Socialist Scumbag Sanders Only Candidate Not to Denounce Tel Aviv Terror Killings

/0 Comments/in , /by

Both Trump and Hillary Clinton have issued statements condemning the Islamic terror attack in Tel Aviv. This was Trump’s statement.

I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the outrageous terrorist shootings that took the lives of at least four innocent civilians and wounded at least twenty others in Tel Aviv yesterday.

The Israeli security forces’ investigation is ongoing, but some facts have already emerged — and they are grim.

Just as fast as the condolences arrive from the civilized world is the praise arising out of the uncivilized one. Hamas praised the attack, calling the attackers “heroes.” Reports out of Hebron indicate that residents of the terrorists’ hometown lit up the night sky with celebratory fireworks. One Palestinian “news organization” even referred to the shootings, in which the assailants dressed up as observant Jews, as a “Ramadan treat.” The leader of Hamas called the injured terrorist a “hero.” How despicable!

The American people stand strong with the people of Israel, who have suffered far too long from terrorism. Israel’s security is a matter of paramount importance to me and the American people.

But while even Hillary had to say something, there is no press release from the Sanders campaign condemning the brutal terror attack against civilians. That makes him the only candidate in the race not to have issued such a statement.

While Bernie Sanders has been notoriously weak on foreign policy, he has also taken his campaign in an overtly anti-Israel direction. From the lie about Israel killing 10,000 “innocent people” in Gaza, the Simone Zimmerman scandal, the appearances with members of the Students for Justice in Palestine hate group and the push for an anti-Israel Democratic platform, his campaign has been ugly.

And it’s hard not to wonder whether Bernie’s silence in the face of evil isn’t also a message. (For more from the author of “Socialist Scumbag Sanders Only Candidate Not to Denounce Tel Aviv Terror Killings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s First Stop as Nominee – a Planned Parenthood Abortion Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s very first campaign event since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee will be a speech for Planned Parenthood, America’s number one abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood has endorsed Clinton for president saying she would “always defend” taxpayer funding for the organization, according to a press release by the Susan B. Anthony List. The abortion organization receives over $500 million in federal funding every year and accounts for one-third of all abortions in the U.S.

In response to the news, the Susan B. Anthony List called Clinton’s visit “revealing”:

“It’s revealing that Hillary Clinton’s first major stop as the Democratic presumptive nominee would be to Planned Parenthood, the leader of the deep-pocketed abortion industry. Clinton has put abortion at the center of her campaign and has said the ‘unborn person has no constitutional rights.’

“What Clinton does not realize is that on the issue of life, the majority of Americans – including majorities of young people and women – stand with us, not her. Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion and support a compassionate limit on abortion after five months. She has staked out her turf far outside the mainstream. We welcome this opportunity to engage and expose her, confident the American people will reject her abortion ideology at the ballot box.”

It’s actually quite fitting that Clinton, who is currently under “criminal investigation” for her use of a private email server, will be speaking in support of Planned Parenthood, an organization recently under investigation for their alleged illegal sale of baby body parts.

In contrast to Clinton’s attendance at a pro-abortion Planned Parenthood conference, conservatives are defending religious liberty at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event. The event, Road to Majority 2016, will run through Saturday, June 11th. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s First Stop as Nominee – a Planned Parenthood Abortion Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Power Play? Kansas Supreme Court Threatens to Shut down Schools

/0 Comments/in , /by

A 40-year-old funding fight that touches questions of the proper separation of government powers has reached fever pitch in the state of Kansas. The state Supreme Court has threatened to shut down public schools should the state legislature fail to appropriate an additional $38 million in funds by the court mandated deadline of June 30.

The court ruled in May that the state’s $4 billion block grant appropriation of school funding was “inequitable and unconstitutional,” giving the legislature its deadline to rework the school financing. The court issued its proclamation at 4:55pm on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, the last weekend before the legislature adjourned for 2016.

The block grant program was adopted as a temporary replacement of a decades old program of school finance that was causing automatic spending increases Kansas Republicans deemed wasteful. In scrapping the old program for a block grant program, the court decided Governor Brownback and the Kansas legislature had violated the state constitution.

Governor Brownback has proclaimed a special session of the legislature to begin June 23 — two weeks from now, to resolve the finance issue. In a statement released by the Governor’s office, Brownback said it was “distressing that the Kansas Supreme Court has put the schools and legislature of Kansas in this position over less than 1 percent of school funding.”

The Legal Problem

The Supreme Court found that Governor Brownback’s block grant funding program violated the Kansas state constitution because it did not provide “equitable and adequate” funding for Kansas schools.

Article 6, Section 6 of the Kansas constitution requires that “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” Historically, the courts in Kansas have defined the word “suitable” to mean “equitable and adequate.”

The Wichita Eagle, reporting on the court’s May decision, explained how the court decided Governor Brownback’s block grant program didn’t meet the “equitability requirement” of the Kansas constitution.

“The reason was that it contained a “hold harmless” provision that guaranteed the bill wouldn’t reduce local option budget funding for any school district, although the vast majority wouldn’t get any more. The local option budget, or LOB, is money that voters can elect to tax themselves to provide extra funding for their own schools.

Inequity creeps in because property-rich districts can easily raise large sums of money with relatively small increases in their tax rate. Not so for the poor districts, where it takes a large jump in property tax rates to generate comparable income for the schools.”

“It is unfortunate that the Kansas Supreme Court has put at risk the education of Kansas students and livelihood of teachers across the state by threatening to close schools on June 30,” Kansas Governor Sam Brownback said in a statement. “The court is engaging in political brinksmanship with this ruling, and the cost will be borne by our students.”

The Funding Fight

Governor Brownback’s administration has been characterized by fiscal restraint. The growth of government spending in Kansas was reduced to 1.7%, which is less than half of the growth rate under Brownback’s predecessor, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius. Executive agency employees were reduced 25% and Brownback slashed cabinet level spending across the board.

And Brownback’s administration accomplished this while signing into law the largest tax cut in the state’s history.

Yet education has remained a top priority of Brownback’s administration and education funding has remained at record levels despite cuts to spending elsewhere.

In his 2015 State of the State address, Governor Brownback issued a call to reform the school finance process. “For decades now, Kansas has struggled under a school finance formula which is designed not to be understood,” the Governor said. “A formula designed to lock in automatic, massive increases in spending unrelated to actual student populations or improved student achievement.”

Governor Brownback’s office provided Conservative Review with a copy of the archaic and complex formula used to determine school finance appropriations in the state of Kansas, for much of the past 20 years.

2014 2015 k12 school funding formula

In his State of the State, Brownback called for a “timeout in the school finance wars,” a repeal of the old formula, and he proposed a simple program of block-grant funding for two years as a temporary solution to the state’s education finance woes. Brownback’s plan froze school funding at FY 2013-2014 levels until the legislature could develop a new scheme to replace that archaic and confounding mess of a budget formula.

The Republican controlled legislature passed the block grant scheme, and state Democrats assailed them for doing so, accusing the Brownback administration of slashing funds for education. But that’s not accurate.

Kansas is actually investing a record $4 billion in K-12 education. The state spends the 3rd most on education of any state in the country as a percent of the state budget: 50%. Kansas spends about $1000 more per pupil than the national average of state education spending. Increases in education funding have outpaced both inflation and enrollment growth.

kansasschoolbudget

The additional $38 million the state Supreme Court is ordering is less than 1% of the funds already appropriated to Kansas schools.

The specific fund in question, Local Operating Budget Equalization, goes to property tax relief, which does not affect the ability of schools to fund their classroom operations. It is this particular fund that the Supreme Court says is creating the “inequitably” that violates Kansas’ state constitution.

A Separation of Powers Issue

At the heart of the matter is a simple question. What does “suitable funding” mean? And which branch of government gets to answer that question?

Responding to a request for comment, Eileen Hawley, a spokeswoman for the governor, said “other courts have faced a similar question. The Texas Supreme Court correctly recognized that the Constitution guarantees the power of the purse to the Legislature, stating ‘accordingly, we decline to usurp legislative authority by issuing reform diktats from on high, supplanting lawmakers’ policy wisdom with our own.”

Supporters of Governor Brownback’s block grant scheme argue it is the legislative branch, the branch invested with the power of the purse, that should decide what funding is “suitable” when it appropriates funds.

Governor Brownback has indicated he is open to the legislature granting the court’s request for an additional $38 million in funds, though he views the excess government spending as unnecessary. Yet his administration seems to wish to keep in mind the constitutional separation of powers, telling Conservative Review that the governor would “welcome any alternatives that the legislature may propose.”

Hawley added, however, that it is “unlikely that the Court will uphold any action without an increase in funding.” (For more from the author of “Power Play? Kansas Supreme Court Threatens to Shut down Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Republicans Go Strong on National Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States is under growing threats, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his team deserve credit for recognizing that threat and outlining a plan for making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

During the last seven years under President Barack Obama, the United States has grown less safe. Threats are rising, such as state-sponsored cyberattacks affecting millions of Americans, terrorist attacks at home and abroad, Russian and Chinese aggression, and dictators with nuclear missiles.

At the same time, Obama has offered weak and misguided leadership and overseen a dramatic weakening in America’s ability to defend itself. Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and the chairmen of the House national security committees offer in their agenda a clear-eyed view of the world as it really is, and a striking criticism of Obama’s failures.

Recognizing the problem is the first step toward fixing it. But the House Republican national security agenda does more than recognize the problem, it outlines a laundry list of steps that must be taken. While lengthy, the agenda boils down to the simple idea of keeping America safe, strong, and prosperous.

The House GOP agenda is particularly strong on protecting the homeland, addressing a range of issues from homegrown threats to border security, to enhanced cyber defenses. It also calls for a stronger response to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, paired with a dedicated effort to win the battle of ideas against radical Islam. It is clear that defeating terrorists abroad and protecting Americans from terrorists at home are the top priorities of House Republicans.

Ryan’s agenda makes important commitments to our friends. House Republicans are right to stand up against Obama’s policy of disengaging with the world and turning our backs on our friends. U.S. alliances, such as NATO, or with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia, are vital to keeping our country safe and prosperous. The U.S. should stand with its friends because it benefits our economy and our security.

This agenda is also right to support the economic benefits of free trade. As Heritage analysts Bryan Riley and Anthony Kim have put it, “the freedom to trade is the foundation of America’s modern economic system that provides historically unprecedented opportunities for individuals to achieve greater economic freedom and prosperity.”

For all the strengths of this agenda, there are some gaps. The threat of terrorism is real and enduring, but the new challenge facing the United States is a return of conflict with other major countries.

The U.S. is not at war with Russia and China, but both are taking deliberate efforts to weaken America’s position in the world, to undermine our relationships with our friends, and to strengthen our adversaries. This challenge is fundamentally different from that of terrorism, and requires leadership from Congress and the next president.

Ryan’s agenda mentions the challenges from Russia and China, but misses an opportunity to put this challenge on par with the ongoing threat from terrorism.

The House GOP agenda also misses an opportunity to push for rebuilding the U.S. military. While the agenda calls for “adequate, predictable budgets” for the military, it does not mention the 25 percent budget cut that the military has received in the last five years, and the resulting dramatic cuts to the size and readiness of the U.S. military.

The U.S. military cannot be rebuilt to the size and strength it needs to be to protect our vital interests without a larger defense budget.

Ryan has laid out an agenda that is in keeping with what most Americans want: a safe, strong, and prosperous country. This agenda follows President Ronald Reagan’s goal of peace through strength, and that view still resonates with most Americans, particularly in the face of growing threats. This national security agenda is strong and bold. Now Ryan and House Republicans need to put these words into action. (For more from the author of “House Republicans Go Strong on National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House-Passed Debt Relief for Puerto Rico Splits Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

A bill establishing a legal framework for Puerto Rico to restructure its $72 billion debt load passed the House by a 297-127 vote after months of haggling among the Obama administration, Democrats, bondholders, unions, Puerto Rico officials—and conservatives.

About the only thing conservatives agree on about legislation the House passed Thursday night providing rescue to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is that it’s not a bailout.

“There are good reasons to be for the bill, and there are good reasons to be against the bill, but this is not a bailout,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., referencing the fact that Congress’ solution does not include federal taxpayer money for Puerto Rico. “I certainly don’t want to see people saying I voted against it because it’s a bailout. That is a cheap, and intellectually dishonest way to deal with this. I hope we take it to a higher level intellectually and be honest on both sides of the aisle.”

Hosting a briefing for reporters Thursday afternoon on Capitol Hill, conservative House members laid bare their differences over the bill.

Mulvaney, a leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, opposed the bill.

Ever since House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., promised to act on a solution for Puerto Rico and its 3.5 million American citizens, the debate over what Congress should do was an uncomfortable one for conservatives who have little sympathy for financial mismanagement.

But Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is unique.

While financially struggling American cities have access to debt relief under Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, Puerto Rico is exempt from this right as a territory.

When the original version of the bill, introduced in April, was rejected by Republicans who stopped it from even getting a vote, some conservatives realized they could use their positions to shape the legislation in a positive way.

Most prominent among those actors was Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, a leader of the Freedom Caucus, who is Puerto Rican.

Labrador voted in favor of the bill, which he helped negotiate.

The 40 or so members of the Freedom Caucus were unusually quiet during negotiations of the bill, deferring to Labrador and the closeness he has with the issue, tied to the island by his heritage and his presence on the congressional panel with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, the Natural Resources Committee.

Though fellow conservatives credited Labrador with adding provisions favorable to them to the bill, by including language that payments to pensioners would not be prioritized over secured debt—among other things—many of his colleagues did not ultimately follow his lead.

“There’s been good arguments from my colleagues, but with one most important caveat,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a Freedom Caucus member who voted against the bill. “The people of Puerto Rico have to be in favor of this. If they are in favor of it, I am in favor of it. A former governor is against it, the current governor is against it, the people are against it. The United States Congress does not ever have the right to overrule the legislative body of another territory.”

Labrador, who spoke at the briefing on Capitol Hill with Brat, quickly interrupted the Virginia freshman, noting a ruling from the Supreme Court Thursday that said Puerto Rico is not sovereign, even though it has its own government and constitution.

“The Supreme Court today affirmed the responsibility we do have [for Puerto Rico],” Labrador said. “What I fear, actually, is that because of the responsibility we have, that not only is the bill not a bailout out, but I believe this bill is preventing a bigger cry for a bailout to these states like Illinois and California that are mismanaging their finances.”

The Puerto Rico debt relief legislation provides new federal oversight over the island by creating a control board with powers to manage the territory’s financial affairs, and enforce balanced budgets. The board’s seven members are to be appointed by President Barack Obama, from a list of names provided by congressional leaders.

There would be a stay on litigation as the control board gets an opportunity to oversee negotiations between creditors and the Puerto Rican government over settling terms of the debt.

In an example of the split between conservatives, though many support the concept of a restructuring board, and believe it can help Puerto Rico enact economic reforms, some wish the legislation contained more “pro-growth” provisions.

The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative group in the House, expressed disappointment that House leaders prevented a vote on an amendment to the bill that would have exempted Puerto Rico from the Jones Act.

The Jones Act, meant to protect American shipping interests, requires vessels transporting goods within the country to be U.S.-built and owned, and at least 75 percent U.S.-crewed.

“While I would like to help the restructuring, I think in a broad context it’s a bad message for other entities,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., a Freedom Caucus member who supported the bill despite some reservations. “What it does do in the broader context is this is the beginning of the end. Puerto Rico is a unique situation, but I think in the broader context, the American people will see it for what it appears to be.”

At least one conservative is able to put any tension over the bill aside.

“The great thing about conservatives is we can disagree, but I know Raúl [Labrador] is smart and Raúl is a good guy,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who opposed the legislation. “It’s possible the board could address these issues, especially with the way Raúl has helped reform the board, and I’m grateful he has.” (For more from the author of “House-Passed Debt Relief for Puerto Rico Splits Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media: We Would Cover Hillary Clinton’s Scandals If It Wasn’t for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Video Transcript:

As Hillary Clinton’s email and foundation scandal worsens, you may be wondering where all the media coverage is.

CHUCK TODD: The last 10 days could have been about nothing but emails, nothing but negatives about Hillary Clinton. We could be talking about Democratic hand-wringing. But, there’s Donald Trump.

Morning Joe admitted as much also, saying it’s Trump’s fault they aren’t covering Clinton’s scandals.

MICHAEL STEELE: Unfortunately, if you had a different nominee or a nominee with a different mindset, not talking about a personal legal matter but rather talking about the 38,000 jobs from last month, talking about the IG report, talking about trade and other issues that have palpable impact on the Democratic nominee…

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Can I stop you there Michael? Can you believe the IG report that came out talking about Hillary Clinton? Playing fast and loose with information regarding drone strikes? As top secret as it gets. And we have a Republican nominee that doesn’t, he’s talking about Trump University. Are you kidding me? That would be dominating the week but for Donald Trump’s own self-absorbed campaign.

So instead of actually talking about the Clinton scandals, they berated Donald Trump for not talking about them. Apparently that counts as journalism these days.

(For more from the author of “Media: We Would Cover Hillary Clinton’s Scandals If It Wasn’t for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dutch Reporter Conducting Interview When ‘Refugees’ Make a Scene

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two apparently Muslim migrants conducted a drive-by spit-on at a young female reporter during an on-air broadcast in Rotterdam, Netherlands earlier this week.

The incident begins with one migrant who goes by on a bicycle shouting, “F*** you” multiple times. Seconds later, two migrants on a motorcycle nearly run the reporter and interviewee over, while spitting at the reporter’s face.

A man identified as Livable Rotterdam Councillor Bart Joost van Rij then attempts to hit the men with his bag as they speed past him.

Through the entire scene, the reporter remains calm and finishes her segment. The story was on the city’s mayor, Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim dual citizen of the Netherlands and Morocco. He supports migrants and calls himself a “jihadist,” claiming that the word is misunderstood.

“Jihadist is the completely wrong word. I am a jihadist. I’m doing the right thing for the city the entire day. I’m a jihadist,” he said. “There are 68 definitions of jihad, if you remove a spike from the street or a piece of glass … to prevent a bicycle being harmed by the spike, you are a jihadist.”

However, Mayor Aboutaleb does not seem to condone violence; after the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, he said, in essence, if you don’t like the West, “pack your bags.”

“As a mayor, I like people that have radical ideas,” he said. “Thanks to having radical ideas about the way to lead our civilisations and our societies we left the Stone Age. But that’s not what we are talking about. We’re talking about a group of people who are threatening others, not only because they have radical ideas, but they believe they have their own truth justifying their own goals … by using violence.”

It is unclear why the migrants decided to mistreat the reporter. (For more from the author of “Dutch Reporter Conducting Interview When ‘Refugees’ Make a Scene” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Court Rules Against Right to Conceal Carry

/1 Comment/in , /by

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that people do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

The 7-4 decision by an en banc panel of Ninth Circuit judges overruled a previous 2-1 decision by the court in 2014, finding the Second Amendment encompassed the right to conceal carry.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris appealed the 2014 ruling, which struck down a San Diego law requiring residents to show “good cause” in order to obtain a conceal carry permit.

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” wrote Judge William A. Fletcher, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, for the seven-judge majority.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, in a dissent wrote, “In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Callahan wrote.

“Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent,” Callahan said.

The Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The Supreme Court has yet to take up the issue of whether the Constitution’s right to self-defense includes the right to conceal-carry in public.

The court, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case (2008) authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, affirmed the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. (For more from the author of “Federal Court Rules Against Right to Conceal Carry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bill Kristol Should Man up or Shut Up

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The #NeverTrump movement needs to get a grip.

The Weekly Standard’s open letter is an example of how desperate the #NeverTrump people have become. Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected the conservative movement and motivated many anti-Trumpers to embarrass themselves.

Jay Cost wrote a piece titled “An Open Letter to Mitt Romney.” This is basically an open letter to Mitt Romney desperately begging him to run for president. It is truly humiliating that the web site has sunk to the level of writing an open letter to a politician in an effort to shame him into a Kamikaze mission targeting the Republican nominee for President Donald Trump.

Although Cost makes the case that Romney is needed to be the statesman to stand against both Trump and Hillary Clinton, we all know that the primary objective is to stop Trump. If this effort is somehow successful, it will usher Hillary Clinton into the White House. Not coincidentally, Clinton has a foreign policy view that is much closer to the hawkish nation-building views of the Weekly Standard than that of the more restrained Donald Trump.

In the Weekly Standard open letter to Mitt Romney, Cost writes:

I write you not as a fellow conservative, not as a fellow partisan, but as a citizen of our republic. You have served your nation admirably for many years and by any ordinary standard are entitled to a happy retirement. But these are extraordinary times, and your nation still has need of your service. I respectfully implore you to run for president as an independent candidate in 2016.

Mitt Romney ran in the last election cycle and lost as a Republican. He would effectively be a write-in spoiler for the Republican Party under your scenario. Clearly, Romney could not win, but the candidacy would serve the purposes of the angry #NeverTrump gang.

Romney was the Republican nominee in the last election cycle, yet Cost argues for him to be the anti-Republican nominee candidate in this cycle.

Jay Cost writes the following:

Governor Romney, there is nobody else but you who is capable of such a bid. It is a credit to your modesty and sense of decency that you demurred and instead tried persuade others to run. But there really is nobody else. General James Mattis, Senators Ben Sasse and Tom Coburn, and David French are all estimable men, but the enormity of the task was too great for them to accept. Only you possess the experience, the political network, the good health, and the time to dedicate to this great endeavor. Only you have the standing with the voters to endure the assaults of Trump and Clinton.

The Republican voters have spoken and they chose Donald Trump. None of the candidates mentioned ran this cycle. Bill Kristol needs to grow a pair and run for president. It is easy to beg and cajole every other conservative under the sun to run as an independent against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, yet it deifies logic that anybody would do something that Kristol, over at the Weekly Standard, is unwilling to do himself.

So, William Kristol –should man up and run for President or shut up.

One of the more cringe-worthy aspects of Cost’s piece was the following:

This is an incredible request, but you know that some Americans are called by Providence to give more than others. George Washington defended his nation during the Seven Years War, led it to independence in the Revolution, and by 1788 he wanted only to retire to his beloved Mount Vernon. But the nation needed him to launch the new government, so he answered the call. Four years later, he again wished for nothing more than the peaceful life of a country planter, but the harmony of the fragile union required yet another commitment from him. Again, he answered the call.

So Mitt Romney is the second coming of George Washington? I don’t think even Mitt Romney would be comfortable with that comparison. The open letter only serves the purpose as a magnificent troll of the media as MSNBC, Fox News and CNN will pivot to the piece.

Mark my words, before the end of this election cycle – the Weekly Standard will officially endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Ultimately, many on the #NeverTrump bandwagon will end up being pro-Hillary – some are already there. (For more from the author of “Bill Kristol Should Man up or Shut Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Latino Conservative Calls Trump’s Judge Comments ‘Morally Abhorrent,’ Defends Trump’s Immigration Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today a leading House conservative and Latino condemned Donald Trump’s comments about a judge with Mexican ancestry, even as he defended the presumed GOP nominee’s immigration policies.

“There is nothing wrong with saying you want to build a wall,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) said at a press briefing in response to a question from The Stream about Trump’s policies. “There is nothing racist about saying that you want an immigration system that works. There’s nothing wrong with saying that we have let down the American public by letting so many illegal, undocumented people into the United States.”

“But I will not stand idly by listening to a person attacking the integrity of a judge because of their ethnicity,” said Labrador, one of “Newsmax’s 50 Most Influential Latino Republicans.” “That is absolutely morally abhorrent. I believe he needs to take it back, and I believe he needs to figure out how he can articulate his policy positions in a way the American people understand clearly and effectively.”

Labrador’s comments were his first to the national press since Trump first criticized Judge Gonzalo Curiel for ruling against the candidate in a case involving Trump University. According to Trump, Curiel’s Mexican heritage — he was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants — create “an inherent conflict of interest” given Trump’s focus on building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

Trump also criticized Curiel’s presence in a Hispanic law group, La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which is one of at least 10 groups with which Curiel has associations.

Trump’s comments were the focus of much of his appearances on Sunday talk shows, and drew heavy condemnation from many leading Republicans, including the leaders of both chambers of Congress. Trump appeared to be backing off the comments as the week went on.

Still, in today’s press conference, Labrador criticized the media for asking about Trump. “I do find it curious that you go after Trump on this issue and yet you have absolutely no problem when Obama pointed his finger at Supreme Court justices in a State of the Union address, and he tried to embarrass them in one of the most disgusting acts I have seen him do,” Labrador said.

In 2013, Labrador was a key member of the House’s Gang of Eight, which attempted to create a comprehensive immigration bill. The effort collapsed in part due to Labrador’s departure from the Gang after Democrats insisted that illegal immigrants not be responsible for their health care costs, according to ABC News. (For more from the author of “Top Latino Conservative Calls Trump’s Judge Comments ‘Morally Abhorrent,’ Defends Trump’s Immigration Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.