North Carolina State University infringed on the free speech rights of a student-led Christian group, a federal judge has ruled.
Chief U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III, calling his action “in the public interest,” issued a preliminary injunction Saturday against NC State’s speech permit policy, saying it violates the students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
“The judge pretty much granted the entire request that we asked for,” a lawyer for the students, Tyson Langhofer, told The Daily Signal. “Essentially, everything in the final order that we requested was granted.”
The group Grace Christian Life, which meets on the NC State campus, sued school administrators on April 26 for requiring they obtain a permit before holding a meeting for fellow students in Talley Student Union.
Dever heard the case, Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, on June 2. W. Randolph Woodson is the chancellor of North Carolina State University.
In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, NC State said:
NC State appreciates the court’s review of this matter, and we will follow the court’s preliminary ruling. The university remains an environment that fosters and enables the healthy and free exchange of ideas and viewpoints by our students and academic community. The ruling is not in response to a concern over the university’s actual application of the policy, which is content neutral.
The judge’s order will not prohibit university officials from regulating student speech or behavior that is disruptive to campus activities, violates school policies, or interferes with the learning of others, Langhofer told The Daily Signal. He said:
Any kind of speech that would interrupt or interfere with the university’s educational activities or that would potentially prohibit or disrupt or block traffic, they can ask you to stop that. Any other speech that doesn’t disrupt otherwise, you don’t have to have a permit to engage in that. … The injunction order is final in that it’s the order that will last for the remainder of the case about the policy.
Langhofer is a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid group that represents people who have reason to think their religious liberties have been compromised.
NC State has the option to appeal, but Langhofer said that is “unlikely.”
“It means that now, students at NC State have the ability to speak freely to one another without having to obtain a permit first,” he said of the ruling. “It means they can fully exercise their First Amendment rights.” (For more from the author of “Judge Rules in Favor of Christian Student Group Against NC State’s ‘Speech Permit'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/College_of_Engineering_Building_II_North_Carolina_State_University_2013-1.jpg30615442Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 01:54:282016-06-07 01:54:28Judge Rules in Favor of Christian Student Group Against NC State’s ‘Speech Permit’
California state lawmakers are one step closer to expanding coverage under Obamacare to illegal immigrants, sending a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would allow those living in the state illegally to buy health insurance on the exchange with their own money.
The California Legislature passed a bill last week setting in motion a process to eventually allow illegal immigrants living in the state to purchase private health insurance through its state-run exchange, Covered California.
Illegal immigrants cannot and would not qualify for federal subsidies available to lower-income Americans under Obamacare.
The bill requires the state to request permission from the federal government to waive a provision of the Affordable Care Act prohibiting illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges.
If Brown, a Democrat, decides to sign the legislation and receives the government’s blessing, California would become the first state to offer health insurance to illegal immigrants through Obamacare.
Though the health care law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges, California officials can seek approval from the Department of Health and Human Services through a Section 1332 “State Innovation Waiver” to bypass that prohibition.
California’s bill instructs the state to pursue a State Innovation Waiver from the federal government. Section 1332 of the health care law allow states to request five-year waivers from key aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual and employer mandates, beginning next year.
To attain a State Innovation Waiver, a state must “pursue innovative strategies” to provide residents with health insurance, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The plan must not only ensure residents have access to “comprehensive and affordable” health care, but it also must provide coverage to either the same number of or more people covered under Obamacare.
Last, for the Section 1332 to be granted, the state’s strategy cannot add to the federal deficit.
The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, was passed last week, and groups opposing illegal immigration are sounding off against the measure.
“With a legislature writing bills for people in our state illegally, this is incentive for the world to come to California illegally,” Robin Hvidston, executive director of the California grassroots group We the People Rising, told The Daily Signal. “California is in the United States of America, and our legislators should be focused on legislating for our U.S. citizens.”
Though illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for subsidies under Lara’s bill, Hvidston worries that in the future, more changes to the law will come.
“It is historically a progression in our state where the bill starts at a certain level, then increases the next year with a new benefit, and on and on,” she said.
Like Hvidston, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, too believes the legislation on Brown’s desk is simply a first step.
“This follows a pattern in California. [The bill] is kind of being framed innocuously as ‘We’re not going to subsidize illegal immigrants and just give them an opportunity to buy insurance through the exchanges,’” Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, told The Daily Signal. “Of course, there are few who are going to be able to buy coverage without subsidies. This is the first step in the process.
“First, you make it possible for them to buy policies through the exchange, and when nobody can do that because it’s too expensive, you say we have to give them subsidies.”
Regardless of how California’s policy could progress in the future, groups in favor of the bill argue the state should be working to ensure all Californians have access to quality coverage.
“People who have different viewpoints on immigration policy can come together in recognition that it is everyone’s interest to connect as many Californians with coverage, and prevent the health and financial issues for not just uninsured families, but the community as a whole,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, told the Washington Examiner.
The group did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
California has the largest population of illegal immigrants—2.6 million—in the country. Covered California puts expected enrollment in private health insurance coverage through the exchange at 50,000 enrollees.
Other estimates place the number of illegal immigrants who would be able to head to the exchange at 390,000.
Lara proposed the legislation initially in 2014, and it recently earned a nod of support of Covered California board members.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Democratic lawmaker is hoping the state sends the waiver to the Department of Health and Human Services for consideration while President Barack Obama is still in office.
If Brown signs the bill, the departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury can take up to 225 days to respond to the waiver.
Because the decision to determine if Lara’s bill qualifies for a Section 1332 waiver, which outlines specific provisions for proposals that pass muster, would ultimately fall to the federal government, Ed Haislmaier, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow in health policy studies, said it’s likely the legislation amounts to an “empty gesture,” in part because of the high cost of unsubsidized health care on the exchanges.
“I think it’s more symbolic than anything else because to the extent that people in the U.S. illegally are being treated, they’re either paying out of pocket, which some probably are, or they’re relying on charitable and publicly funded providers such as hospitals and federally qualified health centers to obtain their care,” he said.
“Given that the government is having difficulty getting legal, U.S. citizens in the same demographic to actually buy insurance even though it’s heavily subsidized, I don’t know how much success they’ll have,” Haislmaier continued.
However, Mehlman with FAIR, said the Obama administration’s actions regarding illegal immigration indicate they would be in favor of granting the waiver.
“Given the inclinations of this administration and the policies they’ve carried out over the past seven and a half years, you have to suspect they would really want to do this,” he said. “Whether they will do it, I don’t know. I suspect that if the opportunity presented itself and they thought it wouldn’t harm them and their party politically, they probably would do it.”
During a speech before a joint session of Congress in 2009, Obama attempted to debunk claims that under Obamacare, illegal immigrants would receive health insurance, which prompted a now-infamous “You lie,” from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants,” he told lawmakers. “This, too, is false. The reforms that I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Though California is the only state to consider a proposal expanding coverage to illegal immigrants under Obamacare, Colorado residents are considering a proposal that would require state officials to attain a Section 1332 waiver.
The proposal, which Colorado residents will vote on on the November ballot, would create a government-run health care plan in the Centennial State called ColoradoCare. (For more from the author of “California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Aliens Under Obamacare” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/obamacare-1.jpg8091200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 01:45:212016-06-07 01:45:21California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Aliens Under Obamacare
I’ve been calling myself a Libertarian since 2008. I’m beginning to think I’ve made a mistake.
For me, voting for Hillary is clearly out of the questions since she’s socialist in everything but name and voting for Trump is also off the table since he’s a habitual liar and vindictive bully whose positions vary from strong conservative to left of Hillary depending on his mood and the time of day. Since I generally want the government to get out of my business, you might think the Libertarians would be a perfect fit for me, and I though so too for a time, and yet…
On paper, the Libertarians are great. Looking over the Libertarian platform, I object strong to abortion, but beyond that, I find myself in nigh complete agreement. Personal freedom, economic liberty and minimalist government? Sign me up!
However, I’ve spent a lot of time over the past month looking more carefully at the Libertarian movement, and sadly I’ve found that though their official positions are sound, they have an huge problem, the Libertarian Party is infested with druggies, anarchists and social imbeciles.
Let me break it down for you.
Druggies
The Libertarian Party supports drug legalization, and this causes a problem. The problem isn’t the position itself but the fact that this position attracts large amounts of stoners who don’t care about anything other than drugs. This stoner-centric thinking causes Libertarians to spend an unnecessary large amount of time discussing issue. Perhaps the best example of this occurred at the recent Libertarian Party National Convention where the Libertarians got some rare coverage on C-Span. Through the entire televised portion of the convention, the Libertarians only showed one policy video, and what video did they choose as the most important thing they must tell the nation? They wasted six minutes of national air time on a mini-documentary about a pot dispensary. (11:30 to 17:30) I think drugs should be legalized, but instead of emphasizing how it’s your right to get high, why don’t the Libertarians emphasize the fact that there are people dying of terminal diseases every year that are denied the opportunity to try experimental drugs because the FDA hasn’t approved of them? Better yet, why not take those six minutes to talk about an issue of greater importance like the national debt, domestic spying or any one of several dozen other pressing concerns? If there weren’t so many of them stoned, the Libertarians might realize how stupid it is to make pot their central issue.
Anarchists
Libertarianism represents small government not zero government, and yet there’s a sizable and vocal faction of the Libertarian movement usually posting the #TaxationIsTheft mantra that believes all government is wrong. Though the anarchy position is rejected by Libertarian think tanks, anarchist ramblings among the base are significant. These words from libertarian anarchist Christopher Cantwell typify this view. “Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not…the goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible.”
I’m all for drastically reducing the size and scope of government, but anybody who thinks that we should all be living in the world of Max Max is nuts.
Social Imbeciles
The Libertarians present themselves horribly. To a certain degree, the lack of polish is understandable. After all, nobody donates money to Libertarians and few people actually are Libertarians, so they’re drawing from a limited pool or resources and you can understand why they don’t necessarily have the political and media sophistication to match the mainstream parties, yet Libertarians problems aren’t just in terms of polish but in a complete misunderstanding of the rules of polite society.
Examples of this can be found everywhere, but the latest and greatest example was brought to light by James Weeks II who while running for the position of Libertarian Party Chair stripped on stage at the National Convention while it was being broadcast on C-Span. To their credit, most of the Libertarians in the room rejected the strip tease and jeered the juvenile display, but if the discussions I’ve seen online are any indicator, a large portion of Libertarians see no problem with Weeks’ strip routine.
When this is allowed to happen and celebrated by a good portion of the community, it either means that the Libertarians don’t even take themselves seriously or they have no understanding whatsoever of social standards, and either way, it’s incredibly damaging to the movement.
Conclusion
In theory, Libertarians hold most of the principles that the United States needs to adopt to get back on the right track, and for my money, the severely flawed Libertarian presidential candidate is still a much better alternative to Hillary and Trump, but I’m not sure I want to call myself a Libertarian anymore because a bunch of people in the Libertarian Party are out of their mind.
(For more from the author of “Equal Pay Day and the Pay Gap Deception” please click HERE)
According to news reports, individual testimony, and historical photographs, the first thing Americans did when they first heard the news of the D-Day invasion, was they prayed. Nationwide stores closed and regularly scheduled prayer services were held in major cities.
Keith Huxen, a senior director at the National World War II Museum explains:
“The reaction of many Americans, whenever they found out what was happening that day, was to attend religious services. Churches and synagogues were reportedly packed across the country.”
Photo Credit: Library of Congress
Many stores closed: for prayer.
And prayer services and intercession were scheduled every hour in major cities.
In New York City, several special prayers services were held at noon and later in the evening. And, New York City’s mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, led New Yorkers in prayer at a D-Day rally in Madison Square Garden. Those attending and listening at home on the radio, heard their mayor proclaim:
“We, the people of the City of New York, in meeting assembled, send forth our prayers to the Almighty God for the safety and spiritual welfare of every one of you and humbly petition Him to bring total victory to your arms in the great and valiant struggle for the liberation of the world from tyranny.”
Photo Credit: Library of Congress
The New York Stock Exchange observed two minutes of silence.
And nationwide, millions of Americans heard on the radio Franklin D. Roosevelt encourage them to pray:
Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.”
Photo Credit: Library of Congress
Prayer was the focus during wartime. Americans looked to God to end the war that killed over 400,000 Americans.
Even veterans who have returned to the scene of the bloodiest and largest amphibious invasion in history: return to pray.
Photo Credit: Doug Dunbar
(For more from the author of “This Is the First Thing Americans Did When They Heard of D-Day Invasion” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/laguardia-900x676.jpg676900Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 01:14:192016-06-07 01:14:19This Is the First Thing Americans Did When They Heard of D-Day Invasion
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin was told not to attend a prayer breakfast to be held Monday at Fort Riley, Kansas, because of his religious views.
Radio talk host Rusty Humphries asked Boykin about the incident Monday during an interview on USA Radio’s Trending Today USA.
Boykin said, “Well, this is the condition of our military today.” He went on to say that Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, the leader of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, called for Boykin’s invitation to be “immediately withdrawn.”
Weinstein labeled Boykin a “Christian zealot” and an “Islamophobe.”
According to the retired general, the commander at the base refused to stand up to Weinstein and canceled Boykin’s appearance “on the anniversary of D-Day.”
“I’ve got to back up, I’ve got to understand this,” Humphries said. “So because you’re a Christian, you’re not supposed to speak at a prayer breakfast?”
“A voluntary prayer breakfast,” Boykin said. “And yes, according to this organization that has been … going after me for some time.”
Boykin stated that the group also has been trying to have Bibles removed from the “Missing Man” displays at VA hospitals.
To the charge of being a Christian zealot, Boykin said, “Well, I don’t know exactly what that means, but I am, in fact, an ordained minister now.”
He went on to tell Humphries that he had intended to speak to the people on the prayers of Franklin Roosevelt, Gen. George S. Patton and others during World War II and especially on D-Day.
When Humphries asked Boykin if he understands what is happening, Boykin said he understands, because, “This is exactly where Obama wants his military. There has been an all-out assault on faith in general — unless it’s the Muslim faith, and then it’s protected — but particularly the Christian faith.”
After a few more minutes of interviewing Boykin, Humphries said, “I’m so sorry you’re being treated this way. You don’t deserve it. Your service to our country needs to be applauded and saluted and not disrespected, as this one organization is doing. So, for the rest of America, I want to apologize to you personally.”
Boykin responded by saying, “Well, I appreciate that very much and things are going to get better and that’s because people are waking up and starting to take a stand.” (For more from the author of “Retired General Just Pointed out the Problem With Obama’s Military” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/US_Navy_030408-N-5362A-005_U.S._Army_military_police_provide_crowd_control_while_Iraqi_citizens_line_up_for_food_and_water_b-1.jpg13122000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 01:00:512016-06-07 01:00:51Retired General Just Pointed out the Problem With Obama’s Military
Imagine if a bill had come before Congress after the 9/11 attacks debating the future of immigration from the Middle East. How many members of Congress would have voted to double migration from that volatile region and make it the fastest growing subset of our immigrants? 15 years after that tragic day, that is exactly what has happened, and with no input from the American people.
Last year, I counted the number of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries and found that since 2001, the average annual intake has been roughly 100,000 per year, twice the rate in the ‘90s. But that trajectory has been increasing in recent years. During the five years from FY 2009 through FY 2013 alone, we’ve brought in 680,000 from those same countries. Now, there is evidence that this trajectory is growing sharper.
A few days ago, I posted a new immigration analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies detailing the sharp increase in overall immigration during the most recent two-year period: 2014-2015. Using the same Census data, a glance at the predominantly Muslim countries indicates that 308,000 new individuals emigrated here during those two years. The data is based on the Current Population Survey, which asks immigrants when they came to America. This is the first two-year period where the total number from Middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries has exceeded 300k. Which means that the annual rate of Muslim immigration has likely exceeded 150,000. Remember, these are individuals coming straight from the Middle East during the most volatile period of Islamic upheaval fomented by ISIS and other strains strictly adherent to Sharia Law.
According to Pew Research, Arabic is now the fastest growing language in the U.S. and the Census Department will offer Arabic translations of the decennial questionnaire for the first time in 2020. The number of people speaking Arabic has grown by 29 percent from 2010-2014, whereas the number of Spanish speakers has only grown by six percent over the same period. The most up-to-date monthly data from the Current Population Survey clearly indicates that this trend has grown in 2015 and for the first quarter of 2016.
As I lamented last Friday, we have sent our soldiers, particularly the special operators, to all sorts of hell holes over the past 15 years, often helping one side of the Islamic civil war over the other. We’ve dispatched them to endless wars with no good outcome. Yet, at the same time we are expending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives refereeing civil wars and playing interference for Iran and a corrupt Afghani government, we’ve imported the problem to our very shores free of charge.
According to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland, there are over 1,000 active homegrown terror cases being investigated by the FBI in all 50 states. This is not the result of ISIS or the Taliban coming here with an Air Force or Navy and invading America; this is the result of suicidal immigration policies.
There has been much discussion over a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, which was extremely popular in the GOP primaries, according to exit polls from every state. But why can’t we start with a more relevant policy of not making immigration from the Middle East the fastest growing category? Unfortunately, instead of using the annual defense bill to right the ship on our backwards immigration and defense policies, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and John McCain (R-AZ) are looking to add 4,000 more visas to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, granting green cards to those who work for the U.S. military as translators in Afghanistan. This is on top of the 3,000-visa expansions slipped into last year’s bill. As I noted last year, generally speaking, it is a good idea to provide this status to those natives who help the U.S. in foreign wars because they often need protection as a result of their work with the U.S. military. But as American citizens have witnessed over the past decade, the rampant spread of radical jihad throughout the Middle East has made it arduous to distinguish friend from foe.
While a number of Afghani translators have served faithfully, there have been numerous tragedies of our brave soldiers killed in Afghanistan at the prime of their lives because they were double crossed by an Afghani contractor or interpreter. One such “green-on-blue” attack killed U.S. Major General Harold Green in 2014, the highest-ranking casualty in a theater of war since Vietnam. Attacks from supposedly friendly Afghanis accounted for 15 percent of coalition soldier deaths in 2012.
Moreover, this is not a one-time deal; it has become our modus operandi to get involved in Islamic civil wars and then bring entire families in the tens of thousands from both sides to our shores. This is on top of the record high immigration from Pakistan and other Islamic countries and the almost 150,000 refugees we have taken from Iraq since 2007. If we are going to bring in more Afghanis under the guise of rewarding those who serve the U.S. military, can we at least reduce other categories of immigration from the Middle East? And if the only thing we can show for 15 years of involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is hundreds of thousands of new Sharia-adherent immigrants, there is something wrong with our entire approach to war-fighting and homeland security.
Today, we mark the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion. In 1944, we were a nation united under a morally and intellectually clear mission. We uncompromisingly defended our homeland and sent our soldiers across the world to fight with a defined mission, definitive outcome and no restrictive rules of engagement. Now, we send our troops into Islamic meat-grinders with appalling rules of engagement — often helping our enemies — and then we bring the problems straight to our shores. The best way to honor the sacrifice of the Greatest Generation at Omaha Beach is to follow in their example of how to fight a war: by putting the security of Americans first. (For more from the author of “Islamic Immigration Skyrocketing in Last Years of Treasonous Obama Administration, Arabic Now Fastest Growing Language in US” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Islamic_Protest_in_Hyde_Park_Sydney_01.jpg833833Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-06 21:23:562016-06-06 21:23:56Islamic Immigration Skyrocketing in Last Years of Treasonous Obama Administration, Arabic Now Fastest Growing Language in US
Writing in the National Review, David French, Bill Kristol’s most recent nominee, withdrew as a potential independent candidate for the office of the President of the United States.
The article is unintentionally illustrative, largely explaining why rounding up the usual Republican establishment suspects for President didn’t work.
Let me begin by noting the snippets within his article that French got right:
“…a pretty darn obscure lawyer…both parties failed so spectacularly…”
French goes on to say:
“Hillary Clinton lies habitually and changes position on virtually every public issue except for her pro-abortion extremism, and she has a suspicious record of making public decisions that favor donors to the Clinton Foundation. Her signal foreign-policy “achievement” was helping launch a war in Libya that not only cost American lives in Benghazi but also helped transform the nation into ISIS’s latest playpen.”
Well, “duh.”
Yes, but French doesn’t mention or perhaps doesn’t understand the origins of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous Libyan foreign policy and how the Republican establishment, whose views he seems to endorse, facilitated it.
It was actually the George W. Bush administration and the neo-conservatives, in their delusional quest for “moderate” Islam, who set the stage for the Libyan fiasco.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration, sought a long-term political solution to international terrorism, which they believed emanated from the lack of democratic participation, where resentful individuals, having been excluded from the political process in their own countries, directed their hatred and violence against the West. Bush chose the invasion Iraq as a starting point for the democratization of the Middle East, from where he had expected democracy to spread and, consequently, would both assimilate and contain potential terrorists.
When democracy failed to take hold in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, Bush initiated an alternative approach, the idea to integrate unspecified “moderate” Islamists into their own countries’ governments. The concept quickly gained popularity, particularly in Qatar, a long-time supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, who sponsored seminars, conferences and meetings, all promoted by the Al-Jazeera Channel to speed up a process that they hoped would reshape the entire region to reflect Muslim Brotherhood beliefs and practices.
If the Bush method had been mostly passive and reactive, the Obama Administration, sympathetic to Islam and arguably infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, formulated a preemptive policy, all of which would lead to catastrophe in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the rise of ISIS.
In August 2010, Obama, ordered his advisors to produce a secret report, which subsequently determined that, without sweeping political changes, countries across the Arab world were ripe for popular revolt.
The still classified document, Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-11), concluded that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting stable but authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to one backing, what Obama Administration officials considered as, “moderate” Islamist political groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish AK Party, now led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
None of the Libyan or related pro-Islamist foreign policy initiatives pursued by the Obama Administration were seriously opposed, and all were fully funded, by the Republican Congress, the same people French is recommending for re-election.
It is just one of hundreds of examples, when the Republican establishment ignored its constituency and fueled a political insurgency.
Sadly, at one point in his article, like many in the Republican establishment and representative of the problem, French seamlessly transforms himself into a Democrat Party shill, denigrates millions of patriotic Americans and parrots the chants of the violent Bernie Sanders street thugs:
“His (Trump) supporters believe it demonstrates “strength” when he mocks the disabled and bullies women. He has attracted an online racist following that viciously attacks his opponents and their families.”
French claims that he gave the idea of running for President “serious thought,” but concluded that he is “not the right person to challenge Trump and Hillary.”
I don’t know David French. He could very well be an excellent candidate for President, but he should have thought of that a year ago and not played the role of a last-minute spoiler to resuscitate the prospect of maintaining the corrupt status quo.
What French and his promoters still don’t seem to understand is that the success of Donald Trump is directly proportional to the failures of the Republican establishment and its unprincipled collaboration with the massively destructive policies of the Obama Administration.
French is correct when he states:
“I believe with all my heart that there is an American movement ready to both resist the corruption, decadence, and dishonesty of the American elite and restore the promise of the American Dream;”
but, like all in the Republican establishment, he appears clueless when he says: “that movement may not emerge for some time.”
Sorry, but that train has already left the station. (For more from the author of “Non-Starter Doesn’t Start: David French’s 15-Minutes of Fame” please click HERE)
A multi-state abortion provider boasting a high-end, “spa-like” experience is attempting to de-stigmatize the procedure through a crowd-funded ad campaign in Atlanta.
Carafem has designed its abortion clinic to look like a spa and offers the women who go there to abort their unborn babies “hot tea” and “comfy robes.” They gained national attention last year for an advertising campaign that some suggested “glamorized” abortion.
Carafem opened its first facility in the greater Washington metro area in spring 2015, boasting comfy chairs and hot tea for women seeking abortions.
“It was important for us to try to present an upgraded, almost spa-like feel,” Melissa S. Grant, vice president of health services for the clinic told the Washington Post.
The organization subsequently announced its capital city arrival with brash, hot pink ads saying “Abortion? Yeah, we do that,” on the D.C. metro system. Now, it hopes to bring the same advertising experience to the Peach State.
For its new location, which open in Atlanta this summer, the abortion provider plans to roll out a “Doors Open Atlanta” campaign, proffering abortion, birth control, and other services to women in the same “bold and unapologetic” hot pink motif, according to a Monday press release.
In addition, Carafem is looking for some extra scratch via Crowdsourcing in order to pay for the ads, LifeNews reports.
The abortion business said its ads have been censored three times; but now it wants to raise enough money to try again. Carafem recently launched a fundraising campaign to pay for ads in Atlanta. The ads are hot pink with emoji images and the word “abortion” printed in bold letters.
“As we just opened our doors in Atlanta and need to get the word out, we thought why not try and shake things up by advertising our services in a major conservative newspaper for a year,” the business wrote.
The message Carafem wants its advertising to convey is that abortion is safe, clean, even caring, all the while letting women know where to get abortions in a way that “normalizes and destigmatizes” the procedure.
“We don’t want to talk in hushed tones. We use the A-word.” Carafem President Christopher Purdy said. “It’s fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean, it’s caring. That’s the brand we’re trying to create.”
Pro-Life groups are up in-arms.
The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said “Even people who support abortion rights don’t necessarily see it as something to celebrate. They want to think about [abortion] as a necessary evil.” National Right to Life president, Carol Tobias, added, “Abortion is not pleasant and trying to put pretty wrappings around the procedure isn’t going to make any difference.”
Whether an abortion takes place at a run-down Gosnell-like facility or at a “high-end salon,” abortion always, 100% of the time, kills an unborn child and hurts the family involved.
(For more from the author of “Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-122.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-06 18:14:302016-06-07 02:35:32Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn
Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.
I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation. And yes, to me and my family.
I want you to hear my story. It’s about the men and women risking their lives to protect this nation. And more important, it’s about how the Clintons must never again be allowed to put them or you and your children—at risk.”
– Gary Byrne, former secret service agent.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is scrambling as details emerge of a shocking “tell-all” book written by an ex-Secret Service agent, Gary Byrne, who protected the Clintons during the 1990s.
Former secret service agent Gary Byrne was posted outside Bill Clinton’s Oval Office in the 1990s, and has decided that since “the Clintons must never again be allowed to put your children at risk”, to write a tell all book titled “Crisis of Character”, exposing the Clintons’ dirty laundry.
As Drudge Report notes (whose article has shot the book to the top spot of all Amazon book sales), the secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton’s campaign. Specific details of the agent’s confessional are being held under tight embargo, although numerous pages have been disclosed in the promo to the book (see below).
“What I saw in the 1990s sickend me,” Byrne explains. “I want you to hear my story.”
His expose, scheduled to be published on June 26, just weeks before the Democratic primary, is set to rock the Clinton’s campaign and comes as Hillary finds herself within touching distance of securing the Democratic nomination.
Because I was there – in the spotlight, in the crosshairs — I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was.
In the book, Byrne provides a firsthand account of the scandals – known and unknown – and daily trials ranging from the minor to national in scale.
“Having witnessed the personal and political dysfunction of the Clinton White House – so consumed by scandal and destroying their enemies, real and imagined – Byrne came to understand that, to the Clintons, governing was an afterthought.
He now tells this story – before voters go to the polls – in the hopes that Clinton supporters will understand the real Hillary Clinton.
The book titled Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate is set to hit shelves on June 28. The Democratic convention, where Hillary could be confirmed as the nominee, will take place a month later.
I have not written a word of this book with a political agenda. Whether the Clintons were Democrats or Republicans, I saw what I saw; I heard what I heard. Politics do not change unpleasant truths. Politicians only think they do.
Many of the most shocking revelations are being withheld but below are some of the key excerpts released so far:
I witnessed firsthand the Clintons’ personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that governing became an afterthought. The First Couple wasted days obsessing over how to “kill” a forthcoming book (one alleging that Bill Clinton’s mother ran a brothel) or in squashing yet another tabloid revelation. Their machinations and their constant damage control diverted them from the nation’s real business. Good people like Leon Panetta, Betty Currie, and Evelyn Lieberman had to pick up the slack and bear it for as long as they could.
I saw how the Clinton Machine’s appalling leadership style endangered law enforcement officers, the military, and the American people in general. And with Hillary Clinton’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style—volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else hasn’t changed a bit.
…Though portrayed as the long-suffering spouse of an unfaithful husband, whose infidelities I personally observed or knew to be true, the Hillary Clinton I saw was anything but a sympathetic victim. Those loyal to her kept coming back for her volcanic eruptions.
Or when Byrne “disposed of sordid physical evidence” (because the “blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds”) to help keep Bill’s job:
I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation.
And yes, to me and my family. Only under federal subpoena—and later a ruling by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist—did I reveal to Ken Starr’s prosecutors the true story of President Bill Clinton’s false testimony and misstatements.
Or when Hillary gave Bill a black-eye:
One morning in late summer 1995, I entered the White House to assume my post just outside the Oval Office officially Secret Service Post E-6. Things were stirring, and I wanted to know why.
Everyone on post that night, Secret Service agents (SAs), Secret Service Uniformed Division (UD) officers like myself, the houseman, and the ushers couldn’t help but hear the First Couple arguing as sounds from their fracases traveled through the old building. Mrs. Clinton had a booming voice, and their yelling matches easily traversed the living quarters’ private elevator, vents, and staircase. Many housemen eased away, but the SAs and UD couldn’t leave their posts. This was especially a big argument that ended with a crash. SAs were obligated to respond and found its cause, a vase on the other side of the room. A houseman picked up the damage. The First Couple couldn’t just sweep up and toss out the remains because everything in the White House is logged and recorded, befitting its role as a national landmark and a veritable museum.
I peeked into the curator’s small, windowless ground-floor office across from the China Room and the Diplomatic Reception Room. It was cluttered with blueprints and history books on the every detail of the White House: fabrics, furniture, artifacts. Sure enough, there was a box containing a light blue vase smashed to bits. The rumors were true!
“Can I help you?”
The White House’s official curator looked up from what she was reading, clearly annoyed and already tired of people checking out the box. “Can I help you, Officer?” she said again.
“No thanks,” I said.
The president entered around nine. His arrival times fluctuated. I couldn’t believe my eyes: a black eye! I was well accustomed to his allergy-prone, puffy eyes. But this was a shiner, a real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye. I was shocked. Minutes later, I popped into the office of Betty Currie, the president’s personal secretary. Nancy Hernreich, his personal scheduler, was already there.
“What’s the black mark on the president’s face?” I asked.
I felt real tension.
“Oh, uh, he’s allergic to coffee,” said Nancy, turning toward her office.
“An allergy to coffee shows in just one eye?”
Betty smiled. She burrowed down into her work, chuckling, but looking busy. As I departed, I added, “I’m also allergic to the back of someone’s hand.”
I wanted to send a message. We knew what the mark was from, and it wasn’t right. Surely the Clintons must realize how close we are to them, I thought, how deeply we feel about our responsibilities for their safety. Didn’t they feel the same? It wasn’t just that we protected them 24/7, but we were extremely loyal. We didn’t do our job for the paychecks. Each man and woman protecting them had their reasons, but the Clintons were the focal point of every reason.
What might happen if she had sucker-punched him? Or if that vase had hit its target? If his head hit a countertop corner, my entire life’s work would have been for nothing.
Sure, seeing a president’s black eye is strange but standing at my post I couldn’t escape the sinking feeling that this didn’t make sense.
This wasn’t how it was supposed to be. I loved my job and I believed in it, but I couldn’t make sense of any of it.
It was a circus. Yet I never lost a sense of wonder and excite- ment. Even when the First Lady hollered and cursed and demanded firing thousands of people who protected her—and we spent more hours ensuring the Clintons’ protection than we spent with our own families—I loved every minute of most every day. Law enforcement — protecting others — is my passion. Protecting a president is an incredible honor. I low, I kept asking myself, did a kid from Ridley, Pennsylvania, ever get to the White House? I wanted to stay for the rest of my life.
Reality destroyed my dream—in ways I never imagined.
More damning accusations from Byrne:
On 9/11 we vowed “Never forget.” But we always somehow do. And because I was there—in the spotlight, in the crosshairs—I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was. But I haven’t forgotten.
* * *
I remember Monica, sure. But I remember Hillary, too: the shortcuts she took, the methods she employed, the yelling, the screaming, her disdain for “the little people,” Bill’s black eye—the country’s black eye.
You want to know something? I wanted to forget it all myself I needed to forget it all. d had enough of the whole damned mess— the sleepless nights, the Protective Privilege bullshit, the lawyers, C-SPAN… the cuddling up at night with a loaded pistol just in case. Satchel Paige said: “Don’t look back, something might be gaining on you.” I didn’t want to look back. I wanted to move forward, to shut the door on the Clintons and their whole sordid operation.
To never look back.
But there’s another saying: “It ain’t over t ill it’s over,” and now it’s 2016, and Hillary is running for president again. I faced a choice in 1998: Would I keep silent? Or tell the truth about what I knew, what I saw?
I spoke up. I testified truthfully.
Not everybody did. Some people’s memories got really faulty. Maybe you can’t blame them. They got scared. They had mortgages and careers. They had kids.
People who swore an oath to the Constitution and the law, people who pledged to lay down their lives for principle, people who strapped iron on their hips . . . got scared.
And they conveniently forgot things.
Byrne continues to slam a Hillary who would have been “too busy swapping gossip” with Sidney Blumenthal to hold herself accountable:
Character in leadership comes down to two questions: Would you trade places with anyone under your command? Do you hold yourself to the same level of accountability as those for whom you bear responsibility? Would Mrs. Clinton have been willing to trade places with Chris Stevens and Sean Smith?
No. She was too busy swapping gossip and classified information with Clinton loyalist Sidney Blumenthal.
Finally in a crushing afterword, Byrne exclaims:
Over a twenty-nine-year career serving my country in the military and in federal law enforcement, I’ve encountered both heroes and villains.
I’ve observed human character at its greatest heights and lowest depths. In any organization, character is defined at the top; it percolates down to the top executives of an organization, to the middle managers, and to the grunts at the front lines.
Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.
Perhaps this sums up best what America would have to look forward to… “The Clintons treat running the free world like a damn part-time job.” (For more from the author of “Hillary Campaign Rocked by Secret Service Agent Book Exposing Clintons’ Dirty Laundry” please click HERE)
With the unbridled enthusiasm of Eeyore, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is attempting to herd angry constitutional conservatives, tea partiers and libertarians back into the Party fold. Good luck with that. It’s been a long time coming, but presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump looks to be the last straw for the Grand Old Party, the one that will likely and finally break the tired pachyderm’s back.
American history tells us that political parties do, on occasion, die. Today’s political drama reminds me of another party that went through a similar crisis more than 150 years ago: the Whigs.
The Whig Party was formed by Henry Clay, partly in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. The Whigs objected to Jackson’s abuses of presidential power and even called him “King Andrew”. The charge sounds kind of like today’s tea party Republicans railing against President Obama’s use of executive orders to go around Congress. And like modern Republicans, the Whigs were demonized by their opponents for supposedly supporting the interests of big business and the wealthy.
The Whigs weren’t a fringe party. They elected four presidents, and won nearly half of all gubernatorial elections in the 1840s. But it didn’t take long for internal disagreements on the issue of slavery to begin to tear the party apart. The Compromise of 1850, which addressed the expansion of slavery into new territories, infuriated abolitionist Whigs so much so that they managed to block President Millard Fillmore from getting his own party’s nomination for reelection. The split handed the presidency to Democrat Franklin Pierce.
Just four years later, the party had virtually disappeared. Some of the displaced Whigs joined the southern Democratic Party, which at the time supported slavery and states’ rights. In the north, most flocked to the fledgling Republican Party that would ultimately elect Abraham Lincoln. A few joined the short-lived American Party, but never gained any electoral success. Going from having a president in office to being virtually extinct in four years is hard to imagine, but that’s what can happen when a governing coalition so dramatically fractures.
Today, it seems like a similar thing is happening with Republicans. What, exactly, does the GOP stand for? Since Ronald Reagan, Republican rhetoric has defended free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits on government power. But the growing gap between Republican political rhetoric and their actual performance in office seems to have finally fractured that voting coalition. Should Republicanism be about limited government, and economic and personal liberty? Or will Donald Trump’s splenetic populism, the kind that embraces protectionism and the aggressive use of executive branch interventions into market decisions, represent a new political coalition?
There are a lot of reasons why the two major political parties are losing their ability to control the behavior of voters. Technology and social media have given voice to the real diversity of citizens’ opinions and preferences. Those differences were always there, but now the individual’s power to be different can more closely compete with the powerful tools available to party bosses. That means new political realignments can now happen at lightning speed.
This same dynamic has been roiling the Democratic Party as well, where 90’s relic Hillary Clinton continues to struggle against Bernie Sanders’ own brand of splenetic (socialist) populism. But the Democrats have always been better apparatchiks, falling into line behind the party’s nominee. Will they coalesce in 2016 against Donald Trump?
Liberty voters, the ones that once made up the core of the Grand Old Party, are now politically homeless. Will they migrate to the Libertarian Party, or will a new political platform for constitutional conservatism emerge?
Meanwhile, the Republicans whig out. As Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican President, once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” (For more from the author of “Is the GOP ‘Whigging’ Out?” please click HERE)
