his supporters, past, present and future – to take an unblinking look at just what went wrong in this initial Cruz presidential campaign and how to correct it.
The future beckons for Ted Cruz. As with a defeated FDR in 1920 or Nixon in 1960 or Reagan in 1968 and 1976 or George H.W. Bush in 1980, the first defeat most assuredly does not mean eternal defeat. Far from it.
Here’s to wishing Ted Cruz well. That he may pull up his socks and get on with it. Because there is much getting on to do. (For more from the author of “What the Wall Street Journal Got Wrong About Cruz’s Postmortem” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Ted_Cruz_by_Gage_Skidmore_4-1.jpg31684752Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:08:322016-05-14 23:39:53What the Wall Street Journal Got Wrong About Cruz’s Postmortem
The contemporary federal court system is a raging dumpster fire that poses the biggest threat to our representative democracy, society, and sovereignty since our nation’s founding. Yet, we lack a political party that is willing to finally strip the judiciary down to its original function — interpreting the law, not reinterpreting the Constitution and even remaking marriage and gender from the bench. By understanding the true and irreversible threat of the courts to our personal liberty, popular sovereignty, and society, it will become clear that the question of whether to vote for Trump or Hillary is really irrelevant and a non-sequitur in the battle we must fight.
The Left has transformed our society and system of governance, particularly through the courts, in a way not even our grandparents’ generation could have ever envisioned. Yet, like frogs in slow boiling water, we become desensitized to the radically pernicious transformation around us. The more it succeeds and is unchallenged by a genuine alternative party, the more it becomes legitimized and is viewed as the default position in our society.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the nexus of judicial tyranny, marriage, religious liberty and transgenderism. It’s time we wake up and smell the stench of judicial tyranny and finally become inspired to act, even as we lack a political party that cares about the destruction of the civil society, federalism, and representative democracy.
Worse than Redefining Marriage, Gender, and Criminalizing Religion?
Over the weekend, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was “suspended” for opposing Anthony Kennedy’s royal edict redefining the building block of all civilization from the bench. Sadly, even most conservatives will continue to legitimize the lawless federal courts and mindlessly chant, “You must obey the court’s decision.” As I lay out in chapter three of my upcoming book, the gay marriage decision flips every word of the Constitution on its head and wields not one iota of legal legitimacy. This has nothing to do with one’s personal view on the underlying policy of marriage licenses. If federal courts now have jurisdiction over something that has been a state institution since the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, that means there is no limit to their power. It also means that the state and Congress mean nothing and we must submit to a judicial oligarchy.
I was inspired to write my book, “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America,” because of the events of September 3, 2015. On that day, for the first time in history, a GOP-appointed judge threw a Christian in jail for upholding Kentucky law and peacefully abstaining from signing a gay marriage license. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the deportation of a dangerous criminal alien by applying international law and asserting that the individual was transgender, all the while berating ICE officials for not using the proper pronoun.
We have hit rock bottom, indeed.
At some point, it just doesn’t matter anymore. Fifty years of built up anti-constitutional jurisprudence and hopelessly corrupt contorting of the Fourteenth Amendment have made the judiciary unsalvageable. We are now incurring a worse degree of social transformation than any of us imagined when we were warned of the need to keep electing Republicans a decade ago. We elected Republicans and are now at the point when not only has marriage been redefined but the Fourth Circuit has redefined gender itself.
The threat leveled at conservatives — that we must support the GOP nominee in order to “save” the courts — is laughable. It can’t get much worse. In fact, it’s better Hillary appoint three more justices so that the dumpster fire of the judiciary becomes self-evident enough to rally us all around the systemic judicial reforms that must take place.
The Republican Party at every level refuses to stand up to the judiciary and fight for religious liberty — the civil right of our time. This was true long before the rise of Donald Trump. It’s just that Trump is no better than the rest of them, given his support of Obama’s transgender agenda, the broader corporate homo-fascism, and the judicial role of marriage and religious liberty in our society. He fully supported Judge Bunning’s vile and lawless order to imprison Kim Davis for following Kentucky’s plenary power to define marriage.
What if Hillary Remakes the Court?
Whether one ultimately votes for Trump or not is less important than the realization that either way we have lost our society to the courts and the recognition that the courts are broken and must be stripped down to size. As I will demonstrate in my book, this is true for a number of reasons. Here are just a couple:
The lower courts are even worse. Obama has filled 30% of the appellate bench and 40% of the district judgeships. The anti-constitutionalists pretty much control all the appeals courts except for the Fifth Circuit. Even a conservative president will not change that balance due to the likely vacancies being in circuits that are already long gone. Remember, 99% of cases never make it to the Supreme Court anyway, and as we saw with the marriage case, the almost unanimous support for redefining it at the lower court level had a tremendous influence on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Even among the “conservative” judges, very few of them are like Clarence Thomas in that they’d be willing to overturn the one-directional stare decisis (precedent) and Fourteenth Amendment “jurisprudence” constructed from years’ worth of corruption in the legal profession. As Justice Alito said in the marriage case, echoing comments Robert Bork made two decades ago, “decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed” as evidenced by “the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.” Read Robert Bork’s article from 1996 on “The End of Democracy”– long before transgenderism was codified and Christians were being jailed and fined, and you will understand the folly of trying to “fix the judiciary” by appointing “good” judges.
It’s not just the judges. The entire legal profession, as noted by Alito, is irremediably corrupt, especially as it relates to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and the entire premise of the role of the federal judiciary. There is an army of tens of thousands of lawyers who are skilled at using decades of corrupt case law to contort the concept of fundamental rights and successfully grant super rights to protected classes and citizen rights to illegal aliens. Having a Republican appoint a few judges instead of a Democrat filling the vacancies will never roll back the jurisprudential velocity respected by the entire profession. Which is why almost all GOP-appointed judges drift to the left over time. The judicial game is rigged and it’s time we stop playing it.
Even the few tantalizing 5-4 victories we still enjoy are fleeting, narrow, and dwarfed by the magnitude of the liberal courts victories. Democrats have a perpetual first and goal at our one-yard line. Even if the court fails to “go there” now, they usually will adapt to the culture of the legal profession within a few years. Even the Heller decision has already been severely limited by the reluctance of Kennedy and Roberts to defend it, allowing blue states to get away with banning guns and the right to carry. If Hillary succeeded to tipping the balance on gun rights, red states can still do what they want, while blue states are already succeeding in pushing anti-gun laws.
Vote for Trump to “stop Hillary” if your heart so desires, but just remember that things will have to get worse before they get better. And at some point, we need to begin working on long-term reforms — starting a new party, pushing civil rights for religious liberty, stripping the court’s stolen jurisdiction, convening Conventions of the States to safeguard liberty. With every single RINO winning down the ballot for state and federal positions, together with Trump as the party’s nominee, nothing will change to stop the inexorable march towards a pagan theocracy, which legislates immorality and violation of property rights from the bench.
“But what if the Democrat wins?” is no longer a hypothetical question. We are already living through those consequences precisely because we’ve been too scared to act boldly and focus on long-term reforms, lest we risk defeat of the fake opposition party. And if we continue to fear the prospect of Democrat victory in the short run more than the lack of a conservative party, or even conservative movement, to combat the tyranny in the long-run, we will perpetuate this failed cycle and will have nobody to blame but ourselves. (For more from the author of “Trump or No Trump, the Judiciary Has Already Hit Rock Bottom and Must Be Overhauled” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20548281849_6894f48884_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:07:062016-05-14 23:38:59Trump or No Trump, the Judiciary Has Already Hit Rock Bottom and Must Be Overhauled
Target CEO Brian Cornell responded on Wednesday to the backlash the retailer has received in response to its new transgender bathroom policy.
Over 1.2 million people, to date, have signed a petition pledging to boycott until the policy is changed. Since Target’s policy was announced April 19, the company’s stock has dropped approximately 10 percent, or $4.5 billion in market value.
“I certainly recognize that stance we took, which by the way is similar to many of our retail peers, has received quite a bit of feedback. And as a company, we’re constantly listening. So we listened to our guests. We listened to our team members,” Cornell told CNBC’s Squawk Box.
While the CEO stood by his company’s choice, he announced an action the store will take in an effort to address the safety concerns raised by the sponsor of the petition, the American Family Association, and others.
While the CEO stood by his company’s choice, he announced an action the store will take in an effort to address the safety concerns raised by the sponsor of the petition, the American Family Association, and others.
Target has approximately 1,700 locations.
What Cornell did not say is that male and female restrooms would go back to being exclusively for that biological gender. Target’s solution therefore is that if a customer is uncomfortable with potentially having a person of a different sex in the restroom, choose the family restoom.
Given family restrooms only accommodate one customer at a time, that may create demand problems.
As reported by Western Journalism, the AFA was to meet with Target executives and has offered that if the retailer wants to address its safety concerns, a solution would be to provide unisex bathrooms (presumably the family restroom would fit that bill), in addition to the standard male and female ones. Transgender people (who make up less than half of one percent of the population) would then have that option, if they are not comfortable using the restroom that corresponds to their biological gender.
Cornell summed up his company’s view concerning the controversy. “So, we took a stance, and we’re going to continue to embrace our belief in diversity and inclusion to our company, but we’re also going to make sure our focus on safety is unwavering,” he said.
However, that “unwavering” commitment to safety will not include changing its bathroom policy. (For more from the author of “Target CEO Stands by Transgender Bathroom Decision, Offers ‘Option’ to Customers” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2187567007_61af3c859f_o.jpg9601280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:06:532016-05-14 23:37:58Target CEO Stands by Transgender Bathroom Decision, Offers ‘Option’ to Customers
Some might say a rather disturbing moment occurred Wednesday during a Hillary Clinton rally at Camden County College in New Jersey.
Before taking the podium, the woman introducing the Democratic presidential candidate attempted to rally the crowd by reciting part of the Pledge of Allegiance. However, it’s the part she left out, and Clinton’s reaction to it, that is turning heads.
“Only Hillary can bring us together as one nation,” the woman began, before emitting a loud guttural noise to avoid saying the words “under God.”
Continuing right along, she finished the line from the Pledge, saying, “Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
As the crowd erupted in cheers, Clinton began laughing.
Some might question what was so funny about the willful omission of God during a presidential campaign rally.
This is also not the first time Democrats have had such an aversion to God or the concept of our country being under divine authority.
After Democrats stripped any mention of the word “God” from their charter, a vote was raised at the 2012 Democratic Convention to reinclude the word.
After the vote passed (although some might question the dubious method by which it was approved), the Democrats in attendance began booing.
As the Associated Press reported at the time:
“The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said ‘we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.’” (For more from the author of “Watch: Clinton’s Reaction After ‘Under God’ Omitted From Campaign Introduction” please click HERE)
Renowned author and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, in his book “People of the Lie,” describes evil personalities as those distinguished by:
(a) consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which my often be quite subtle. (b) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury. (c) Pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives. (d) Intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic like disturbance of thinking at times of stress.
Peck also makes the point that a sign of evil personalities is not dishonesty. We all have moments where we choose to be dishonest, but serial dishonesty is a different thing.
This weekend, while reading coverage of the now infamous Ben Rhodes interview with the New York Times, I was reminded of Peck’s book. Is this really where we are right now? Have we lost so much of our national innocence that Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications for President Obama, willingly grants an interview to a major American newspaper and proudly declares, that they manipulated the American public to sell the Iran nuclear deal?
Compounding this gross display of deception and hubris, Rhodes said of the press, “The average reporter we talk to is 27-years-old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing…” Thus, he appeared to blame media ignorance for his deception.
How many times are we going to be lied to by the Obama administration, and the president himself, before we stop pussyfooting around and call them what they are: liars? I fully understand that name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are gauche in the DC-insider political circles. But this is not name-calling for name-calling sake, or unnecessary ad-hominem; it’s simply the truth.
How else would one refer to a president and an administration that says things to the American people, recorded on tape for all of us to review, which turn out later to be patently false? Why the need to be delicate with a president who has never shown any such feelings for his political opposition? He is a liar and many in his administration are too. There, I said it, and you should too, because we will never be able to repair the dramatic loss in confidence in government under the Obama administration until we recognize that openly lying to and serially deceiving the American people is evil and unacceptable in a civil society.
And for our liberal friends, desperate to defend this failed presidential administration, who believe that the Ben Rhodes interview was an anomaly, I ask you to carefully remove your ideological blinders for a moment and consider the facts. Regardless of your position on immigration, Obamacare, or the Iran deal, it’s now painfully obvious that the Obama administration lied—yes, lied—about all three.
President Obama told us about immigration policy, “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.” And then President Obama turned around and ignored immigration law by implementing executive immigration amnesty through DACA and DAPA.
President Obama told us repeatedly about Obamacare, “If you like your healthcare plan, you will keep your plan.” He then signed the Obamacare legislation which cost millions of Americans the healthcare plans they were promised they could keep.
Some liberals may say in response, “It’s no big deal, most politicians lie.” Yes, you are correct. But does that mean that they have to slap us all in the face by openly celebrating it in the New York Times? And does it mean that they should be given a free pass for lying repeatedly?
Conservatives and libertarians prefer a smaller, leaner, and more efficient government precisely because of the tendency for politicians of all stripes to lie. A small government enables the lies of politicians to have the smallest possible impact on our lives and enables us to track their lies easily. A growing government monolith like the one we are living with now enables a sprawling government to hide its old lies under a bed of new lies and lie about the lies by calling their political opposition liars. Sound familiar?
Lying about major policy initiatives that will deeply impact the lives of nearly every American citizen is wrong. It is evil and we shouldn’t dance around that word anymore. I’m tired of having to dance around language to avoid telling the truth about Barack Obama while he compares Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Now go back and read Peck’s definition of an evil personality and see if you come to the same conclusions I have about this administration. (For more from the author of “Hey Obama, We’ve Lost Our Patience With Your Lying Administration” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-40.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:04:532016-05-14 23:36:32Hey Obama, We’ve Lost Our Patience With Your Lying Administration
Well, President Obama has just returned from an overseas visit, trying to convince Britain and Germany to sign his trade deal and generally butting into European politics in a way many had not expected when President Peace Prize descended from heaven to give the world the new, improved, “Smart Diplomacy.”
The latest international disaster occurred in Great Britain, when the President gave a speech urging the UK to remain in the European Union. Despite warnings from many quarters that such intrusion in the idea of the Brexit – the British Exit – would be less than appreciated, President Stupid went and did it anyway, prompting this reporter to ask the following:
BBC Reporter: Is this any of your business?
That’s from the left, left, left wing BBC, of all people.
London Mayor Boris Johnson called the President’s remarks “ridiculous” and “weird.” Queen Elizabeth apparently asked him not to make the pro-EU speech that he then went on to make, with President Golf Cart telling Britain that if it left the EU it would move “to the back of the Queue” as far as America was concerned.
Well, the important things got done, anyway.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all President Smart Diplomacy had done during his administration was destroy the special relationship between the United States and our best friend in the world, a catastrophe that began during his first days in office when he shipped the British gift of a bust of Winston Churchill back before he had unpacked his bags?
Yes, but that would be simply as Disaster. But President Catastrophe has damaged relations with ALL of our European partners who have said quietly, then not so quietly, that they were astounded at his arrogance and naiveté.
What’s This?
Russia gets more aggressive with us every day: they flew attack jets within 25 feet of a US Navy vessel and awaited the STRONGLY WORDED LETTER in reply.
As a matter of fact, when we were first introduced to the miracle of smart diplomacy, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented the Russian Foreign Minister with a gag red button for him to push… a button marked “RESET” but which was mistranslated. When President Failure’s US State Department, on worldwide television, debuted the new Smart Diplomacy, they had one Russian word to translate correctly and they got that one word wrong.
Meanwhile, China is building man-made islands in the South China Sea and warning US and Allied Warships away from their new “territory.”
In Libya, Mummar Khaddafi — who turned over his nuclear and chemical weapons program the day after US Forces pulled Saddam Hussein from his hiding place — was overthrown and Libya became such a chaotic bloodbath that US forces found themselves aiding Al Qaeda on the battlefield. After months of begging for additional security, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died as Obama and Hillary Clinton watched on TV, ordering the rescue attempt to stand down and then both of them lied to the American people, telling them the Benghazi attack on 9/11 was all the result of a YouTube video.
President Failure backed the overthrow of Pro-American Hosni Mubarak in Eqypt, handing the country to the Muslim Brotherhood. He then stumbled backing over his own Red Line in Syria, allowing the Russians to come to his rescue and, incidentally, achieving major player status in the Middle East overnight, after decades of effective, Non-Smart Diplomacy sidelining.
President Failure could not – or would not – conclude a simple Status of Forces agreement in Iraq, so American troops walked away – they were actually ordered to walk away – from a hard-won victory and allowed the last vestiges of the ravaged and defeated AQI – Al Qaeda in Iraq – to recover enough in the absence of American strength to rename itself ISIS. And now that we have created the Iraq War defeat that President Failure and his Treason Party had promised the American people, we are quietly sending more troops BACK to Iraq. And Syria. And Libya. And Afghanistan… all to try to make up the ground President Failure has not just lost but thrown away.
And of all the things Barack Obama did to damage this country, it’s the one thing he didn’t do that is most heartbreaking: In 2009, the people of Iran rose up against the murderers and fanatics, demanding freedom and democracy. The mullahs teetered on the brink for months. A mere word from the President of the United States would have encouraged them the way President Reagan encouraged Eastern Europe to throw off their communist tyrants. It was the only time during eight catastrophic years that President Obama didn’t have a single thing to say.
So now the sanctions on Iran are lifted. Billions of dollars of funds have been freed for more massacres, and the Iranians have cheated on President Gullible’s treaty before the ink was dry. President Catastrophe has called the Israeli Prime Minister “Chickenshit,” while his and his former secretary of state – currently his likely successor – closest advisors are Iranian. So there’s nothing to deter these Iranian fanatics nuclear ambitions now other than the speed of their centrifuges.
And barking-mad North Korea is reported to have developed a hydrogen bomb and has just launched a ballistic missile from a submarine.
This is Obama and his “Smart Diplomacy,” the Top Secret details of which have been leaked to whomever is curious as the result of the criminal arrogance of Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and the Treason Party’s Presidential nominee, who cut and pasted Top Secret and above info onto a server in a bathroom in New York in order to escape Freedom of Information Act requests.
We are going to pay for this. And so are our kids. And so will their kids. (For more from the author of “President Death” please click HERE)
The average immigrant household draws more than $6,000 from the welfare system in a year, costing U.S. taxpayers 41 percent more than people born in the country, a new study finds.
Immigrants with low education levels and higher numbers of children tend to use up the most benefits, according to the analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which found immigrant families consume $6,234 a year on average. The benefits come in the form of cash payments, food, Medicaid and housing.
Illegal immigrant households are included in the figure, since some can access the system through their U.S.-born children. Although illegal immigrants are barred from accessing welfare payments, CIS determined the households still cost the system more than $5,600 in a year on average.
The study follows CIS reports last year that 51 percent of households led by immigrants use at least one welfare program, and legal immigrants account for 75 percent of all immigrant welfare use. Many immigrants hold jobs, but still qualify for welfare because they tend to make less money and have more children.
“If we continue to permit large numbers of less-educated people to move here from abroad, we have to accept that there will be huge and ongoing costs to taxpayers,” CIS executive director Mark Krikorian said in a statement announcing the study. (Read more from “Here’s How Much Welfare the Average Immigrant Family Uses Each Year” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Hungarian-Serbian_border_barrier_2.jpg8501280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:02:022016-05-14 23:35:08Here’s How Much Welfare the Average Immigrant Family Uses Each Year
“We’re heading toward totalitarianism,” economist Walter Williams tells The Daily Signal in an interview at The Heritage Foundation’s annual Resource Bank meeting. The famed George Mason University professor says the government is gradually gaining more control over the lives of the American people. What can be done about it? Williams explains why it’s hard to change course, especially in regards to young people who embrace socialist ideas.
(For more from the author of “An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_at_White_House_gun_violence_meeting-1.jpg27314096Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 23:01:232016-05-14 23:34:14Watch: An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has had a wild past few days. Reid told a fellow Democrat he wants him to lose, forgot how many grandchildren he has, and told Sen. Rand Paul on the Senate floor he can’t imagine how his “good father” feels about Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, Reid couldn’t stay on message and split with Sen. Chuck Schumer and other senior Democrats and said that Hillary Clinton if elected should re-nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That same day while speaking in the senate, he broke protocol and directly addressed the presiding officer, who at the time was Sen. Paul.
“Mr. President I’m sorry to direct attention to the presiding officer but I can’t imagine how the presiding officer must feel with Donald Trump being the leader of the Republican Party. I can’t imagine. I can’t imagine what your good father thinks of Donald Trump leading the Republican Party,” Reid said.
He added, “But I can imagine and I have a number of times.” Rand Paul has said he will support Trump while his father Ron has come out against the billionaire businessman . . .
The following day, Thursday, Reid let everyone have it. “Since the Republican leader is all in for Donald Trump, you can only assume he approves Trump’s calling immigrants rapists and murderers,” he said. He added that McConnell agrees, “with Trump’s view that women are dogs and pigs. You can only assume that he’s not repulsed by his behavior toward women.” (Read more from “What’s Been Going on With Harry Reid the Past Couple Days?” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/4972157648_f8a7070bda_o.jpg12001800Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 02:30:022016-05-14 02:30:02What’s Been Going on With Harry Reid the Past Couple Days?
