Fox News Hit With Lawsuit: Network ‘Sex-Fueled, Playboy Mansion-Like Cult’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former anchor Andrea Tantaros has filed a lawsuit against Fox News Channel, asserting retaliation for lodging sexual harassment claims against former chairman Roger Ailes, The New York Times reported.

The Tantaros lawsuit, filed in Manhattan state Supreme Court Monday, also claims she was harassed by other executives at the network . . .

“Fox News masquerades as a defender of traditional family values, but behind the scenes, it operates like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny,” the Times quoted Tantaros’ lawsuit . . .

According to published reports, some two dozen Fox News staff have since claimed harassment issues, including star host Megyn Kelly . . .

Tantaros says she complained that another Fox executive, Irena Briganti, had been attacking her. Tantaros lawsuit asserts that [Bill] Shine “told Tantaros that Briganti is like a rabid dog on a chain that we can’t control. Sometimes that dog gets off the chain.” (Read more from “Fox News Hit With Lawsuit: Network ‘Sex-Fueled, Playboy Mansion-Like Cult'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Diagnosing Hillary: Did Top Aide Seek ‘Treatment’ for Clinton?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton has had a “serious concussion,” falls, double vision and other health episodes, causing great concern for her physical health – and now it’s been revealed that one of her top aides extensively researched a drug used to treat Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.

While he worked for her at the State Department, Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan investigated the drug Provigil, according to an October 2011 emails sent to Clinton.

In one email, Sullivan tells Clinton the military administers Provigil, a drug that’s also used to treat narcolepsy and sleep-wake disorders.

“Provigil is used to treat excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder (sleepiness during scheduled waking hours among people who work at night or on rotating shifts),” Sullivan wrote in a prior email, according to the Daily Caller.

He said doctors often prescribe Provigil to treat “excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis.” (Read more from “Diagnosing Hillary: Did Top Aide Seek ‘Treatment’ for Clinton?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Stealth War: Placing Special Ops in Syria and Libya … to What End?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Place our brave soldiers into an Islamic civil war first, ask questions about national security interests and strategy later. That has essentially been the modus operandi of our military adventures in the Middle East for this past generation.

In the waning months of the Obama presidency, few in the media have bothered to report that Obama is continuing to ratchet up the missions of our special operators, using them as his private mercenary force to save political face from quagmires in the Middle East until he leaves the White House and everything falls apart on the watch of the next president. As we observed in July, despite the much-vaunted debate over pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has actually increased troop levels in those regions in recent months. At the same time, he has placed draconian restrictions on their ability to fight the enemy and has failed to formulate any long-term strategic goals.

Meanwhile, the Taliban reportedly operate in more territory than they did before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. The military just dispatched another 100 soldiers to Helmand province, which is overrun by the Taliban. Earlier today, at least one U.S. soldier was killed there in a roadside bombing and another one was seriously injured. What exactly are these 100 soldiers to do? How many more good men have to die for an aimless mission to prop up a Sharia government?

Obama wants to use our special ops as his private band aid as a panacea for the deep wounds he has sown throughout the region. Misusing special operators for impetuous crisis management with no broader strategy allows Obama to keep troop levels artificially low and avoid scrutiny from Congress or the media. Now he has added two more theaters to the war to nowhere: Libya and Syria.

Libya

Although the dubious mission behind Benghazi might seem like a thing of the past, our lack of strategy in the country has continued to fester since 2012. Obama has kept special operators on the ground for years, and now, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is finally admitting that they are involved in ground and air campaigns against the Islamic State in Sirte. While any war against the Islamic State sounds worthy, Obama is getting us sucked into the same Middle East sink hole that has plagued us for over a decade. Who exactly are we fighting for? Who will hold this ground?

While our troops on the ground are busy fighting an aimless war, the elected government in Tobruk just voted against joining the US-backed (and UN) Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. Obama is trying to successfully block reformers from fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, much like he tried to do in Egypt against the government of el-Sisi.

In 2014, the only democratically held elections resulted in the creation of a government in Tobruk (northeastern Libya) committed to rooting out the radical Islamists. The duly-elected Libyan House of Representatives appointed Khalifa Haftar commander of the Libyan army. Haftar successfully took back much of eastern Libya from the radical Islamists and fought the various terrorist factions, including those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Haftar was so feared by the Islamists that Ansar al Sharia, the group behind the Benghazi attack, accused Haftar of launching “a war against the religion and Islam backed by the West and their Arab allies.” Naturally, Obama and the international community didn’t appreciate the war on their Muslim Brotherhood friends so they installed a government in Tripoli, which includes a number of Islamist factions and is not very popular. Now, the Tobruk government has rejected the U.S. backed government – all the while our troops are on the ground fighting for …?

Syria

It’s not just the Islamic State that is in Syria. A multitude of Islamic factions, along with the Assad Administration, are fighting each other. Yet, our special operators are on the ground there to help “the rebels.” Not only is it unclear what ground they are holding and for whom, our soldiers are not even allowed to engage in combat while being placed in combat. As Eli Lake reported last week, their job is to not get shot at! This is similar to the dynamic in Afghanistan where special operators are being tasked with keeping the entire country together with a small force but they must call a lawyer before even calling in close air support. What happens when our soldiers are placed in an untenable situation? Last week, they were almost bombed by Syrian aircraft because nobody is coordinating a broader mission there that serves our strategic interests.

Syria is full of multiple enemy factions. Al Nusra recently decided to get in on the “Syrian rebel” racket that western countries have been offering. They decided to cut ties with Al Qaeda and rename themselves Jabhat Fath al-Sham (JFS), seizing the opportunity to unite the rebel factions. They now have an English-speaking Aussie spokesman with a Twitter account to boot. So will Obama’s myopic focus in Syria now lead him to back these Islamists as well simply because they are rebels? It’s no coincidence that Obama’s UN envoy vetoed an effort to designate Ahar-al-Sham, a close ally of Nusra, as a terror group. After all, these Islamist rebels have been more “effective” against the Islamic State than the Pentagon-backed rebels, who themselves have been pitted against CIA-backed rebels.

As Andy McCarthy puts it, by doubling down on the Syrian engagement “we’d simply be empowering one set of anti-American Islamists against another.” The entire effort against Assad and the Islamic State is dominated by groups with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as Thomas Joscelyn chronicles so clearly at The Long War Journal. What do we stand to benefit from getting involved in a viper pit full of enemy factions?

Why are we placing our troops into this untenable circus without first formulating a long-term plan? When there is no big picture of what we are fighting for, or worse, if we are downright fighting for the Muslim Brotherhood, the last thing we should be doing is placing our troops on the battlefield.

When Congress returns from summer recess, they have the opportunity to address Obama’s backwards strategy in the Middle East in both the defense authorization bill and the continuing resolution funding bill for fiscal year 2017. They can easily bar any funding, training, and equipping of rebel groups in Syria and deny any logistical support for the inept GNA in Libya. Given the track record of this Republican Congress, it’s unlikely they will even raise any concerns over Obama’s “strategy,” much less take any action. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Stealth War: Placing Special Ops in Syria and Libya … to What End?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mass Casualties Reported After Car Bomb Goes off in Popular Resort Area

/0 Comments/in , /by

A car bomb blast ripped through a hotel in Thailand on Tuesday, killing one person and injuring 29.

“The explosion happened near a hotel in the province of Pattani, an area popular with Western tourists in the country’s south,” the Daily Mail reported.

“Pictures have emerged showing the remains of a building and a fire raging inside. The nationality of those caught up in the blast is not yet known,” the outlet added.

According to RT.com, the Thai government is reporting the attacks were carried out by a group of at least 20, though denying the perpetrators are Malay-Muslim insurgents.

The attack comes days after eight simultaneous explosions rocked the seaside resort of Hua Hin last month, killing two and wounding 21.

The State Department has listed no recent travel warnings regarding Thailand.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip of Israel, Iran, North Korea, Congo, Turkey and Honduras are among locations the State Department has issued recent warnings.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said there is a “high threat from terrorism” in Thailand.

It has also advised against “all but essential travel to the provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkhla on the Thai-Malaysia border.”

The Bangkok Post offered a list of recent bombings. In February of this year, a car bomb detonated outside a police station in the southern Thailand, injuring seven.

The deadliest attack in recent years happened in October 2010, when a blast at a Bangkok apartment complex killed four people. The government blamed the incident on the anti-government Red Shirt movement, which denied any involvement, according to the Post. (For more from the author of “Mass Casualties Reported After Car Bomb Goes off in Popular Resort Area” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Global Warming Alarmists Plead: Save the Children by Not Having Them

/0 Comments/in , /by

Global warming will, of course, doom us all. That is, if the models created by scientists are any guide. Which they aren’t, since these models have for decades predicted temperatures far greater than what we actually see.

Too, our greatest natural disasters occurred long ago before global warming loomed, (as this site documents). In 1931, a flood killed perhaps two million Chinese. Forest fires in the USA are far, far below their destructive peak in the late 1920s. An awful flood happened in 1936, the same year a heat-wave killed some 12,000 Americans, which again was the same year of the highest maximum temperature.

Still, even though tornadoes, floods, fires and hurricanes are way down, the consensus is that global warming will kill us all. A hundredth of a degree increase in temperature is nothing to sneeze at, you know.

Who will fare worst in our coming climate apocalypse? That’s right! The children! The promised destruction of our littlest ones is why NPR and a group of academic philosophers say we should “protect our kids by not having them.”

Protect our kids by not having them? That’s like saying the way to protect your house from fire is by not building it, or that the way to protect against crop failure is to cease farming.

Barren wombs as cure for our climate “catastrophe” makes sense to philosophers Colin Hickey, Travis N. Rieder and Jake Earl, who defend the idea in “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change,” which will appear in the journal Social Theory and Practice (PDF). They say that “threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations” (emphasis in original).

Now all philosophical arguments start with premises, the assumptions which must be accepted to get the argument going. Here are theirs:

Two uncontroversial ideas set the stage for this article. First, climate change is among the most significant moral problems contemporary societies face, in terms of its urgency, global expanse and the magnitude of its attending harms. Second, population plays an important role in determining just how bad climate change will be.

Balderdash: both ideas are controversial and, as shown above, both are far from the truth. This is not a good beginning to their argument. As Aristotle noted, “The least degree of deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” Let’s see if that prophecy holds here.

From their premises, the authors derive this:

In procreating one makes a whole new person who will emit [greenhouse gases]. But in fact, it is more than that. By creating a new person, one makes it possible that he or she will go on to create more people, who are then able to go and create even more people.

Who knew?

This radical deduction led to this conclusion: “The question, it seems, is not whether we should implement some sort of fertility-reducing population engineering program, but rather which interventions such a program should include.”

From there it was a short hop to the heading “Population Engineering Policies: Coercion and Choice Enhancement.”

Did somebody say coercion?

Somebody did. “This includes policies that involve straightforward violations of citizens’ autonomy or bodily integrity.” Not to worry. “Straightforwardly coercive interventions to reduce human population growth are almost always wrong.”

Almost always.

The other end of the scale of “total coercion” is pestering the population with putrid propaganda: e.g., “Poster campaigns featuring images of small, happy families and national slogans have been used widely” in other countries. While finding it distasteful, they don’t outright reject “outright misinformation, deception or manipulation,” and assure us they “would not endorse just any token preference-adjusting intervention to reduce fertility.” Grand of them.

They also put forward “women’s education and improved access to reproductive health care.” Now these are philosophers and you’d think they’d know better than to employ cheap euphemism. Reproductive health care means abortion and contraception, where there is no reproduction and where the health of any child “accidentally” conceived is permanently removed, and the would-be mothers endangered into the bargain.

Stripped of euphemism, the authors recommend active killing to reduce the population.

And if you’re “rich,” look out:

Our outline for a global population engineering program suggests that the greater a would-be procreator’s wealth, the more appropriate it will be to target that person with interventions to the right on the coercion spectrum. This is justifiable not only pragmatically, but also morally: since wealth is a fairly reliable proxy for individuals’ GHG emissions, and so for their carbon legacy, it is morally justifiable to exert greater pressure on wealthy people’s procreative behaviors.

Some people would still be allowed to have babies. Who decides who should procreate future GHG generators? Well, folks like author Travis Rieder, who is bravely passing on his genes (he has a daughter).

There isn’t a scintilla of a hint of a whisper of a ghost of a figment of an idea from these men that they might be wrong. But Aristotle was right. Start with silliness, end in lunacy. (For more from the author of “Global Warming Alarmists Plead: Save the Children by Not Having Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points

/0 Comments/in , /by

The internet has been abuzz with headlines declaring, “Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong,” and “Johns Hopkins Shrinks Warn Against Kids Going Transgender.”

As reported by Ryan T. Anderson on Monday, “A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.”

How significant was this report?

“Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.”

What were the conclusions of this study? “The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that ‘some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.’”

How will gay activists respond? They will shoot the messengers. Watch and see. We’ve seen the pattern for years.

Gay activists and their allies will try to discredit an individual or a group, then when that individual or group challenges their position, they reply, “No one listens to him/her/them. They’ve been totally discredited!”

The SPLC has often been complicit in this, branding a conservative Christian organization as a hate group or classifying a conservative spokesman as a new leader of the radical right, therefore, whatever they say can be safely dismissed. After all, they’re haters and bigots!

When it comes to the authors of this important new study, they are hardly rightwing, fundamentalist, conservatives. Hardly!

One of the authors, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, “is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.”

He has taught at 8 universities (including Princeton and Stanford) and, “His full-time and part-time appointments have been in twenty-three disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics and biomedical informatics.”

The other author is even more acclaimed. Dr. Paul McHugh is “University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.”

Dr. McHugh “was elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992. From 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics,” among his many accomplishments.

These certainly sound like formidable scholars, and so their 143-page report, which, as stated, “discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies,” should be taken very seriously when it challenges many of the major talking points put forward by gay activists arguing: gays are not born that way and can possibly change; “non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse”; when compared to the general population, “non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes”; and the idea that “a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Note carefully those closing words, which are a theme of the entire study: These foundational LGBT talking points are “not supported by scientific evidence.”

I can assure you, though, that rather than interacting with the scientific evidence presented in this formidable study, the vast majority of LGBT activists and their allies will dismiss it out of hand.

They will say, Dr. McHugh is an infamous transphobe who is totally out of touch with modern science while Dr. Mayer is unqualified to write on this topic.

As I said before, watch and see.

When it comes to Dr. McHugh, he committed the cardinal sin of opposing sex-change surgery during his tenure at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which is why that surgical procedure was dropped under his leadership. But he did this based on years of interaction with those who identified as transgender, interviewing them before and after surgery, ultimately concluding that, “We psychiatrists … would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

I reached out to him in November before I appeared on the Tyra Banks show to discuss transgender children, wanting to know if his views had changed based on more current research. He replied to me on November 18, 2009: “I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of young people claiming to be ‘transgendered’ is a form of child abuse.”

Not surprisingly, there are few psychiatrists hated more by LGBT leaders than Paul McHugh.

Just within the last few years, the TransAdvocate.com website accused him of “clinging to a dangerous past”; the Huffington Post claimed that he “endangers the lives of transgender youth”; the Advocate.com website referred to the “scary science at John Hopkins University”; and a ThinkProgress.org headline declared, “Meet The Doctor Social Conservatives Depend On To Justify Anti-Transgender Hate.”

So, when it comes to Dr. McHugh, the script has already been written, and no matter what the scientific evidence states and no matter how carefully he has presented it, he will be viciously attacked and his research will be flatly rejected.

As for Dr. Mayer, again, my expectation is that he will be dismissed as unqualified, while his guilt by association with Dr. McHugh and Johns Hopkins will be used against him as well.

The good news is that, over time, truth will triumph, which is why Principle #6 in my book Outlasting the Gay Revolution was “Keep Propagating the Truth Until the Lies Are Dispelled.”

Those who want to know the truth owe it to themselves to study this new report carefully, determined to follow the truth wherever it leads. Those choosing to shoot the messengers will only hurt themselves in the end. (For more from the author of “How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Defective Detectives at FBI Missed Another Terrorist in Va. Knife Attack

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FBI has launched an investigation into an alleged ISIS-inspired knife attack in Roanoke, Virginia. Investigators are attempting to determine if the attacker may have been trying to behead his victim, reports ABC News.

The alleged attacker is 20-year-old Wasil Farooqui, a resident of the Roanoke area. Federal authorities have known about him “for some time,” according to ABC News. In the past year, he traveled to Turkey and sources say may have tried to sneak into Syria, where ISIS is actively recruiting.

On Saturday, Farooqui allegedly injured a man and woman at an apartment complex, yelling “Allah Akbar” as he attacked them with a knife. Authorities believe he may have been trying to behead the male victim.

“‘The FBI is working with the Police Department following the incident that occurred on Saturday evening,’ the head of the FBI’s Richmond field office, Special Agent In Charge Adam Lee, said in a statement. ‘While I cannot discuss details of the investigation at this time, I do want to reassure the community that we are working to determine the nature of the incident.'”

If this is indeed a terrorist attack, it could mark yet another instance of an individual on the FBI’s radar for terrorist connections carrying out an act of jihad before authorities could stop him.

In his book, “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists,” Peter Bergen identified several instances of law enforcement failing to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies and missing homegrown terrorists as a result.

As Conservative Review’s Robert Eno wrote in a review of Bergen’s book:

Bergen makes a strong case for a reliance on traditional police-work techniques to ferreting out homegrown radicals. This includes the sharing of information between agencies, something that was supposed to have changed after 9/11. Bergen explains how it hasn’t. Time and time again, Bergen shows that law enforcement is still not connecting dots, and not sharing information.

Farooqui was arrested by Roanoke County Police Saturday on charges of assault with malicious wounding.

Is this another instance of the FBI failing to “connect the dots”? (For more from the author of “Defective Detectives at FBI Missed Another Terrorist in Va. Knife Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump on Deportations: Do What Obama Has Done but ‘With More Energy’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Do what Obama is doing with deportations but “perhaps with a lot more energy.”

That, according to the Washington Post, is Republican candidate for president Donald Trump’s latest proposal for deportations of illegal immigrants.

But is that really what he said? Since Trump likes to accuse the media of twisting his words and positions, let’s take a closer look.

“What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Bill O’Reilly Monday night. “Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m going to do the same thing.”

It certainly sounds like taking Obama’s lead on deportations is Trump’s game plan.

Mr. Trump is repeating an oft cited statistic about deportations that Conservative Review’s Robert Eno debunked back in December. The claim goes that President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

That’s false, because when one accounts for deportations, which the federal government calls “removals” and also for “returns,” a word the government uses for “voluntary deportations,” one finds that the number of illegal immigrants that have actually left the country has sharply declined under President Obama’s oversight.

Immigration Aliens Removed Returned

So what has President Obama done?

Overall deportations have dropped by nearly two-thirds since 2011. As Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz wrote last December:

Since Obama began his amnesty programs in 2011, deportations have dropped to less than one-third their annual level prior to Obama’s suspension of congressional statutes. What about criminal aliens? Wasn’t the purpose of amnesty to focus just on criminal aliens? They also plummeted by almost 60%.

Trump sometimes says he wants to crack down on criminal aliens through deportations.

“The first thing we’re going to do if and when I win is we’re going to get rid of all of the bad ones,” Trump said. “We’ve got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We’re going to get them out, and the police know who they are. They’re known by law enforcement who they are. We don’t do anything. They go around killing people and hurting people, and they’re going to be out of this country so fast your head will spin. We have existing laws that allow you to do that.”

The problem is President Obama’s administration claims they already do this, using the “existing laws” Trump cited.

Mr. Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton has said the same thing, pledging to deport violent criminals and terrorists.

Now, President Obama’s administration has claimed a policy of “felons, not families” regarding their targeting of violent criminal illegal aliens for deportations. Yet the Center for Immigration Studies has noted that deportations of “criminal aliens” declined 27% from 86,923 in 2014 to 63,127 in 2015.

So when Mr. Trump says he would continue the current policy, the policy he’s talking about is deporting less criminal aliens. And he doesn’t seem to realize that.

Further, President Obama has invited more people to enter into the country illegally through his policies as well. Executive orders on amnesty aside, the Obama administration has gone as far as spend $9 million to provide attorneys at taxpayer expense to 2,600 illegal immigrant children who had surged over the border in 2014.

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he would “do the same thing” as President Obama in regards to deportations and illegal immigration is anathema to Trump’s own stated desire to crack down on criminal aliens and secure the border.

Even Democratic President Bill Clinton took a stronger position on illegal immigration in his 1995 State of the Union address than Obama would ever consider.

President Bill Clinton deported four times as many illegal immigrants as President Obama. If Mr. Trump is going to follow a Democrat’s lead on deportations, shouldn’t he talk about his opponent Hillary Clinton’s own husband’s policies? (For more from the author of “Trump on Deportations: Do What Obama Has Done but ‘With More Energy'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In defense of Donald Trump’s suggestion that Muslim immigration be restricted until we better understand the nature of the Jihadist terror threat, the following is offered up by our long-suffering Summer Intern @BiffSpackle:

151230-islam-7-reasons-010 (1)

151230-islam-7-reasons-020 (1)

Democrats, progressives, and other miscreants: please feel free to answer any or all of these questions in the comments section.

P.S., Keep up-to-date with anti-Jihad news by visiting some of the Fabulous 50 Award Winners for Anti-Jihad Blogging. (For more from the author of “7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System

/0 Comments/in , /by

For several weeks, Donald Trump has been warning that the 2016 presidential elections could be “rigged.” Despite significant criticism from some Republicans and many Democrats, he continued that line of attack in his first major ad release of the general election.

The “rigged” claim is common on both sides of the aisle — and sometimes it’s even accurate, like the e-mail scandal that proved the Democratic National Committee intentionally set up the Democratic presidential primary for Hillary Clinton. Likewise, President Barack Obama may have won re-election in 2012 thanks to his IRS’ targeting of Tea Party activists.

Democrats used similar terms language quite judiciously after the 2000 election, and apparently in the mind of Secretary of State John Kerry, he lost the 2004 election thanks to voter fraud.

Whether Trump is serious about his rigging claim or not, it’s certainly a valid concern in light his opponent’s e-mail scandals and Clinton Foundation donor questions. Most people would be in jail but Clinton is well on her way to victory in November, helped by Obama himself.

Indeed, according to Obama, on August 4 that Trump’s claims about a “rigged” 2016 election, especially in Pennsylvania, are “ridiculous.”

“If Mr Trump is suggesting a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country … that’s ridiculous,” the president said. “It doesn’t make sense and I don’t think anyone would take that seriously.”

The New York Times apparently agrees, as does a prominent Vanity Fair writer and several other leading voices. They’ve all declared cries of rigged elections to be outside the bounds of decent speech.

But that wasn’t the case when it was convenient for the current resident of the White House. As highlighted in a neat montage by Grabien, the same man who describes rigging of an election to be “ridiculous” once decried advantages given to a special few with regards to income and power in politics. Obama also decried “massive campaign checks,” people being “pushed away from participating in our system,” and more.

Perhaps the greatest example of Obama’s hypocrisy is his attack on the U.S. Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union address. Obama warned that “foreign enemies” might be able to buy domestic influence — ironically some of the same concerns conservatives have today as Saudi Arabia and other nations have contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Six-and-a-half years ago, Obama was concerned about corruption in politics caused by money. Yet today, he considers such concerns to be inappropriate. To quote his former adviser David Axelrod in the Grabien clip, “the delegitimization of our institutions” by Trump is “dangerous.”

But sometimes institutions need to be attacked. Axelrod said “it is a very irresponsible thing to” delegitimize “the investigative justice system,” but what are self-serving candidates and actual patriots supposed to do when the FBI allows Clinton to skate free, possibly right into the White House?

In reality, the solution to concerns by Trump today and 2010’s Obama is the same: Reduce the power of politics and politicians.

As Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) pointed out two years ago, so-called “campaign finance reform” is a big weapon that both parties use to help their allies and to keep themselves in power. And right now, that’s what our system of politics incentivizes — politicians getting re-elected, and corporations, unions, and others using re-election to grease the proverbial skids.

If both parties were serious about really reducing the rigging of power, they would keep the U.S. federal government within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

Once this happens, what incentive is there to buy an election? The politicians cannot help the special interests, and the politicians themselves would find far less value in elected office.

Is the system rigged against the non-rich? Yup. But that’s mostly thanks to bipartisan liberal policies like bank bailouts, auto bailouts, tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, and special interests like the pre-2015 Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.