Just-Released Poll Shows Dems’ Preferred Choice for President and It’s Not Hillary

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Hill reported Friday that, according to a recent poll, most Democrats would choose a third term for President Obama over presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

According to a WPA research survey, 67 percent of the Democrats surveyed would abandon the current presidential election if there was a way for Obama to serve a third term.

The poll shows only 28 percent are ready for a changing of the guard, while 6 percent remain undecided.

A memo from WPA read, “The results should give pause to the Hillary Clinton campaign as Democratic respondents clearly prefer the status quo to a Clinton presidency.”

With the Obama administration winding down, the president’s approval rating seems to be increasing.

Earlier this week the Washington Post released the findings of a Washington Post/ABC News poll which reveals 56 percent of those polled approve of Obama’s performance. The poll also shows that 56 percent feel the time has come to take the nation in a different direction.

Obama’s net approval, as indicated by the poll figures, is nearly 80, compared to former President Clinton’s approval of almost 60.

While President Obama is enjoying an increase in his approval rating, Hillary Clinton’s rating has decreased.

A Gallup poll from April shows Clinton’s favorability rating to be 36 points. That is down drastically from the 63 points she received in November.

The Clinton campaign is striving to garner additional support from voters who had supported Sen. Bernie Sanders.

On a positive note for Clinton, the survey suggests that Sanders’ supporters are rallying behind her rather than Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Just-Released Poll Shows Dems’ Preferred Choice for President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Marine Corps Gives Women the Option of Ditching Pullups for Pushups Instead

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Marine Corps has rolled out a series of physical fitness changes Friday, saying women can simply do pushups as an alternative to pullups and admitting the service lowered standards to keep women from failing.

Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller has called this physical fitness standards update the most dramatic since 1972.

Brian McGuire, deputy force fitness branch head for the standards division of Marine Corps Training and Education Command, told Marine Corps that the pushups were implemented to make sure that the Marine Corps didn’t “create a manpower problem by having some female Marines failing.”

In other words, pushups constitute lowered physical standards in an effort to make sure that more women don’t wash out of the service.

In November, the Marine Corps launched a review of physical fitness standards (PFT) and finalized the changes as of Friday. The new standards, which come as a final solution to the problem of women failing at pullups, will kick in January 1, 2017, Military.com reports.

Instead of the previously offered flexed-arm hang as a substitute for doing pullups, the new substitute is a set of pushups — for both men and women. But with pushups, the maximum PFT score achievable is lower than the maximum PFT score for pullups.

For example, women can reach the highest PFT score of 100 if they complete seven to ten pullups, whereas if they opt for pushups, their max score is 70, which limits opportunities for upward mobility in the service.

If women choose for the pushups option, they’ll have to complete anywhere from 40-50. For men who choose to do pushups over pullups, they’ll have to complete 70-80, depending on age.

“Push-ups become an option on the PFT, but Marines are incentivized toward pull-ups, as these are a better test of functional, dynamic upper body strength and correlate stronger to physically demanding tasks,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller told troops Friday, according to Military.com. “Push-ups are also a valid exercise and good test; however maximum points can only be earned by executing pull-ups.”

Although the service previously relied on flexed-arm hangs as a substitute for pullups, it became clear that it was a poor substitute, and so Marine leadership eliminated the option in 2012. Instead, the plan was to mandate that women perform at least three pullups. But that plan of mandating three pullups never really saw implementation, as leadership delayed it repeatedly because it turns out that more than 50 percent of women in boot camp couldn’t pass even that low of a standard. (For more from the author of “Marine Corps Gives Women the Option of Ditching Pullups for Pushups Instead” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Fight for Our Lives: How to Beat SCOTUS on Abortion

/0 Comments/in , /by

No one should underestimate just how severe the loss was in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Monday’s appalling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Five members of the Court, over the strenuous dissents of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, didn’t just create a new and far stricter standard for abortion regulations. They threw out the minimal standards that Texas had imposed on abortion clinics to improve their quality and cleanliness and reduce the health risks of women undergoing abortions.

The question now is whether states are going to be able to do anything to get around this abysmal ruling and implement regulations to prevent what the Texas legislature was trying to make sure would not happen in Texas: a repeat of the horrific conditions in the Gosnell abortion clinic in Philadelphia, which led to the “irreparable” injury (and even the death) of women and the murder of children born alive.

To answer that, one must first understand just how extreme this decision was. Without explicitly saying so, the Court rejected its own precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that allows a state to act “where it has a rational basis” to regulate abortion “in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession” and without placing an undue burden on women. Now, apparently, state legislators will no longer be given deference. They will have to prove to judges that such regulations are absolutely necessary. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, the five-member majority has transformed the applicable test “to something much more akin to strict scrutiny,” which is the highest and strictest form of judicial review the Court applies.

The Texas legislature, which has the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine in the state (something outside the purview of the federal government) had passed two common-sense reforms: requiring abortion clinics to meet the minimum health and safety standards that other ambulatory surgical centers have to meet, and requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic. The majority held that these requirements placed an “undue burden” on abortion clinics, and were therefore unconstitutional.

The majority’s reasoning was often bizarre and ignored evidence produced in the case. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer, who almost always seems in favor of more government regulation, acknowledged the “terrible” behavior at the Gosnell clinic. But then he claimed that there was “no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior” because that is unlikely to change “determined wrongdoers.” Of course, under that analysis, one could dismiss the usefulness of almost any law or regulation that prohibits wrongful behavior.

Breyer added that there was no evidence that the new Texas requirements would be “more effective” than prior law, ignoring evidence that the plaintiff in the case, Whole Women’s Health, had appalling conditions at its clinic, including “the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments.” The grand jury report on the Gosnell clinic also described it as a “filthy space” with “unsanitary instruments.” Given the fact that Whole Women’s Health was claiming the new law would force it to shut down, it seems obvious that Texas’s “extra layer of regulation” would, in fact, have a salutatory effect – preventing the operation of a dirty clinic with all of the medical risks that entails.

Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to claim that abortions are completely safe for women and almost completely risk free, ignoring evidence that more than 200 women a year end up in hospitals in the state because of complications from both surgical and chemical abortions.

On the requirement of admitting privileges, which the majority also said was an undue (and unnecessary) burden, the justices ignored a crucial fact pointed out by Texas: that before it changed its mind, in 2000 the National Abortion Federation itself had recommended that doctors have admitting privileges. Otherwise, patients experiencing post-abortion complications arrive at a hospital with no medical records, no history and no information about the procedure performed by the abortion doctor. That can slow down and degrade the quality and effectiveness of any subsequent medical treatment.

The bottom line is that a majority of the Court – five lawyers with absolutely no medical experience or education – have set themselves to be the judge of what is appropriate medical care. Or as Justice Thomas said in his dissent, they have appointed themselves as “the country’s ex-officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.”

One of the most embarrassing aspects of this case, ignored by all of the media analysts and supporters of abortion, is what appalling misers some of these abortion organizations are when it comes to the patients they treat. The crux of their case was a claim that they could not afford to meet the minimum medical standards required by Texas and a number of other states. Yet Planned Parenthood’s 2014-2015 annual report shows that Big Abortion is Big Business. Planned Parenthood had $1.3 billion in revenue, including government revenue of $553.7 million, and lists revenue in excess of expenses (i.e., profit) of $58.8 million in 2015, and $127.1 million in 2014. And yet supposedly the abortion industry can’t afford to improve medical conditions for its patients to increase their health and safety.

The key to getting around these five justices is for states to tailor their medical regulations to apply generally, and not just to abortion clinics. In other words, apply stricter medical standards to all clinics that provide particular types of medical services – such as any invasive surgical medical practices or chemical treatments that can cause substantial potential reactions that may require hospitalization. Making such regulations generally applicable will undermine the under inclusiveness critique that Ginsburg made when she claimed that many other medical procedures that “are far more dangerous to patients” are not subject to the Texas requirements.

Legislatures will have to do a much better job beefing up the legislative record when considering any such regulation. They are going to have show that regulations are “necessary” to reduce risk and provide evidence of tangible medical benefits to patients.

That will then put the burden on challengers – and the five justices who issued this terrible decision – to explain and justify why abortion practices should be somehow exempted from the usual practices required for other medical procedures. They must be put in the indefensible position of arguing that substandard medical care for women is constitutionally justified for abortion.

It may still be difficult for states to prevail. But such broader regulations will be tougher for the justices to circumvent. And it will have the effect of generally raising the quality of all medical care provided in a state. (For more from the author of “The Fight for Our Lives: How to Beat SCOTUS on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose

/0 Comments/in , /by

Did you ever hear the saying “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?” Well that is what Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did yesterday when he announced the House would vote next week on a measure that would prohibit people on terrorism watch lists from purchasing firearms.

The Hill is reporting that Ryan caved to the demands of Democrats and he is scheduling a gun control vote on the House floor when they come back from recess next week.

In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.

Matt Kibbe of Conservative Review explains here why No Fly, No Buy = No Justice.

I recently wrote, “GOP Leadership: The Last Line of Defense Against Gun Control.” Although this will probably be an example of the House passing a bill that can’t pass the Senate because Senate Democrats will filibuster for more gun control, the political ramifications of repeatedly making your caucus walk the plank on damaging gun control bills is significant. Passing Democrat-lite bills always backfires and never provides real cover for members who will get hammered with 30-second ads on terrorists with guns.

The Senate Democrats have outsmarted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., by baiting him into having the Senate vote on six amendments to a bill that deals with this same issue. Now, Speaker Ryan has fallen into the same trap.

If the House runs with a proposal like the Cornyn Amendment or the Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Amendment that provided due process for people only after they are barred from purchasing a gun, they would be in violation of the Bill of Rights. First of all, the so-called “No Fly” list and “Terrorist Watch Lists” are mere lists compiled by the federal government that end up placing many people on these governments lists who don’t belong there.

Republicans should be pushing ideas that would look at immigration from nations that are incubators of terrorism, more so than focusing on gun control ideas that would not have prevented the Orlando shootings. Or they should simply not schedule politically damaging votes that will lead to legislation being passed that liberals will argue is a good first step, but not far enough to make the Second Amendment a dead letter of constitutional law.

(For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Makes Clear It’s Better to Be America’s Adversary Than Ally

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rarely has the stark contrast between being an adversary of America and being an American friend been more in evidence than in the news this week from the western Pacific.

With the inauguration of Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan saw the fourth democratic transition in the island’s leadership since the end of martial law in the 1990s. Tsai, head of the Democratic Progressive Party, had scored a major victory over the Kuomintang’s Eric Chu in elections this past January. As important, the Democratic Progressive Party won enough votes to also secure control of the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s legislature, reflecting broad public support.

While the Democratic Progressive Party has generally stood for Taiwan independence, Tsai has been very careful in her comments and remarks not to push for separation. Indeed, during the campaign, as well as prior visits to the United States, she has avoided raising the subject.

Nonetheless, Beijing has insisted that she must acknowledge the “one-China” principle, in effect rejecting the idea of Taiwan independence.

This would include accepting the “1992 Consensus,” a framework reportedly reached by semi-official representatives from the two sides, whereby both sides agreed that there was only one China, but held different unstated interpretations of what that meant, i.e. Republic of China (on Taiwan), including the mainland or People’s Republic of China, including Taiwan.

Tsai very prominently referenced her respect for the 1992 Consensus in her inaugural address. She did not, however, formulate it as explicitly as Beijing would prefer, and of course, she did not directly reference the “one-China” principle. Given both the centrality of Taiwan identity and independence in the nature of the Democratic Progressive Party, as well as the overwhelming victory it had scored, it is remarkable that she went as far as she did.

For Beijing, however, it is “all or nothing.” Failure to meet its formulation would lead to the suspension of cross-Straits dialogue, a threat that Beijing has now fulfilled. Chinese officials tied the ending of talks directly to Tsai’s failure to acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China or otherwise formally reject any move toward independence.

Normally, this would draw an American response. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. has made clear that it supports stability in the Taiwan Straits; any effort at reunification must be peaceful and be supported by the population on both sides.

It is Beijing, not Taipei, that has refused to commit to a peaceful resolution. The People’s Republic of China has always reserved the right to forcibly reunify the two sides; the People’s Liberation Army is constantly preparing for a Taiwan contingency.

Instead, the U.S. has invited that same People’s Liberation Army Navy to attend the Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, 2016 exercises this year. This will be the second time the People’s Liberation Army Navy participates in the exercises, having also attended the previous Rim of the Pacific 2014.

While the U.S. Navy dispatched only one ship to join the four People’s Liberation Army Navy ships attending the 2014 exercises, this time the U.S. Navy dispatched an entire carrier battlegroup, centered around the USS John Stennis. The battlegroup is apparently conducting joint maneuvering and training with the five Chinese ships Beijing is sending to Rim of the Pacific 2016. It is unknown whether the Chinese have also dispatched a spy ship, as they did to Rim of the Pacific 2014.

Meanwhile, the Taiwan navy remains on the sidelines. Unlike Beijing, Taipei has received no invitation from the Obama administration to attend Rim of the Pacific.

It’s getting harder to tell who is an adversary and who is a friend, based on how the U.S. government treats them. (For more from the author of “Obama Makes Clear It’s Better to Be America’s Adversary Than Ally” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Refuses to Enforce ‘Right of Conscience,’ Legal Group Says

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration refuses to enforce federal law that protects Americans’ freedom of conscience, a Christian legal aid group says.

In 2014, California began mandating that employee health plans cover elective abortions. A state agency is refusing to exempt churches from the mandate, said Casey Mattox, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Churches should never be forced to cover elective abortion in their insurance plans, and for 10 years the Weldon Amendment has protected the right to have plans that do not include coverage for abortion on demand,” Mattox said in a statement.

The federal Weldon Amendment prohibits states receiving taxpayer funds under federal law from discriminating against health insurance plans that don’t cover abortion, Mattox has argued.

“The administration’s refusal to enforce [the Weldon Amendment] continues its pattern of enforcing laws it wants to enforce, refusing to enforce others, and inventing new interpretations of others out of whole cloth,” Mattox said in a formal statement.

“California has outlawed the licensing of any health care plan in the state that does not cover elective abortion. It is perfectly clear that California is violating the law and the Obama administration has frequently been refusing to enforce the law,” Mattox told The Daily Signal.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed two lawsuits in California challenging the rule.

Since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance coverage, California churches have been left without a way to opt out of paying for abortions, Alliance Defending Freedom says.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mattox said, “is obligated to go enforce this law itself, and it has decided that it is not going to enforce the law.”

“The administration’s refusal to enforce [the Weldon Amendment] continues its pattern of enforcing laws it wants to enforce, refusing to enforce others, and inventing new interpretations of others out of whole cloth,” Mattox said in a statement.

The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services sent a response letter to several formal complaints filed by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom over the California Department of Managed Health Care’s decision to force all employers to cover elective abortions.

In the letter, the Obama administration dismissed the “right of conscience” complaints after concluding that California’s law does not violate federal law, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Jocelyn Samuels, director of the federal agency’s Office for Civil Rights, wrote in the response letter: “A finding that [California Department of Managed Health Care] has violated the Weldon Amendment might require the government to rescind all funds appropriated under the Appropriations Act to the state of California.”

Rescinding the taxpayer money, Samuels added, “would raise substantial questions about the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.”

Addressing that position, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Mattox said:

The Obama administration says enforcing the Weldon Amendment against California would violate the Constitution because you would be withholding all of these funds from the state. Which is very interesting because at the exact same time, you have the administration telling North Carolina that it’s going to withhold funds under the exact same appropriations bill.

The Justice Department sent North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, a letter in May saying the state’s “bathroom bill” violated federal law. The measure, which McCrory signed in March, made bathrooms in government buildings accessible based on a person’s biological sex, not his or her gender identity.

This is a “blatant contradiction,” Mattox said.

“Basically, the administration is speaking out of both sides of its mouth,” he said. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Refuses to Enforce ‘Right of Conscience,’ Legal Group Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Benghazi Widow Rebukes Clinton for Telling Country to ‘Move On’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The wife of one of the men killed during the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, rebuked Hillary Clinton on Thursday for encouraging the country to “move on” four years after the violence.

Dorothy Woods, the widow of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, told CNN’s Erin Burnett in her first interview since the attacks that she found Clinton’s comments to be in sync with other “dismissive” remarks from critics of the Benghazi investigation. The probe has been slammed by Democrats as partisan and more focused on harming Clinton than on finding out the truth about the September 11, 2012, attack.

“Nobody in government can tell me how I feel, what I should feel about it,” Woods said. “She has no right — nor does anyone in government have the right — to tell me it’s time to move on. They’re not in my shoes.” (Read more from “Benghazi Widow Rebukes Clinton for Telling Country to ‘Move On'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came From Phoenix

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.

The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.

It’s not clear if the agency, which is responsible for cracking down on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, did this because the individual was involved in the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme. (Read more from “Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came From Phoenix” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Pro-Life’ GOP Ups the Budget for International Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

For all the talk about partisanship in Washington, 90 percent of legislative initiatives are actually bipartisan, especially the bills that affect the funding of critical policies. The latest example is the Senate Appropriations Committee, controlled by Republicans, which just passed the annual State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill increasing funding for abortions internationally.

To begin with, this $52.8 billion spending bill is full of billions of dollars in foreign aid, food aid, security aid, and all sorts of AID for wasteful programs of dubious importance, all too often, for enemy nations and entities. This is the bill that funds the primary government department that deals with diplomacy in addition to extra funding for “overseas contingency operations.” I could think of dozens of germane amendments Republican members, with their simple majority on the committee, could have added to the underlying bill that would have actually addressed serious threats. For example, amendments blocking funding for the Palestinians, the Iran deal, and Syrian rebels.

They could have defunded Obama’s refugee surge center established by the State Department and could have placed a number of restrictions on State Department activity with refugee resettlement, as that is the department that first deals with refugee policy in terms of initially admitting them to the country. Republicans could have also placed restrictions on Obama promoting his homosexual and transgender agenda, ironically, on moderate Muslim regimes that fight the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic terrorists who throw gay people off buildings.

Yet, not a single amendment combating a single Obama foreign policy was added to the bill from this panel of very weak Republicans. What did they add instead? Here is a summary from Congressional Quarterly (subscription required):

An adopted amendment from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., increases by $124 million funding for direct support to foreign countries for family planning activities, raising the overall amount to $585 million.

The Shaheen measure, which was adopted by a 17-13 vote, also provides $37.5 million in funding to the U.N. Population Fund where none had been provided in the underlying bill. The amendment lastly strips from the legislation Republican language reinstating the so-called Mexico City policy, which forbids any U.S. dollars going to a foreign NGO that provides information about or performs abortions.

Senate appropriators also adopted by voice vote an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-O.R., to provide $500 million to the U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund where the base bill would have denied any funding. [emphasis added]

So there were enough votes on the GOP-majority-controlled committee to add more funding for abortions and funding for the UN’s global warming scam. Got that? Not only are Republicans incapable and unwilling to block taxpayer funding for abortions in American, they can’t even stop funding for abortions on an international scope, even in their own spending bills. Remember, without the Mexico City policy in place, the $585 million in international family planning funds will be used for abortions, not that we should be funding those programs anyway.

There is one more important amendment that passed during committee markup. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) proposed an amendment authorizing states and localities to divest from entities that participate in the boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Unfortunately, Senator Kirk felt a need to attach language making it clear that our government still delegitimizes Israel’s retention of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. He added that “nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the established policy of the United States concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation.” Why was this added?

Some might say Kirk wanted to keep this a bipartisan endeavor and wanted to appease Democrats by tossing in the pro-Palestinian nonsense. But even with this language, 9 of the 14 Democrats voted against the anti-BDS provision. Given that Republicans have a majority on the committee, why not just draw a bold contrast with Democrats and stand for moral clarity? Just today, a young Palestinian teenager crept into a Jewish town in Judea a stabbed to death a 13-year-old girl in her bed while she was sleeping.

The notion that there is any moral equivalence between Jews building homes in their homeland that they won back in a defensive war (after it was illegally occupied by Jordan) and brutal terrorists illegally occupying land that was never given to them, is reprehensible. The only binding resolution of international law that has never been countermanded to this day is the July 1922 Mandate for Palestine, which calls for the creation of a Jewish national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan River. Once the League of Nations was disbanded and the United Nations took its place, they agreed to maintain all agreements and not “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. [Article 80, UN Charter] The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations was the last legally binding document. In Article 5 of the Mandate it explicitly states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

The Arab squatters living in that region have no right to a state in that land, much less a right to murder those who build homes in the rightful territory of their state duly adopted by international law. Why couldn’t Republicans stand on bold colors and defund the Palestinian government altogether, which is responsible for inciting the very sort of jihad that took place this morning? How could Republicans fund an Islamic supremacist government for even one more day? We as may as well send $500 million a year to Raqqa to bolster the Islamic State, albeit attach a provision saying no funds can be used for terrorism!

Whether it’s abortion, global warming, Islamic refugee resettlement, or Islamic terror there is no moral clarity within the ranks of either party. Who needs Democrats when Republicans will validate and consummate all of their policies anyway? (For more from the author of “‘Pro-Life’ GOP Ups the Budget for International Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Bills That Can Stop Obama’s Transgender Makeover of the Military

/0 Comments/in , /by

The President and the Secretary of Defense have a message for our ruthless enemies. No, it’s not that they will lift the egregious and immoral rules of engagement on our special operators that are getting US troops killed and preserving our enemies. It is that those who live a transgender lifestyle will now be serving openly in the military. There is no word yet on those who live a trans-human lifestyle or suffer from other unfortunate hallucinatory illnesses that are otherwise medically unfit to serve.

What is Congress’ responsibility?

Congress must say no immediately. Members of Congress have three legislative vehicles viewed as must-pass that can easily be used to overturn this unilateral action: the defense authorization bill currently in conference committee, the defense appropriations bill, and the intelligence reauthorization bill.

If Congress can’t stop this unilateral move they should shut out the lights in their offices and save taxpayer funds.

At a time when the military leaders dramatically need to be gaming out a plan on how to prevent our 15 years in Afghanistan from becoming utterly worthless, and preserving our military strategy in dozens of countries, as well as war-gaming against Iranian aggression: here is what our enemies will see our military leaders working on [Military Times]:

Senior military leaders will have 90 days to draw up a detailed implementation plans that will address issues that include:

How the military health system will provide health care to transgender troops, to include medical support for gender transitions.

When a transgender service member will begin adhering to a different gender’s grooming standards and uniform-wear rules.

How and when a transgender service member will transition to new physical fitness standards.

When a commander should consider moving transgender soldiers into alternative barracks or birthing quarters.

How unit-level commanders should address a range issues related to deployments, job assignments and training that may arise among troops undergoing gender transitions.

How troops can undergo the bureaucratic process for changing their gender marker in the official Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, known as DEERS.

In your wildest imagination, could you ever have envisioned a day when something like this would be drafted in any social setting – not designed as a parody – much less in our military during a time of war?

Folks, this has gone too far. Obama has turned our military into the most grotesque social experimentation, promoting the broader homosexual agenda, women in all areas of combat at any and all costs, sensitivity training, promotion of Islam, and sickening rules of engagement. He has replaced the entire military brass and has installed left-wing politicians as generals to obsequiously carry out his orders. As I’ve noted before, the morale in the military was already near an all-time low, and that was two years ago. This must be the final straw. It’s time to put an end to this.

The notion of inviting those with such an illness is not only immoral, illogical, and dangerous during a time of war, it will create a logistical nightmare on our already-stressed military. Soldiers live together in close quarters more than individuals in any other aspect of life. From basic training through the actual service, members from each respective gender shower in one open room in their separate facilities. Are we now going to have males with male genitalia showering with the women?

While the numbers of those who live such a lifestyle in the military are clearly much less than the 2,500 to 7,000 figure advertised by the administration and the sexual identity lobby, this policy will invite endless provocation from this group. Think of all the religious and personal liberty/privacy problems that will arise from this at a time when Obama has already mandated a culture of anti-religious bigotry in the military?

When Congress returns from the holiday break we will find out if there is any degree of decadence to which Obama will stoop that will elicit an appropriate response from Republicans. (For more from the author of “3 Bills That Can Stop Obama’s Transgender Makeover of the Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.