Supreme Court Takes Abortion Zeal to New Level, Embraces Unregulated Baby Butchery

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the most consequential abortion decision since 1992, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law regulating the public safety of abortion clinics. In a 5-3 decision with Justice Breyer writing for the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the high court reversed the Fifth Circuit and invalidated Texas’s HB 2, which required abortion clinics to meet the health standards for ambulatory surgical centers and required doctors at the facilities to have admissions privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

After concocting a Fourteenth Amendment right to an abortion at almost any stage out of whole cloth in Roe v.Wade and Casey, the court now holds that any basic, prudent and clearly constitutional state regulation addressing safety concerns at abortion facilities that in any way results in a decrease in the number of abortions performed is “unconstitutional.”

Justice Thomas begins his dissent by noting how the majority on the court tends to bend the rules when one of their favored “rights” is at stake:

To begin, the very existence of this suit is a jurisprudential oddity. Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors. So in this case and many others, the Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions.

Yet, once a woman has been granted a constitutional right to an abortion, third parties can now sue on her behalf.

Connected to the issue of standing on behalf of others is the issue of access to abortions. The court has made it clear in this decision that the courts, not state legislatures, determine the scientific and medical analysis behind regulating abortion clinics in order to achieve the desired outcome: full access to abortions by any third party provider that desires to operate in the field. Remember, states have plenary power over regulating doctors and medical certifications within their respective states, yet the court made it clear they will step in to invalidate those laws if [even third party] plaintiffs can show that they will lead to a decrease in the number of abortions.

In a dissent that is full of quotes from the late Justice Scalia, Thomas concludes with a quote from his former senior colleague:

Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is “a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.

It is truly shocking how far we have fallen as a Republic. At the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, 36 states and territories had laws on the books banning abortions. Yet, we are told that the Constitution, and even the Fourteenth Amendment as originally conceived, is unconstitutional and preempted by the evolving interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is rooted in nothing but the political imagination of the judges. Now that has transmogrified to a right to operate abortion clinics that have sub-standard health care.

Justice Alito, who authored the main dissent (which was joined by Thomas and Roberts) focused on several other aspects of the court’s tendentious treatment for abortion plaintiffs. The court violated a principle of “res judicata, namely, that a plaintiff who loses in a first case cannot later bring the same case simply because it has now gathered better evidence.” Given that this case was already heard by a trial court and the plaintiffs lost in the Fifth Circuit, opting at the time not to pursue an appeal to SCOTUS, were precluded from bringing the case again after they felt they had more evidence that the Texas law would limit the number of abortions in the state.

Additionally, Alito assailed the majority for not applying the principle of upholding the remaining parts of the Texas law, which were not challenged in the lawsuit, given that the law was written with a proper severability clause. The overarching message of the majority, as observed by Thomas and Alito, was that if the end goal is an abortion right, any and all rules governing judicial proceedings can be vitiated.

Furthermore, while opponents argue that admitting privileges and ASC requirements are just “scams” to limit access to abortion, they would do well to remember that sacrificing women’s health at the altar of “reproductive rights” is the exact same kind of thinking that allowed Kermit Gosnell to continue his horrific practices in Philadelphia for years without scrutiny. Gosnell, who is currently serving a life sentence for three counts of murder and other charges, spent years performing abortions on low-income women of Philadelphia in unsanitary conditions with little emergency access while conducting illegal experiments on women and unborn children.

The notion that such regulations are beyond the scope of state power – even if one were to accede to the phantom individual right to an abortion – is lunacy.

The intellectual dyslexia of the judiciary is breathtaking. States have now been granted a power to blatantly discriminate based solely on race. They have been allowed to violate the right to bear arms and own common fire arms, an inalienable right enshrined into the Constitution. Yet, they can’t regulate the public safety of abortion clinics nor define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

This is the perverse nature of entrusting the legal profession as the final arbiter of fundamental rights and all societal and political issues.

A Harbinger of the Future

Many conservatives will conclude from here that the coming election is all the more important in shaping the balance of the court. This case demonstrates the folly of that line of thinking for several reasons.

1. As is most often the case concerning the fabrication of new rights, Justice Kennedy was with the four impervious leftists. Thus, even if we successfully fill Scalia’s seat with an originalist, they will still have a 5-4 majority in most cases.

2. So many of these cases are decided in the lower courts, and even those that make it to the Supreme Court are often influenced by the momentum of the lower courts. As I’ve noted on many occasions, the lower courts are even worse than the Supreme Court and that is not going to change any time this generation. Texas is lucky that it is under the jurisdiction of the one remaining originalist-majority circuit – the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is why this case went so far. On the other hand, lower courts recently struck down North Dakota’s ban on abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy and even Arizona’s law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to those appeals, which means there were no more than three justices willing to overturn the lower courts even with Scalia alive.

3. Only Justice Thomas was willing to fully uphold the Texas laws. Justices Alito and Roberts would have remanded the case back to the lower courts to better analyze the effects of the law in limiting access to abortion. Now, it could be that they still fundamentally oppose the entire abortion jurisprudence and were just playing within the sand box created by Roe and Casey, albeit with a more milquetoast approach than Thomas. But it is quite likely, especially in the case of Roberts, that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. This is the fundamental problem with those who believe we can win the “judicial game” by appointing better justices. There is enough existing “jurisprudence” to destroy every facet of the Constitution based on liberal precedent, and there are few judges like Thomas who are willing to go back to the original Constitution, even if it means countermanding decades of odious precedent.

The Path Forward

This is why I’m excited to announce the release of my new book, “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America,” on July 19. The courts are irremediably broken and it’s time Congress exercise its power to regulate the jurisdiction of the court. Broad societal questions, such as abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty should not be entrusted to the courts, especially given that they have insurmountable majorities that will likely expand the backwards post-constitutional jurisprudence and will certainly apply the existing precedent. In this case, for example, Congress could strip the courts of any jurisdiction to hear cases overturning state laws regulating abortion. State courts could still hear those cases and it would be up to state legislatures to reform their own state judiciaries. But there is a solution on the federal level and it’s high time we exercise it.

It’s also high time for some long-term solutions to restore our right to self-governance and restore state power. As Mark Levin laid out in “Liberty Amendments,” we need a convention of the states with a targeted agenda to reclaim that power for the people and the states. One of them is granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies. Between the power to regulate jurisdiction, which is already in the Constitution, and the new initiative to overrule decisions, the court will be restored to its proper role of interpreting the application of statutes and its very limited original jurisdiction.

Or, we can just sit back and watch social transformation without representation and allow Anthony Kennedy to serve as king. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Takes Abortion Zeal to New Level” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Global Response Is Needed to Defeat ISIS

/0 Comments/in , /by

“A feckless delusion that is never going to happen.” That’s how the current head of the CIA, John Brennan, described the possibility of the existence of an Islamic caliphate five years ago.

In a cruel piece of irony, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, proclaimed the existence of such a caliphate precisely three years to the day after Brennan’s comments.

This caliphate has proven its staying power, becoming truly entrenched in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, ISIS’ brand and its barbaric ideology have been disseminated far and wide. ISIS continues to carry out or inspire regular attacks abroad and has established affiliates in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, the Sinai Peninsula, and many other parts of the Middle East and Africa.

Breaking ISIS is highly desirable, but there is no silver bullet to do so. Staving off any air of inevitability that ISIS is on the way to becoming a permanent, dominant regional force is key; and defeating the group militarily is naturally vital to these efforts. ISIS has had fantastic success in attracting foreign recruits, so cutting off its supply of new fighters is also crucial.

Turkey stepping up its efforts to block the flow of fighters via its territory has certainly boosted the war effort on this front. In a Heritage Foundation backgrounder, entitled “Combatting the ISIS Foreign Fighter Pipeline: A Global Approach,” my colleagues and I have made further practical suggestions on how best to combat this foreign fighter problem.

Despite some progress being made against ISIS, there is more that needs to be done. For example, over the weekend, ISIS was in the process of being kicked out of Fallujah, Iraq.

Yet this is only a pyrrhic victory if it means Fallujah ends up being occupied by Iran-backed Shia Popular Mobilization Units, as Sunnis in the area will never accept this status quo. Throw in inevitable abuse of Sunnis by these same forces, and it merely sets the scene for an eventual ISIS comeback.

There also appears to be little coherent strategy for resolving the mess in Libya, where ISIS has begun to shift its resources.

Therefore, a Senate hearing this week on the “Global Efforts to Defeat ISIS” is well timed, as key questions about how to handle the group remain unaddressed. That is not just the case when it comes to Iraq and Syria, either, as this war is now truly transnational.

ISIS’ latest overseas affiliate was just created in the Philippines. A French terrorist who swore loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi murdered a French policeman and his partner earlier this month. Omar Mateen did the same during his massacre in Orlando. A global, coherent response is needed.

This is a tricky balancing act because the U.S. must also not develop tunnel vision. ISIS, as with al-Qaeda, is a manifestation of a broader challenge posed by the ideology of Islamism. Coming up with a long-term strategy for defeating a religiously-infused ideology that cuts across borders and exists in countries that the U.S. has limited scope to influence is no easy task. In its absence, however, the threat posed to us all can only endure. (For more from the author of “A Global Response Is Needed to Defeat ISIS” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Brexit Means for the European Union’s Future

/0 Comments/in , /by

Britain’s decision to leave the European Union could inspire other disaffected nations to consider a way out unless the bloc responds to anxiety across the continent over jobs, immigration, and globalization.

While experts say an all-out breakup of the European Union is far-fetched, countries both successful (like Sweden) and struggling (such as Greece) may view the British experience as a model to change their own lots in life.

“There is a serious risk that Britain’s decision to withdraw from the European Union could set off similar demands on other member states,” said Michael Leigh, a senior fellow at The German Marshall Fund of the United States, adding:

It was clear even before the British referendum that the EU is facing a number of problems, and if the EU wishes to regain credibility in the eyes of the citizens of European countries, it must find a way to tackle its own disorders effectively, and demonstrate it can function properly.

Last week, Britain, the European Union’s second-largest economy after Germany, became the first to decide to leave the 28-member bloc.

Leigh, in an interview with The Daily Signal, said the European Union must not view Britain’s exit as a unique case, but rather, a consequence of populist anger that exists throughout the continent. That anger, he said, is fueled by unease that the global economy has created winners and losers, and that integration and bureaucracy may be making that gap harder to close.

According to experts, other member countries with large populations of people skeptical of the European Union—and also may demand a similar referendum—include France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, and Austria.

The European Union also faces other challenges, such as the refugee crisis sparked by refugees fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and North Africa; Russian aggression in Ukraine; and Greece’s faltering economy.

“We shouldn’t really expect the British referendum to be followed by this sudden surge of integration,” Leigh said:

That’s not realistic because there’s serious differences of views concerning the way forward. The main lesson EU leaders will have learned about the rise of populism is there is no expectation or demand for more Europe. As a result of the British experience, the people will be looking for pragmatic solutions and concrete projects to get out of this problem rather than some new commitment to a more united Europe.

The first big hint of how member governments view the British decision to exit the EU, known as Brexit, will come as they negotiate the terms of Britain’s position outside the union. Also not clear is whether they’ve learned lessons from the result of Britons’ vote.

In an emergency meeting over the weekend of foreign ministers from the European Union’s six founding states—Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands—leaders expressed a desire for Britain to quickly invoke Article 50, which would allow the process for severing ties to begin and set a two-year timeline for doing so.

Leigh, and other experts, say those favoring a fast resolution may try to impose harsh conditions on Britain, and limit its interaction with the bloc, in order to make an example of the British.

But other leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel, considered a key figure in rebuilding the EU, prefer a more patient approach so as to preserve the bloc’s integrity.

“The EU is liable to just bully Britain in order to discourage others from leaving,” said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who specializes in European security and political issues, adding:

That would be the wrong path to take because instead of discouraging the political class, they would really be discouraging the general population, which is fed up with business as usual inside the EU. So the EU could draw the wrong lessons from Britain’s exit.

Jeffrey, in an interview with The Daily Signal, cautioned European leaders to acknowledge the divide between the elite and masses, and seek to do something about it.

“This is a struggle between the cosmopolitan elite—not just bureaucrats but people who are successful in a modernized globalized economy in Europe and happy with the idea of an ever closer union—and others who want to stay a part of their own countries who have a patriotic feeling and don’t buy the EU’s goals,” Jeffrey said. “We have to reform the EU and water down this idea of a union and take effective action on immigration and address how to loosen the inevitable mountain of regulations that the EU puts on everybody, which just drives some people crazy.”

Ted Bromund, a Heritage Foundation expert on U.S. and British relations with the European Union, argues that though member countries have different conditions, their collective anxiety is animated by the European debt crisis that began at the end of 2009.

“Some nations, like Greece, feel that the EU is bossing them around politically and economically in a particularly brutal way,” Bromund wrote to The Daily Signal in an email:

In others, the slow growth—which a result partly of their own economic policies—is also reflected on the EU. So there is no one single answer [driving the unrest]. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the economic factors around the Euro, and the EU’s low growth; but they are all wrapped up together, and you can’t pull them apart.

Despite these ongoing challenges, the European Union is likely to limit decisive action as the two most powerful nations in the bloc, Germany and France, grapple with national elections in 2017. Leaders of those countries cannot afford to alienate the populist strands of the electorate.

So, as one expert predicts, the European Union—the world’s biggest single economic market—may trudge on for now, until something dramatic happens again.

“There is a deep taboo among member states leaving the EU,” said Tim Oliver, a professor who is the Dahrendorf fellow on Europe-North America relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

“The European institution is about moving forward, not backward,” Oliver told The Daily Signal. “Finding a united position is never easy for the EU on a good day, let alone when it is facing something like this. The EU has so far muddled through these challenges. They never solve them. They cope.” (For more from the author of “What Brexit Means for the European Union’s Future” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Obama Administration Arming Those Killing Us in Middle East

/0 Comments/in , /by

What happens when Obama sends weapons, money, and American troops into a theater of war with no coherent mission and no clear enunciation of American strategic interests? Our own weapons and training are used against our soldiers and intelligence workers.

Last November, two American contractors were killed at a Jordanian police training center in Amman, Jordan, when a former trainee turned his guns on the Americans and several other foreign workers. This training facility is funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars to train Palestinian security forces, an endeavor we should not be supporting at all. To make matters worse, the New York Times is now reporting that the weapons used in the attack were purchased on the black market in Jordan through a stream of weapons from a CIA program intended to train and equip Syrian rebels!

Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.

Some of the stolen weapons were used in a shooting in November that killed two Americans and three others at a police training facility in Amman, F.B.I. officials believe after months of investigating the attack, according to people familiar with the investigation.[…]

This program, which operated under code name Timber Sycamore, according to the Times, began in April 2013 in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Remember, these are some of the same actors who are also directly funding Al Qaeda in Syria. Many of the Syrian rebels are either Islamists themselves or have allowed weapons to fail into the hands of Al Nusra and Ahar al-Sham, two Al Qaeda-linked groups operating in Syria . Now it has been revealed that some of those weapons, including Kalashnikovs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, were purloined by corrupt Jordanian officials and are now out on the “streets” of the Middle East’s black market.

This is just the latest example of how Obama is helping arm our enemies and sending our brave CIA and special operations troops into war to risk their own lives in helping our enemies or doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia. The House and Senate recently passed the annual defense authorization bill, which authorizes several hundred million dollars for the Syrian rebel train and equip program. As I noted at the time, it was a colossal lost opportunity for Republicans not to defund the program. Fortunately, they still have the opportunity to do so between the Senate-House conference committee or in the upcoming defense appropriations bill.

If Democrats want to distract from the problem of Islamic jihad and discuss gun control, they might want to start by preventing our own government from repeating the Fast and Furious gun running scandal on a global level. (For more from the author of “Report: Obama Administration Arming Those Killing Us in Middle East” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Open Borders Zealot Zuckerberg Angers Neighbors by Building Massive Security Wall Around His Hawaiian Home

/0 Comments/in , /by

Gee, I don’t sense anything hypocritical about this factoid:

For years, Kilauea, Kauai resident Gy Hall has enjoyed the view of the ocean and the breeze along Koolau Road. Then, a few weeks ago, a crew started to build a wall which happens to belong to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

“The feeling of it is really oppressive. It’s immense,” Hall said. “It’s really sad that somebody would come in, and buy a huge piece of land and the first thing they do is cut off this view that’s been available and appreciative by the community here for years.”

Hall said the wall extends along Koolau Road, near mile marker 20, and is about six-feet tall. He said its projected length and completion are unclear.

Multiple attempts by TGI to contact Shawn Smith, former Falk Partners manager, who Hall says sold some of the $200 million, 700-plus-acre property to the billionaire, were unsuccessful Friday…

…Shosana Chantara, a Kilauea resident, voiced her concerns about the breeze that’s being obstructed.

“It’s hot behind that wall. Because it’s up on a berm, there’s not a breath of air on this side from the ocean,” Chantara said. “You take a solid wall that’s 10 or more feet above the road level; the breeze can’t go through.”

…Another Kilauea resident, Donna Mcmillen, calls the wall a “monstrosity.”

The island of Kauai is a masterpiece of natural beauty.

That Zuckerberg would both build a security wall and despoil one of the most spectacular islands in the world would shame a normal person, but not — of course — any Democrat. (For more from the author of “Open Borders Zealot Zuckerberg Angers Neighbors by Building Massive Security Wall Around His Hawaiian Home” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mitch McConnell Faces One Question on Trump That He Won’t Answer

/0 Comments/in , /by

On ABC’s This Week Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell whether Republican candidate Donald Trump is qualified to be president of the United States.

“Well look, I think there’s no question that he’s made a number of mistakes over the last few weeks,” McConnell said. “I think they’re beginning to right the ship. It’s a long time until November, and the burden obviously will be on him to convince people that he can handle this job.”

Stephanopoulous, who was communications director for President Bill Clinton, the husband of Trump’s Democratic opponent, pressed the senator about the issue, saying, “I didn’t hear you say whether you thought he was qualified.”

McConnell answered, “Look, that’ll be up to the American people to decide.”

“You know, he won the Republican nomination fair and square. He got more votes than anybody else against a whole lot of well-qualified candidates,” he said. “And so our primary voters have made their decision as to who they want to be the nominee.”

In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 64 percent of the respondents said they didn’t think Trump was qualified to be president.

“I think a good step in the right direction was the changes he made in the campaign,” McConnell said. “He’s beginning to use a prepared script more often, which I think is absolutely appropriate for any candidate, whether you’re a longtime politician like Hillary Clinton or whether you’re new to the game like Donald Trump.”

The Trump campaign is working to raise money in order to compete with Democratic rival Clinton, who has a much larger war chest. McConnell’s closing statements acknowledged that Trump would not be able to win if he was unable to raise more money.

“He needs to be able to compete financially,” the majority leader said. “Where the money comes from, whether it comes out of his own pocket or from others, it doesn’t really make all that much difference. But he’s going to have to have way more than he has now in order to run the kind of campaign he needs to win.” (For more from the author of “Mitch McConnell Faces One Question on Trump That He Won’t Answer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Democrat Announces Resignation Following Fraud Conviction

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., who was convicted earlier this week of charges including racketeering, bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, has announced his resignation, effective on Thursday, Politico reported.

Responding to the news of the conviction Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan issued a statement Wednesday calling for Fattah to step down immediately. “Mr. Fattah has betrayed the trust of this institution and the people of Pennsylvania, and for that he should resign immediately from the House of Representatives,” Ryan said. “We must hold members to the highest ethical standard, and I hope that Democratic leaders will join me in seeking his immediate resignation.”

Fattah had previously stated he would resign in October; however, in a letter on Thursday to the speaker, Fattah wrote, “In my previous letter I indicated a later resignation date in order to provide for an orderly transition of my office after 21 years of service in the House. However, out of respect for the entire House Leadership, and so as not to cause a distraction from the House’s work for the people, I have changed my effective date.”

In a Philadelphia courthouse on Tuesday, a jury found Fattah guilty of numerous federal charges, including bribery and money laundering.

Since several of the charges carry a 20-year sentence, Fattah could face life in prison. Sentencing is set to take place in October.

In a statement shortly after his conviction, Fattah said, “Today’s decision notwithstanding, it has been my privilege to serve the constituents of the Second Congressional District for over 20 years.”

It is reported that Fattah, along with some of his co-defendants, illegally obtained a $1 million loan in 2007, which they helped repay by using federal and charitable funds.

At the time of his indictment in July 2015, Fattah was the top Democratic representative on the Appropriations Committee.

Included in the indictment were Herbert Vederman, Robert Brand, Karen Nicholas and Bonnie Bowser.

Fattah’s son, Chaka Fattah Jr., is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for bank fraud and tax fraud. (For more from the author of “Top Democrat Announces Resignation Following Fraud Conviction” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mexico President Urges North American Integration After Brexit

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on Monday called for greater integration with Canada and the United States in the wake of Britain’s vote to split with the European Union.

Nieto, who spoke during a stopover in Quebec City, is scheduled to attend a North American leaders summit in Ottawa on Wednesday with his US and Canadian counterparts.

The three countries are economic partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and work closely on security matters.

At Wednesday’s summit, the leaders are expected to announce joint energy and environmental strategies, including matching renewable energy targets.

“The purpose of this visit is to renew our bilateral relationship, to give it new life, to find ways to advance the prosperity and competitiveness of North America,” Pena Nieto said. (Read more from “Mexico President Urges North American Integration After Brexit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2016 Presidential Candidate Found Dead at Cleveland Motel

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A “fearless advocate for liberty” who sought the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president has been found dead.

Dr. Marc A. Feldman, 56, of Cleveland, was found dead Wednesday at the Americas Best Value Inn near the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. No official cause of death has been released.

Feldman lost the Libertarian nomination in May to former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

“How do you make a miracle happen?” he said once. “Start by asking for what you want, and see what you get. Sometimes you’re not given what you ask for, you’re given what you need.” He called himself the “No fear” candidate.

At the Libertarian convention, he rapped his concluding statement.

“I’m that be what you want to be Libertarian,” he began. “That Muslim Libertarian, that Jew Libertarian, the Christian, Atheist, Hin-DU Libertarian.”

“We will miss his dedication as a member of the national committee and candidate for public office, but most of all, I will miss a good friend. He was a delightful, spirited, and dedicated Libertarian who inspired and won the hearts of many. Our deepest condolences to his family on their loss,” said Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the party’s national committee.

“Dr. Feldman was truly a beacon of unity and empowerment within the party. His campaign website was www.votesnotforsale.com – during his campaign he refused to accept supporting donations higher than $5. His campaign slogan was ‘Empower Yourself,’ and focused on encouraging individuals to achieve greater power and control over their own lives,” Avens O’Brien wrote on The Libertarian Republic. (For more from the author of “2016 Presidential Candidate Found Dead at Cleveland Motel” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where the Hell Is the Orlando Jihadist’s Missing Wife?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the Orlando jihadist’s wife is a missing, AWOL, gone girl?

Where the hell is Noor Salman? Can we hold a sit-in at the FBI until someone finds her?

The keystone cops in Washington admit they lost track of her last week. So what are they doing to hunt her down? Playing Marco Polo in the pool with their eyes closed?

How crazy is this? In America in 2016 you can real-time track your dog, your kid, your iPhone, your luggage, and your Uber driver around the corner.

But the people in charge of homeland security are losing a dangerous game of Ji-hide-y and Seek with the devout Muslim Palestinian woman who chauffeured her radicalized Orlando jihadist husband around as he scoped out massacre locations and shopped for weapons.

Does FBI stand for fumbling, bumbling idiots? Get your shizzle together, please! (For more from the author of “Where the Hell Is the Orlando Jihadist’s Missing Wife?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.