Dear Rainbow Jihad: Whatever Happened to Love Is Love?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dear Rainbow Jihad,

Why isn’t there any room at the end of your LGBTQWTF gender-bending train for a mom and her son who like to get busy with one another? Where do you get off denying consenting adults their feelings?

After all, “love is love” and “same love” and all that, right?

Comments on at least one progressive website are calling this incestuous New Mexico hook up icky and gross. Um, why, pray tell? Whatever happened to “love wins?”

Or have you been lying to us this whole time?

Because it seems to me poor Monica Mares, 36, and her son Caleb Peterson, 19 — who Mares didn’t raise and offered up for adoption after she had him as a teenager — are cruel victims of a terrible double standard. They face up to 18 months in prison if found guilty of incest at a trial next month. But all they have done since they reunited with each other last Christmas is love each other. They lived happily together in Mares’ mobile home with her two youngest children, and Mares’ youngest son even began calling Peterson (his brother) ‘dad’.

A little strange perhaps, but in a world of ‘my two daddies’ and Bruce Jenner winning ‘woman of the year’ honors, I would have thought ‘who am I to judge’ was standard-issue moralizing by now. A new book was even just released called Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex, which is described as “a philosophical analysis” of what “intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral.”

C’mon, man, get on the right side of history! All the cool kids are doing it. Do you bigots want to go back to banning interracial dating or something?

Mares, for her part, at least has the courage to sprint to the progressive Valhalla when others only dare to crawl. What an inspiration, that wonderful mother of nine. In fact, she is so unfazed by the threat of jail, she insists she would even give up the right to see all her other kids should the courts demand she choose between them and her mother lover.

Why on earth would anyone stand in the way of such a powerful urge, perhaps their one and only shot to be who they truly are?

“We (are) both consenting adults,” said Peterson. “It’s just like the gays. This whole case is about whether I have the right to love somebody and I sure as hell have the right to love Monica. You can’t tell me who to love, who not to love.”

That’ll preach. Go tell it on the mountain, Caleb, over the hills and everywhere.

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against two consenting adults at all?

“But what about genetic birth defects,” you say? Have ye not heard of the sacred right to kill your own offspring? They wouldn’t stop yelling about it just a few weeks ago at the Democrat National Convention. It’s all the rage.

Bottom line: Every child must be a wanted child, and if that child ain’t wanted, Dr. Gosnell is ready and waiting to see you. I fail to see what the problem is. Besides, what if a father and son want to get their freak on? Since neither has a uterus, there’s no risk of a conception, so why not let their freak flag fly?

I sincerely hope you precious snowflakes/social justice warriors aren’t just as guilty of “discrimination” as those bitterly clinging to their guns and their Bibles. Where is your sense of diversity? Your desire for tolerance? Where is your ‘get your government out of my bedroom and my ovaries now? Where is your sense of justice here?

As we speak, Mares is forced to walk the streets and suffer shameful indignities at the hands of those who approach her on the street and “call me incest.” Can anyone say “hate crime?” If there’s no place for BYU in the Big 12 Conference because it refuses to sanction sex among non-married heterosexuals on campus, then there’s no place for this blatant bigotry, either.

You’ve already heroically shut down businesses for not participating in homosexuality, as well as moved the NBA all-star game because North Carolina dared to deny men in skirts and lipstick fulfilling their fantasies in the girls’ bathroom. So what on earth are you waiting for? Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Not to mention fair is fair. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So get equal already. If this applies to the homosexual couple recently “married” by Vice President Joe Biden, please explain why it doesn’t apply to Mares-Peterson. And no, crickets chirping isn’t an answer. Let freedom ring!

“Sometimes the easy way isn’t the best way,” Peterson said. “Sometimes we have to make that life decision that’s going to change and affect everything but when it comes down to it, it’s worth it.”

That’s powerful stuff, which once again proves that heroes don’t always wear capes, my friends. Sometimes, they just really, really, really love their moms. (For more from the author of “Dear Rainbow Jihad: Whatever Happened to Love Is Love?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

US Olympians Proclaim Their Faith to NBC Audience

/0 Comments/in , /by

Olympic divers David Boudia and Steele Johnson have always been open about their Christian faith.

At the Olympic games in Rio De Janiero Monday, the pair had a special opportunity to share their faith after competing in the 10-meter synchronized dive event at the Maria Lenk Aquatic Center.

Standing on the platform, prior to their dive, the two men qouted Philipians 4:6. They then bumped fists and executed a dive which earned a silver medal for the U.S. team.

“This has been a phenomenal journey for both of us and I don’t think I would have been able to go through something like this without such a friend and a brother like Steele,” Boudia said.

Johnson said of Boudia, “I’ve learned so much from this guy about diving, about life, about faith, about being a man that I wouldn’t be where I am today without this guy teaching me along the way.”

Boudia admitted that when he focuses on diving, he begins to define himself by that, which tends to make his mind crazy.

“But we both know that our identity is in Christ,” Boudia told NBC.

Johnson shared a similar sentiment.

“The fact that I was going into this event knowing that my identity is rooted in Christ and not what the result of this competition is just gave me peace … and it let me enjoy the contest,” Johnson said.

A terrible accident in 2009 threatened to kill Johnson’s dream of competing in the Olympics.

While practicing, he fell on the concrete platform, fracturing his skull before tumbling into the pool 33 feet below.

The accident left him with stitches and some memory loss.

Johnson credits his faith for his recovery as well as his diving ability.

“He gave me this ability to dive,” he said. “God kept me alive and he is still giving me the ability to do what I do.”

When asked about his diving ability, Boudia had a similar philosophy.

“We can’t take credit for this. To God be the glory,” Boudia said.

Johnson said he did not want the fact that he is an Olympic medal winner to identify his life, adding that while he is an Olympian, he is also called to love and serve Christ.

“My identity is rooted in Christ, not in the flips we’re doing,” he said. (For more from the author of “US Olympians Proclaim Their Faith to NBC Audience” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslim Olympian Has Strong Words About Donald Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad [was] recognized not only as the first athlete to compete in the Olympics while wearing a hijab, but also for her remarks about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Muhammad was interviewed by CNN and was asked if she felt Trump was dangerous. “I think that his words are very dangerous,” she responded.

“When these types of comments are made, no one thinks about how they really affect people,” she said.

In December, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” He has since dropped the religious reference, saying now that the United States should “suspend temporarily immigration from regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters coming to the U.S.”

Muhammad, who was born and raised in New Jersey, said the United States is her home and she has no other home to go to.

Continuing, Muhammad said, “I’m hopeful, that in my efforts, you know, to represent our country well as an athlete, that they change the rhetoric around, you know, how people think and perceive the Muslim community.”

After the interview was posted on Facebook, a lot of people criticized CNN, saying it was just more biased reporting against Trump.

One Facebook user wrote: “I liked this story until it became an attack against Trump. Now I can care less if she wins a medal or not and CNN is getting worse for news by the hour.”

Another posted: “CNN – you are the most biased station in the world. You cause trouble where there is none.”

Muhammad has taken the opportunity prior to the CNN interview to express her thoughts on Trump.

In December, she issued the following tweet:

When, in February, Muhammad was asked to comment on Trump’s policies on Muslims, she said, “I think that unfortunately we have people who are in the presidential race who are providing a platform for hate speech and fearmongering and they’re creating a space where it’s acceptable to speak out against immigrants, to speak out against Muslims …”

She added that she felt the atmosphere was scary and she was concerned about the safety of minorities.

Muhammad revealed that while growing up, she and her siblings were involved in sports; however they were required to wear long pants and long sleeves while participating.

She said she was drawn to fencing because it allowed her to wear the same uniform that her friends wore.

On Monday, Muhammad was eliminated in her second bout in the women’s sabre tournament, falling to Cecilia Berder of France. (For more from the author of “Muslim Olympian Has Strong Words About Donald Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Incumbent in Alaska’s Most Conservative District Responds to Challenger

/0 Comments/in , /by

Primary Elections are important! But, don’t be tempted to vote for a candidate based on partial truths, errors, or false implications. I am honored to be the sitting legislator of District 10 and am seeking re-election. The pursuit of and desire to become a public servant is an honorable part of our Constitutional Republic. However, I challenge my opponent to do so with extreme care, to not compromise accuracy for a short-term gain, to speak honorably.

I believe it is my responsibility to refute some of what is being stated in this campaign season. I invite you to visit the legislative archives and State law to verify these clarifications.

* I, Wes Keller, have in fact served as an Alaska State Legislator for NINE years. My first budget vote was in March, 2008. This was a memorable event for me with 29 Republican Majority “Yeas”, and 10 Democrat “Nays”; this was before the huge oil revenue drop.

* I am running for my FIFTH term. 2008 was my first election cycle.

* I am NOT in favor of term-limits for State level legislators. Each year there is more to learn and progressive learning provides more insight, experience, and makes us better communicating legislators as we work together. A State representative has a built-in, robust term limit every two years (re-election). US Congress term limits, on the other hand, are a completely different animal. I fully support Congressional term limits and welcome any opportunity to explain this further.

* My voting decisions are based on who I am in terms of values. It has been liberating and freeing to be true to myself, and thereby represent a majority of my constituents. It is my job to be transparent on voting decisions so constituents can decide if I do in fact represent them. I DO NOT vote based on party line, but my values align very well with the traditional Republican Party platform. I am pro-life, pro-family, pro-small business, and pro-limited government – and, I work grounded in the foundational values of American Constitutionalism. It has been an honor to be part of the Majority Caucus, whose consensus plan is determined each election cycle by the majority caucus of each house. This “consensus plan” is a compromise team to enable budget passage. This is why it is so important to make sure your legislator’s values represent your own. It is naïve, at best, to vow to not vote for a budget, or to promise to not join either the minority or majority ‘team’ (caucus). The bi-annual hope for us conservatives is that Alaskans will send enough strong conservatives to shape the consensus plan, to make the spending cuts we need. We are at a critical time in Alaskan history, and we need effective, experienced conservative legislators representing all Alaskans.

* The Governor made the decision on the PFD veto without the Legislature’s approval – It seems to be, in a “knee-jerk” reaction to the Legislature’s attempt to block revenue measures. Special Session agendas, in this case, were set by the Governor. The bills “handled” were approved/requested/negotiated with the Governor. An individual legislator CANNOT dictate what the Governor does and the Governor CANNOT dictate what the legislature decides. Each legislator MUST WORK with the other 59 legislators to come to a collective agreement.

Some general clarifications:

Alaskans are increasingly aware we do indeed have a fiscal crisis and are asking why? How did we get to spending more per capita than any other state? Are we going to have to liquidate or downsize some of our ‘crown jewels assets’? If so, which ones: Education (K-12 and UA)? Social Services (Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.)? The Ferry system? Obviously, none of these would be beneficial to get rid of completely, so there is give and take in how to encompass the best major reform for the majority of Alaskans. I will fight to keep government limited, cut extra spending, and keep what most benefits Alaskans.

Constitutionally, it is the Alaska Legislature (NOT the Governor) who carries the responsibility for spending decisions. Spending decisions are a product of legislative consensus in the budget process. The budget process is a product of years and years of legislative rules and laws, and it is a slow process to change. Spending level reductions are directly tied to:

1. available revenue (we cannot spend what we do not have), and

2. the willingness of Alaskans to re-elect a majority of conservative spenders.

Nothing happens quickly or efficiently in a republic (by design). We must balance the budget BEFORE any new taxes – for sure BEFORE spending PF earnings.

The source of “All political power is inherent in the PEOPLE” (Art 1, Section 2). It is the voter’s decision whether they want an experienced legislator or ‘new blood’. I respect this power, and believe it is very, very wrong to intentionally mislead voters to either end. I will respect voter choice even if I believe they have been misled, but am obligated to try to eliminate confusions. Alaska is small, so every constituent has the ability to contact their legislator directly. Your voice, or lack of, DOES define Alaska.

The truth is I believe I am the best option for my constituents to best protect the interests of Alaskans. The Alaska Family Council | Alaska Family Action also believes this. The following is a recommendation from them:

“This one is a no-brainer. There are 40 members of the State House of Representatives – and not one has worked harder and more effectively to advance conservative principles than Wes Keller. Wes is a soft-spoken and self-deprecating man – but when it comes to supporting pro-life and pro-family policies, he is a rock star. His experience includes nearly 10 years in the state House, and also eight years serving as Chief of Staff for former Senator Fred Dyson, another champion of conservative and Christian values.”

* “Do you support school choice? Wes Keller sponsored the constitutional amendment (HJR 1) to make school choice possible.

* Do you support protecting religious liberty? Rep. Keller sponsored the most serious bill to prevent government discrimination against people of faith (HB 325).

* Do you support stopping Planned Parenthood from indoctrinating public school students? Rep. Keller sponsored a bill (HB 192) to keep them out of our schools.

* Do you support legislation to rein in liberal, activist judges? Rep. Keller is the ONLY House member who has made serious efforts (HJR 33, HB 200) to reform our out-of-control judiciary.

* Are you opposed to abortion? Rep. Keller has sponsored and co-sponsored numerous bills to increase protections for unborn children.

* Support family values? Rep. Keller sponsored legislation to try and keep pornography out of our public libraries.”

“Alaska is full of candidates who thump their chest about being “pro-life” and “pro-family” – especially during election years – and then go down to Juneau and do absolutely nothing to move the ball down the field on those issues. Wes Keller is that refreshing exception – a man with a strong moral compass and the courage to act on what he believes. Perhaps it goes without saying, but Rep. Keller has returned our candidate survey, and is solidly in alignment with AFA on every single one of our public policy goals.”

“Rep. Keller faces off against three other Republican opponents in the August 16 primary: Steve Menard, Andrew Wright, and David Eastman. Menard and Wright have not responded to the AFA candidate survey. To his credit, Eastman has responded to our survey, and indicates strong agreement with most AFA priorities. Regardless, this primary is not a close call: exchanging Wes Keller’s 18 years of battlefield wisdom for an earnest but untested candidate is not a smart trade. We need to send Wes Keller back to Juneau, so we can keep this savvy and courageous leader working on the issues that matter most.”

“Share this information with friends who live in District 10: Mat-Su Borough (Meadow Lakes & other Wasilla-area precincts, Houston, Willow, Susitna, Trapper Creek, Talkeetna).”

All State documentation can be found at https://akleg.gov/index.php.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Child Rape Victim Comes Forward for the First Time in 40 Years to Call Hillary Clinton a ‘Liar’

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A child rape victim says she cannot forgive Hillary Clinton for defending her rapist in court 40 years ago, saying the Democratic presidential candidate attacked her credibility despite knowing that her assailant was guilty – and later laughed about it in a taped interview.

Kathy Shelton was just 12 years old when a 41-year-old drifter raped her on the side of a desolate Arkansas road in 1975.

Now, four decades later, she has agreed to be named and pictured for the first time in this Daily Mail Online exclusive because she is furious that her rapist’s defense attorney – Hillary Clinton – has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail.

‘It’s put a lot of anger back in me,’ said Shelton, now 54, in an exclusive interview at her Springdale, Arkansas, home in August. ‘Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that.’

In 1975, Clinton served as the defense lawyer for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker accused of raping Shelton after luring her to his car. (Read more from “Child Rape Victim Comes Forward for the First Time in 40 Years to Call Hillary Clinton a ‘Liar'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Gets the Best Deal It Could With DOJ on Voter ID for the Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

It looks as if Texas, the Justice Department, and all of the other parties, including the NAACP, involved in the challenge to the state’s voter ID law have worked out an interim settlement—and the district court judge approved the deal today after a telephonic hearing Wednesday morning. That deal is probably about the best deal Texas could expect to get given the circumstances and personalities in the case.

In Veasey v. Abbott, Texas (and the cause of election integrity) suffered a blow three weeks ago when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the voter ID law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it supposedly had a discriminatory effect, despite the fact that there was no evidence that the ID law had diminished turnout in Texas elections.

In fact, as the dissent pointed out in the appeals court, “despite extraordinary efforts,” neither the Justice Department nor any of the other so-called civil rights organizations who sued were able to uncover any Texas voters who were unable to vote because of the law.

The 5th Circuit sent the case back down to the district court to fashion a remedy for the small number of Texans who the court claimed could not obtain the free ID that the state issues to anyone who doesn’t already have one. It also told the district court to “re-examine” the evidence on whether the Texas Legislature had intentionally discriminated when it passed this law.

The district court judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, a 2011 President Barack Obama appointee, had found Texas guilty of purposeful discrimination even though, as the dissent noted in the appeals court, “the multi-thousand page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature.”

Ramos even made the bizarre claim that the voter ID law was a prohibited poll tax, despite the state providing free IDs to its residents. Fortunately, that wacky ruling was thrown out by the 5th Circuit.

However, on Aug. 3, the parties in the case filed a “Joint Submission of Agreed Terms” with Ramos. In it, the parties have agreed that Texas voters who don’t have one of the acceptable photo IDs under the statute will still be able to vote if they:

present a valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and an address and complete and sign a reasonable impediment declaration.

The “reasonable impediment declaration” is a reference to the type of form that is used in South Carolina, which also has a voter ID law. If a voter shows up at a polling place without an ID, he or she is able to vote upon completion of a form in which the voter declares that there was a “reasonable impediment” that prevented him from getting an ID.

This provision of South Carolina’s voter ID law was upheld as perfectly acceptable and not a violation of the Voting Rights Act by a three-judge federal panel in 2012 in South Carolina v. United States, a case in which South Carolina successfully challenged the Justice Department’s refusal to approve the ID law.

What is bizarre about this is that the North Carolina Legislature copied that “reasonable impediment” exception in its voter ID law, and yet a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that law to be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The North Carolina decision, NAACP v. McCrory, directly conflicts with the 2012 South Carolina decision. But that earlier loss by the Justice Department may help explain why it has agreed to this settlement with Texas that uses the same “reasonable impediment” exception that the 4th Circuit just invalidated.

Texas actually managed to get better terms than either North or South Carolina since, in addition to completing a “reasonable impediment” declaration, the voter will have to show some kind of document such as a utility bill or bank statement with his name and address.

This actually copies a provision in the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. § 21083(b), which requires any individual who registers to vote by mail to provide a copy of a “utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”

It is not as good as a government-issued photo ID, but this is probably about the best that Texas could get given the federal judges it is dealing with in the 5th Circuit. And it is difficult for the Justice Department to claim that a requirement modeled on a federal voting requirement is discriminatory.

Texas is also asking that language be included in the interim order issued by the district court judge that makes it clear that the state is not waiving any of its rights to seek appellate review of the decisions that have been issued in this litigation. It also wants it explicitly laid out that the Texas Legislature will not in any way be limited from fashioning its own remedy or otherwise amending the voter ID law when it returns for its 2017 session.

From the standpoint of Texas, this is probably the best deal it could get. The earlier ruling of Ramos displayed a bias against voter ID laws in general , as evidenced by her apparent belief that there are no rational reasons for a legislature to pass a voter ID law other than to discriminate against minority voters.

Fortunately, she approved the deal Wednesday. She did not approve the requested language about the Legislature, but a source tells me that she apparently recognized from the bench that she can’t prevent the Legislature from acting in the future. (For more from the author of “Texas Gets the Best Deal It Could With DOJ on Voter ID for the Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials

/0 Comments/in , /by

For many millennials, the fear of entering the “real world” is looming. We are preparing to face the financial challenges, often feeling like we are starting the trek up Mount Everest.

Many of us are scrambling to find jobs and avoiding moving back in with our parents. We recognize more and more that good jobs putting us on a promising career path are harder to find.

But our generation faces an additional challenge. Obamacare is jeopardizing our personal freedom and our financial future in ways few saw coming and many are unprepared to handle.

So many young people believe Obamacare is helping our society and will make health care more affordable, but now it is abundantly clear that the plan is harming young people.

Here are three ways Obamacare is hurting millennials:

Health Care Costs Skyrocket

Because of Obamacare, young people have seen up to a 44 percent increase in premiums because the new 3-1 ratio (older people can’t be charged more than three times the cost of a young person’s health care) forces the young to subsidize the old in the health insurance market. Not only are elderly individuals paying artificially lower prices for their insurance, but millennials are paying artificially higher prices.

This gives young people a strong monetary incentive to go without insurance and pay the annual fine for not buying insurance and then still “free ride” at the expense of the taxpayer with hospital emergency room care when they do get sick. If these regulations weren’t in place, young people’s premiums would be reduced by around $1,100.

That’s a lot of money for many young people starting in entry-level jobs, making only $10-15 an hour.

One aspect of Obamacare that seemed appealing to millennials on the surface was that if they are age 26 or younger they can stay on their parent’s plan—assuming their parents have employment-based coverage. However, if they don’t, they must enroll through the health insurance exchanges, where their choices are scarce. If they don’t do either, they must pay a fine. What we want to do is enroll in less expensive health plans of our choice. We can’t do that under these restrictions.

In addition, some options that were specifically designed for young people have been outlawed. Most college students only need and want basic coverage, which they could get through a limited benefit plan. Obamacare has abolished these minimum coverage caps (the plan’s minimum amount of money used to cover medical expenses) that characterizes these short-term, college plans. This desirable option of limited, short-term insurance coverage is now no longer available for students.

Instead of expanding coverage, some young people have decided to go without. That defeats the whole purpose of this law.

Harder to Keep Jobs

Because of Obamacare’s mandates on businesses, employers are increasingly forced to cut back on hiring and hours of work.

Employers are forced to purchase expensive insurance packages at the risk of being fined. The law mandates to anyone employing 50 or more full-time employees to purchase federally standardized health insurance. This coverage is often very expensive because of the inclusion of a wide range of government-mandated benefits.

If businesses don’t offer the federally-approved coverage, they can be fined at a rate of $2,000 to $3,000 for each employee who isn’t covered. Employers deal with this by not absorbing the costs, but passing it on to their workers. How? By slashing hours, cutting wages, rolling back other benefits, and firing people with the least seniority.

It’s not surprising that people have had to take multiple jobs just to support themselves. For young people entering the workforce, this doesn’t make our chances of securing jobs upon graduation any easier.

An Explosion of the National Debt

If the above two reasons weren’t enough to make a young person worry, this point will for sure.

As of March 2015, Obamacare has a net cost of $1.207 trillion over the next 10 years and will add an additional $17 trillion over the next 75 years in unfunded liabilities. Our national debt is over $19 trillion, so how is the United States supposed to pay for this? Oh, that’s right, it will increase taxes on the young people who will continue to pay for Obamacare, as well as the other giant federal entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for the rest of our lives.

Not only are the young subsidizing the old through Obamacare’s unfair insurance rating rules, they are also subsidizing a large and rapidly-growing elderly population—including wealthy retirees—through their payroll and income taxes.

Imagine how much that will end up costing. Imagine how much of our hard-earned money will go toward big entitlement programs like this one, which we might never benefit from. If the goal was simply to provide help for those who could not afford health insurance, we could have easily done it without incurring Obamacare’s massive cost and debt. But that wasn’t the goal. The goal was more government intervention, and less of the free market; sadly it seems to be working.

A Better Solution for Young People

There is a better way to help the millions of Americans struggling to find affordable coverage, but not at a debilitating cost to young people.

Congressional Republicans, led by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently released a plan that embraces a free marketplace, respects personal freedom, allows Americans to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, and embraces the diversity of this wonderful land we call America.

Ryan’s plan would reform the health care system, starting with the repeal of Obamacare. The plan states: “This law cannot be fixed. Its knots of regulations, taxes, and mandates cannot be untangled.”

The congressional Republican plan will allow people to buy insurance anywhere in America, creating a highly competitive national market for health insurance.

It would give Americans more options, better quality, and intense competition that would lower costs. States would be able to regulate their own health insurance markets, meaning that Washington could no longer force employers and individuals to purchase “Washington-mandated” health plans. It would mean that young people would be able to buy insurance that fits their needs, rather than pay artificially inflated insurance premiums.

Removing the employer mandate would mean that businesses would be able to purchase coverage that is best for them, and they would be able to balance health benefits with wages and other benefits. It would also open up job opportunities, enabling businesses to hire more full-time staff instead of many part-time staff, creating more job security and larger paychecks. That would be a direct benefit to young people entering the workforce.

Obamacare was supposed to lower costs and increase access to care. While insurance coverage has increased, health care costs have soared, particularly for the young. The most energetic new workers are being slammed with higher costs of insurance, including big deductibles—forcing many to go without.

President Barack Obama said his plan would not only expand coverage, but would also control costs, reduce typical family premiums, and expand competition. In fact, its biggest achievement has been to increase cost and expand government control.

Many of our peers don’t like conservatives very much, but they don’t realize that the Ryan alternative to Obamacare will lower insurance costs—especially for millennials. This plan was created with an understanding that young people shouldn’t bear the entire burden and recognizes that our future should be full of excitement and opportunity, not high taxes, suffocating bureaucracy, and crippling premiums. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iranian President Asks His Friend Mr. Obama to ‘Fix’ a $2 Billion Court Ruling

/0 Comments/in , /by

…Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President Obama demanding the release of $2 billion in Iranian funds that were seized from bank accounts in New York earlier this year.

The money was taken to compensate family members of victims of the 1983 bombing of a Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and other attacks blamed on Iran under a Supreme Court ruling in April. In all, 1,300 American victims have a legal claim to the money.

Ahmadinejad — known for his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism — is said to be considering a political comeback and may be using Obama as a pawn to improve his standing.

“It is the clear expectation of the Iranian nation that the particular case of property seizure … be quickly fixed by your excellency and that not only the Iranian nation’s rights be restored and the seized property released and returned, but also the damage caused be fully compensated for,” says the letter from Ahmadinejad, which was made public Monday . . .

The letter comes as Obama is already taking heat for sending Iran $400 million in cash last January just as it released four American detainees. (Read more from “Iranian President Asks His Friend Mr. Obama to ‘Fix’ a $2 Billion Court Ruling” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is the Mainstream Media Completely Ignoring Christian Genocide by ISIS?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The major news networks of ABC, CBS and NBC have remained silent on the Christian genocide perpetrated by ISIS, the Media Research Center (MRC) reports.

The number of Christians driven from their homes, raped, mutilated, crucified or otherwise executed by members of the Islamic State is “staggering,” writes Matt Philbin.

Christian holy sites are being destroyed for “cultural cleansing,” entire villages in Nigeria have been slaughtered, Christian students murdered in classrooms in Kenya, and churches bombed in Pakistan and Syria.

At least 1,131 Christians are known to have been murdered by the Islamic State for religiously motivated purposes, and that’s “just the tip of the iceberg”:

ISIS has publically beheaded or burned alive Christians for refusing to renounce their faith and convert. In Syria, the group crucified dozens. ISIS broke up Christian and Yazidi families and sold young girls into sex slavery. It destroyed Christian holy sites in an attempt to erase all pre-Islamic history, and announced it will continue to wage war against “the Jews, the Christians, the pagans, and the apostates.”

A March 18, 2016 article in the Christian Science Monitor cited the evangelical Christian group Open Doors, which found that more than 7,000 “Christians were killed because of their faith last year,” and that doesn’t necessarily include the numbers from Iraq, Syria, or even North Korea, where accurate data are difficult to obtain.”

Meanwhile, the mainstream American media has ignored these acts of genocide. In a study by MRC, the media watchdog found:

Between January 2014 and June 2016, the network evening news shows referred to persecution against Christians in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia just 60 times. Despite telling of murders, forced religious conversions and mass displacement, the networks refused to add up the thousands of atrocities to what they clearly amount to: genocide. Just six of the 60 reports used the word genocide. Put another way, over two years, they mentioned the Christian genocide on just four separate days. Even when Secretary of State John Kerry officially declared in March 2016 that ISIS was engaging in genocide, CBS didn’t report it.

Comparatively, the media referred to the “genocide” in Darfur even before the George W. Bush administration officially acknowledged the Sudanese horror as such. Subsequently, the mainstream networks referred to the Darfur “genocide” 38 times in a two-year period.

When the mainstream networks have referred to the slaughter of Christians by ISIS as “genocide,” they’ve done so in a manner minimizing the global tragedies:

The six instances where the networks have used “genocide” or equivalent terms, they’ve tended to lump Christians in with Yazidis and Shia Muslims as victims, echoing the Obama administration’s reluctance to focus on the anti-Christian violence. During the two years MRC Culture analyzed, one source has recorded 226 Muslim- on-Christian attacks. At least 125 churches have been attacked. According to one Christian group, 7,000 Christians worldwide were killed because of their faith in 2015 alone. Yet even when the Obama administration has (officially and unofficially) called the Christian persecution in Iraq and Syria genocide, the networks almost never used the word.

The journalists working for mainstream news can’t plead ignorance to the situation. As the MRC states, “By their own reporting, hundreds of thousands of Christians are ‘on the run’ from their homes, mass graves have been found, and Christians have been made to ‘convert or die.’”

Connecting said dots, it can lead to only one conclusion: genocide.

The silence is deafening. (For more from the author of “Why Is the Mainstream Media Completely Ignoring Christian Genocide by ISIS?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

High Risk of Modern Slavery in Nearly 60 Percent of Countries, Global Index Finds

/0 Comments/in , /by

Almost 60 percent of countries are at high risk of using slave labor in their supply chains, according to a new global index launched on Thursday, which also ranked North Korea as having the worst record of slave labor in the world.

By assessing incidents of human trafficking or slavery, national laws, and the quality of law enforcement across 198 countries, risk analytics company Verisk Maplecroft found that 115 countries were at high or extreme risk of using slaves.

“Few countries in the world are actually immune to modern slavery,” said Alex Channer, lead analyst for human rights research at Verisk Maplecroft.

Nearly 46 million people around the world are living as slaves, forced to work in factories, mines and farms, sold for sex, trapped in debt bondage or born into servitude, according to the 2016 Global Slavery Index by rights group Walk Free Foundation.

Modern slavery has become a catch-all term to describe human trafficking, forced labor, debt bondage, sex trafficking, forced marriage and other slave-like exploitation. (Read more from “High Risk of Modern Slavery in Nearly 60 Percent of Countries, Global Index Finds” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.