Discovery: Ancient Old Testament Fragment Identical to Copy Found 2,000 Years Later

/0 Comments/in , /by

Modern technology met ancient text when imaging software showed a 2,000-year old Israeli scroll matches the modern Hebrew Bible’s Book of Leviticus.

As reported by The Associated Press, the scroll was discovered decades ago and has been kept in a storeroom thanks to being too brittle to open. According to researchers, that’s no longer a problem:

The passages from the Book of Leviticus, scholars say, offer the first physical evidence of what has long been believed: that the version of the Hebrew Bible used today goes back 2,000 years.

The discovery, announced in a Science Advances journal article by researchers in Kentucky and Jerusalem on Wednesday, was made using “virtual unwrapping,” a 3D digital analysis of an X-ray scan. Researchers say it is the first time they have been able to read the text of an ancient scroll without having to physically open it.

“You can’t imagine the joy in the lab,” said Pnina Shor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who participated in the study.

The digital technology, funded by Google and the U.S. National Science Foundation, is slated to be released to the public as open source software by the end of next year.

The scroll was discovered 46 years ago inside an ancient synagogue that was destroyed in a fire. Preserved by the dry climate, it was left largely undamaged until researchers attempted to open it. Since 1970, it has set dormant, unreadable and unusable.

The experimental reading was requested last year by the man who discovered the scroll, Yosef Porath. AP reports he asked researchers at the Israel Antiquities Authority’s Dead Sea Scrolls preservation lab in Jerusalem to scan a box of scrolls. While Shor initially asked if Porath was “joking,” she agreed to do the scans.

[Shor] agreed, and a number of burned scrolls were scanned using X-ray-based micro-computed tomography, a 3D version of the CT scans hospitals use to create images of internal body parts. The images were then sent to William Brent Seales, a researcher in the computer science department of the University of Kentucky. Only one of the scrolls could be deciphered.

Using the “virtual unwrapping” technology, he and his team painstakingly captured the three-dimensional shape of the scroll’s layers, using a digital triangulated surface mesh to make a virtual rendering of the parts they suspected contained text. They then searched for pixels that could signify ink made with a dense material like iron or lead. The researchers then used computer modeling to virtually flatten the scroll, to be able to read a few columns of text inside.

“Not only were you seeing writing, but it was readable,” said Seales. “At that point we were absolutely jubilant.”

The scroll is expected to be of assistance in expanding the understanding of the Hebrew Bible. The famed Dead Sea Scrolls date back more than 1,700 years, but differ significantly from the modern Hebrew Bible, despite scholars’ belief that the Bible has changed little since the time of Christ. One scholar told AP after the recent discovery that “in 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”

The implications for other historical discoveries are also significant, according to Tel Aviv University’s Noam Mizrahi. “It’s not only what was found, but the promise of what else it can uncover, which is what will turn this into an exciting discovery,” he told AP. (For more from the author of “Discovery: Ancient Old Testament Fragment Identical to Copy Found 2,000 Years Later” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is true that, as followers of Jesus, we will be hated and rejected just as He was (Matthew 10:24-25; John 15:18-20). And it is true that many of our words and deeds will be unpopular, as we speak truth to power, as we stand for justice, as we expose unrighteousness, we call people to repentance, and as we confront the corrupt status quo.

This is what happened to the prophets of old when they called their people to account, and this is what will happen to us as we follow in their footsteps today (Matthew 5:10-12).

But that doesn’t mean that we are troublemakers or agitators; instead, we are called to be peacemakers and ambassadors of reconciliation (Matthew 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

It is true that our message will divide people, as Jesus told us long ago (Matthew 10:34-37), but our goal is not to divide people but rather to call them together, to build bridges rather than tear them down.

I’m quite aware that, in the Book of Acts, the disciples were often accused of being rabble rousers who stirred up dissension and conflict.

In Acts 16 Paul and Silas were accused of throwing the city of Philippi into an uproar; in Acts 17 the disciples were referred to as those who were turning the whole world upside down; in Acts 21 Paul was mistaken for the leader of a violent revolution; and in Acts 24 he was accused of being a troublemaker (literally, a pestilence), stirring up riots in city after city.

And in 2 Timothy 3:12, after describing his long history of being persecuted for the faith, Paul told Timothy, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” In other words, “Timothy, I’m not the only one who is going to be persecuted!”

But reality is that Paul was neither a troublemaker nor the leader of a violent revolutionary movement, although he certainly was a leader in a revolutionary movement — the Jesus movement, the most revolutionary movement of all time, not simply in its call for radical change but also in its methods, overcoming evil with good and conquering hatred with love.

As noted by Christian teacher H. S. Vigeveno, “Our world has witnessed many a revolution, but none as effective as the one that divided history into B.C. and A.D … Revolutionary, indeed, this mission, to begin with a cross and sway the whole world through suffering love.”

Revolutionary, indeed!

Do we dare seek to live it out?

Do we dare seek to follow the Jesus model of laying down our lives for others and of loving our own enemies?

Can we find a way to have hearts of compassion joined with backbones of steel, to mingle grace together with truth, to be both caring and courageous?

Can we learn to confront unrighteousness without becoming unruly? Can we stand up for justice without provoking people to carnal rage?

Followers of Jesus may challenge the sinful status quo but our words and deeds will never lead to looting or violence or riots.

Instead, we urge people to put down their sword (which means renouncing acts of lawlessness and violence) and pick up their cross (which means death to our fleshly desires and self-will).

That is how we change the world, and that is how we live out our calling to peacemakers and reconcilers and bridge builders. We are a movement, not a mob.

In the words of Vernon Grounds, former Chancellor of Denver Theological Seminary, “A Christian who … becomes a revolutionary will serve as a revolutionary catalyst in the Church; and by the multiplication of revolutionized Christians, the Church will become a revolutionary catalyst in society; and if society is sufficiently revolutionized, a revolution of violence will no more be needed than a windmill in a world of atomic energy.”

In these days of social upheaval and violence in our cities, followers of Jesus need to rise to the occasion, tackling the controversies and confronting the challenges, but doing so in a way that produces light not heat, conviction not rage, and hope not despair.

We do have answers in the gospel — constructive, holistic, life-changing answers — but we must practice what we preach if the world is to listen to us.

Let us, then, lead the way in bringing healing to our nation.

Let us be peacemakers rather than troublemakers, ambassadors rather than agitators. (For more from the author of “We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Planned Parenthood fetal harvesting partner StemExpress should be held in contempt of Congress, according to Republicans on a panel investigating the fetal harvesting industry.

The House Select Panel on Infant Lives’ vote was based upon a report Republicans say outlines cause to hold StemExpress and its CEO Cate Dyer in contempt for not responding to the Panel’s subpoenas and other requests and demands for information, including accounting records. The recommendation for contempt was successful, 8-0, after the Panel’s six Democrats staged a walk-out.

“Nearly one year ago our Panel was established and given the important task of investigating very disturbing allegations that some abortion clinics and middleman procurement organizations, including StemExpresss, were violating federal law by profiting from the sale of human fetal tissue,” said Panel Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in a statement after the vote. “In order to determine if these entities were in violation of federal law or if the relevant statute needs to be updated, our Panel must review all accounting and banking records.”

The Panel issued requests, then subpoenas, to StemExpress, starting in December 2015. Subpoenas were issued starting in early 2016, according to a timeline provided to the press by the Panel. A final attempt to contact StemExpress’ lawyer was made in early September.

“Nine months is enough time for an entity to produce accounting documents,” said Blackburn. “A subpoena is not a suggestion. It is a lawful order that must be complied with. If StemExpress continues to obstruct, then we will work with House leadership to determine the necessary next steps.”

For its part, StemExpress said in a statement that it has complied with the Panel’s investigation. “StemExpress offered to testify before the Select Panel, but this offer was ignored. Several House and Senate Committees have reviewed our accounting records and closed their investigations. We have provided hundreds of documents to the Select Panel, including accounting records, both voluntarily and in response to subpoenas.”

A spokesperson for StemExpress did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about whether the company had explicitly provided the accounting information demanded by the Panel. The harvesting company’s former bank, Five Star Bancorp, likewise did not respond to a request for comment.

Press staff for the House Panel did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about StemExpress’ claim about testifying before the Panel.

StemExpress has been in Republicans’ sights since the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos showed the company possibly engaging in illegal harvesting of fetal organs and other body parts. While Planned Parenthood and StemExpress parted ways shortly after the videos were made public, the Panel’s investigations show that StemExpress was providing Planned Parenthood clinics with profit in exchange for fetal parts.

It is the profit that concerns the Panel, since it violates a 1993 federal law authored by former Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of Massachusetts. However, StemExpress said it could not cooperate with the Panel, claiming it was “gravely concerned about the safety and security risks of identifying StemExpress personnel involved in the procurement of fetal tissue.”

Blackburn and Panel staff say StemExpress’ concerns are unnecessary. “The Panel staff and the Chairman have represented publicly and to StemExpress counsel that the Panel’s policy was to keep the names of lower-level staff and researchers redacted from any public documents or reports. Indeed, the directions to such subpoena recipients provide a methodology to protect the identities of persons in functional positions.”

All of the Panel’s Democrats walked out before yesterday’s vote. In a press release, top Panel Democrat Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said, “Chair Blackburn has manufactured a controversy over information that she does not need,” accusing Blackburn of making a “McCarthyesque threat. …” (For more from the author of “Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslim Expert Torches Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States should ditch its current efforts at “countering violent extremism” and focus instead on “countering violent Islamism” (CVE), a prominent Muslim reformist told Congress on Thursday.

“Our current direction and lack of deeply flawed and profoundly dangerous for the security of our nation,” Dr. Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic forum for Democracy, said at a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing Thursday. “As a devout Muslim who loves my faith, and loves my nation, the de-emphasis of “radical Islam” and the “Islamist” root cause of global Islamist terrorism is the greatest obstacle to both national harmony and national security.”

Jasser went on to say that until America can “name this, and once we can name it, treat it and then counter it,” its national security efforts will remain channeled through a “Whac-a-Mole program” that focuses on tactics, rather than ideology.

A report issued earlier this year from a DC-based counterterrorism consulting firm found the Obama administration’s CVE programs to be a “catastrophic failure” due to its inefficacy, poor management, and, most of all, because of the administration’s engagementwith organizations that have known extremist affiliations, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

Both organizations were unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case; trusting such organizations to counter jihadism is akin to “treating arsonists like firefighters,” Jasser said.

While these groups may not be intrinsically extremist in their messaging, Dr. Jasser said, they “are distributing literature that glorifies political Islam, that glorifies sharia state ideology […] that ultimately ends up causing the harms that radicalize our community.”

Not only does government engagement with these organizations further empower the global jihad movement and “leaves us bare against the threat of radical Islamism,” Jasser added, it also “renders our greatest allies within the Muslim community — genuine reformers — entirely impotent and marginalized.”

Throughout the rest of his prepared testimony, Jasser also suggested that Congress reopen investigations into CAIR’s extremist ties, calling the group “one of the most obvious beneficiaries of this embrace of Islamist groups.” He also recommended that the administration stop all engagement with groups that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and “recognize their misogynist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and anti-American ideological underpinnings.”

Also on the panel was Shireen Qudosi, a senior contributor at CounterJihad.com, who pointed out to members the difference between Islam and Islamism, and that the latter “is a political ideology that must be studied, understood, and defeated.”

Qudosi went on to attack the “Islamophobe” labelling of anyone who criticizes Muslims, saying that the accusation “moves Islam from a religion into a racial or biological context,” rather than approaching it as a belief system.

“Islam is a religion,” she added, one that should be challenged intellectually without fear of automatically being labeled an Islamophobe or racist for doing so. “It is an idea, a set of concepts and beliefs. As such, ideas, concepts, and beliefs do not have human rights; individuals do.”

“The best way to tackle ISIS, beyond Whac-a-Mole CVE systems, is to tackle their political ideology,” said Qudosi.

During an earlier panel in the hearing, George Selim, Department of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships director, told the subcommittee that the current CVE program under his direction isn’t even being guided by a complete, strategic plan, according to a report at the Washington Examiner. After being repeatedly hounded by committee members, Selim admitted that a strategic plan for a $10 million endeavor was “nearly ready,” and that he could only point to “anecdotal” evidence that the program had actually countered some violent extremism.

“I can’t sit here before you today and definitively say that person was going to commit an act of terrorism … but we’re developing that prevention framework in a range of cities across the country,” Selim confessed under oath. (For more from the author of “Muslim Expert Torches Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaking in Pittsburgh Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered remarks focused on law and order amidst the violent riots that have swept Charlotte, N.C..

“Many Americans are watching the unrest in Charlotte unfolding right before their eyes,” Trump said at Shale Insight, a convention of natural gas industry officials. “Our country looks bad to the world, especially when we are supposed to be the world’s leader.”

Trump said that violence and rioting has no place in our communities:

“We honor and recognize the right of all Americans to peacefully assemble, protest, and demonstrate. But there is no right to engage in violent disruption or to threaten the public safety and peace of others.”

He pledged to bring such violence and crime to a “very rapid end” should he be elected president:

“The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law abiding African-American residents who live in these communities where the crime is so rampant. It’s their jobs, housing market, schools, and economic conditions that will suffer. And the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.”

“Crime and violence is an attack on the poor and will never be excepted in a Trump administration, never ever,” said Trump.

Ultimately, Donald Trump called for “more law enforcement, more community engagement, more effective policing,” citing former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s controversial crime-fighting efforts as a good example. (For more from the author of “Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Silent but Growing Surge in Immigration Is Crushing American Taxpayers

/0 Comments/in , /by

The national security problems concerning the large number of refugees form the Middle East has been the top concern on the immigration front, but there are other growing concerns that have been overlooked by the media. A painstakingly detailed study from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) finds that our unprecedented record high levels of immigration cost Americans as much as $296 billion a year. However, the data from that study is several years old and doesn’t account for the recent surge of Central Americans and Cubans crossing the border, some of the poorest immigrant groups crossing the board.

Surge in Central Americans

In 2014, there was a lot of media coverage concerning the surge of Central American migrants across our southern border. After ebbing a bit in 2015, the flow is now on par with the highest levels we saw two years ago. The number of unaccompanied minors has increased by 50% since last year, and overall, more family units have crossed over during the first 11 months of this fiscal year than in 2014. Meanwhile, only four percent of the unaccompanied minors have been deported (as opposed to Mexico, which deports 90 percent of the Central American migrants). Further, 80 percent of the UACs are housed with other illegal alien families.

It’s also important to note that Obama plans to abuse the refugee program and designate a few thousand of these individuals from Latin America as refugees, making them eligible for welfare immediately. For the current fiscal year, roughly 1,500 from Latin America have been accepted as refugees, but Obama just announced he is raising the sub-cap of refugees for FY 2017 to 5,000.

The cost of hundreds of thousands of some of the most impoverished Central Americans on our social services, hospitals, and schools is astronomical, and not even quantified in the cost analysis in the NASEM study using 2013 data.

The Cuban Migration Fleecing America

The other big story under the radar is the record number of Cubans crossing over our border — both by land in Texas and by sea in south Florida. During FY 2015, roughly 43,000 Cubans entered the U.S., double the level of the previous year. According to Pew, 46,635 Cubans have crossed over just in the first 10 months of this fiscal year alone. As we’ve noted before, due to the outdated Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (and a subsequent act in 1976), any Cuban who finds his way to our shores is essentially granted a green card immediately. And unlike other immigrants, they are eligible for welfare from day one.

This dynamic has created an entire scam industry whereby some Cubans are able to come here without consent, collect welfare, and return home while continuing to receive payments from U.S. taxpayers. It represents one of the most appalling violations of a nation’s sovereignty. And the trajectory is getting worse with tens of thousands of Cubans flooding South and Central America en route to our southern border. Raul Castro is orchestrating this migration as a leverage tool against Obama, who has shown no floor to the degree he will genuflect before the brutal dictator.

It’s gotten so bad that even Latin American countries are now asking that we stop our mindless policy of offering free shelter to anyone from Cuba who steps on our shore. Yet, instead of addressing the root of the problem, the Obama administration is fostering this invasion by pledging $1 million to Costa Rico in order for them to airlift the Cubans to our border!

This is a no-brainer winning issue for Republicans to fight in the upcoming budget bill (along with many other issues) but few members aside from Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. (B, 83%) are demanding action.

From the colonial times through the crafting of our modern immigration laws, the overarching and universal principle behind our immigration system was the notion that immigrants must never become a public charge. As late as 1993, Harry Reid introduced legislation excluding all legal immigrants from admission who “cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance.” In his speech introducing the bill and railing against illegal immigration, Reid expressed the following concern about our legal immigration system:

We now admit the equivalent of a major city each year, without having the vaguest idea of how we will educate all the new children, care for the sick, provide housing, jobs, build infrastructure, or attend to any of the human needs of the newcomers or those already here.

Our immigration levels have only increased since 1993. Quite dramatically, actually.

Is it so hard for Republicans to stand on the ground plowed by Harry Reid in the ‘90s concerning an issue that would garner a super-majority of support from American voters? Then again, if our grave security concerns are not reason enough for the political class to stand for sovereignty, why would they care about wasted taxpayer funds? (For more from the author of “The Silent but Growing Surge in Immigration Is Crushing American Taxpayers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Charges Filed Against Officer Involved in Deadly Tulsa Shooting

/0 Comments/in , /by

The police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black man Sept. 16 has been formally charged with first-degree manslaughter in connection with the shooting.

Officer Betty Shelby fired one shot at 40-year-old Terence Crutcher during a traffic stop in Tulsa, Okla. Dashcam footage from Shelby’s car and aerial footage from a police helicopter showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby with his arms in the air prior to the shooting, although the footage does not offer a clear image of when the shot was fired.

Scott Wood, Shelby’s attorney, said Crutcher did not follow more than two dozen commands and that the officer fired when the man began to reach into the window of his SUV.

Wood said Shelby suspected Crutcher was attempting to retrieve a weapon when he reached into the car. In her interview with homicide detectives, she reportedly said, “I was never so scared in my life as in that moment right then,” according to Wood.

Tulsa police say Crutcher did not have a gun on him, nor was a gun found in his vehicle.

Crutcher’s family maintains the windows to his SUV were closed, saying blood spatters on the glass are proof the windows were up at the time of the shooting.

The Department of Justice is also investigating the incident.

According to Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan, dispatchers received a 911 call Friday evening about an abandoned SUV in the middle of the street, with the engine running and the driver’s door open.

Wood said that when Shelby arrived on the scene, the doors were closed and windows were open. At one point, Crutcher was walking toward her, and he began to put his left hand into his pocket.

Shelby told him to keep his hands out of his pockets. She tried to get Crutcher to talk to her about the vehicle, but she said Crutcher mumbled something unintelligible. He reached into his pocket again, and she again ordered him to keep his hands visible.

She pulled out her gun and another officer pulled out a Taser and ordered Crutcher to the ground. Instead, Shelby said, Crutcher ignored the command and walked toward the SUV with his hands up.

The orders can not be heard in the audio from the dashcam video, which is from another patrol car that arrives on the scene and begins with Crutcher walking toward his SUV.

Shelby said she thought Crutcher was acting like he might be under the influence of PCP, and police said they found the drug in his vehicle after he was shot.

Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett said he was appreciative of the investigative work done so far on the case.

“Our Tulsa Police Department worked quickly to provide all the information to the District Attorney. I appreciate their efforts as well as the District Attorney’s usual thorough evaluation of the rules of law for which we are all accountable,” Bartlett said. “These are important steps to ensure that justice and accountability prevails.” (For more from the author of “Charges Filed Against Officer Involved in Deadly Tulsa Shooting” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

With DC District Court Oral Argument, a Chance to Push Back Against EPA’s Power Grab

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Sept. 27, the en banc panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will preside over oral argument in State of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.

This will likely be one of the most momentous cases ever to be decided by any federal court.

At issue: Twenty-eight states and numerous private companies and trade associations are challenging an EPA regulation that seeks to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the energy industry by over 30 percent and nationalize the country’s electric power grid. The 1,500-page regulation, known as the Clean Power Plan, would give the federal government authority over how states use their natural resources.

The Clean Power Plan mandates carbon dioxide cuts to America’s power fleet, forcing states to make difficult, costly decisions such as switching from reliable conventional fuels to intermittent, expensive renewables, such as wind and solar.

The Environmental Protection Agency takes the position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change and therefore must be tightly controlled, at any cost. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on earth, and the global climate has been heating and cooling for millennia.

Regardless, the Clean Power Plan seeks to reverse what may be natural climate fluctuation at the cost of creating power blackouts, higher energy costs, job losses in the energy sector, and price spikes throughout the nation’s economy, including for necessities such as food and water.

Just as importantly, because carbon dioxide is everywhere and in everything, the Clean Power Plan arrogates enormous regulatory power to the EPA. Such a power grab by a federal regulatory agency is not only illegal, but is flat-out unconstitutional. It usurps states’ rights to regulate the use of their natural resources, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Months ago, the Supreme Court recognized this troublesome constitutional issue and stayed the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending resolution of the case in the lower court. In response, the D.C. Circuit decided to hear oral argument en banc before a panel of all judges serving on the court, rather than just the three-judge panel to which it was to have been assigned.

Beyond the constitutional issues, the case raises important issues regarding the rule of law and the extent to which the EPA must obey the law, just like the rest of us. In promulgating the Clean Power Plan under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA violated the act in at least three ways.

First, carbon dioxide is emitted from “numerous and diverse” sources throughout the nation, not just from power plants. The act requires the EPA to regulate those types of ubiquitous emissions under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, which involves a multiyear process to determine the extent to which nationwide ambient air emissions of a particular substance are harmful to human health and welfare.

The next step requires the EPA to determine the extent to which man-made emissions of such a substance should be curtailed to lower national ambient air levels. The Clean Power Plan seeks to shortcut those legal requirements by regulating power plants under the source-specific standards of the Clean Air Act reserved for localized air pollution problems. Although it may be easier for the EPA to do so, the act does not give the EPA that kind of authority.

Second, because power plants as a category are already regulated under a different provision of the act dealing with toxic air pollutants, the EPA has no authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants unless it finds that carbon dioxide is directly toxic to human health—a finding it would be impossible for the EPA to make for the obvious reason that carbon dioxide is essential to human life.

Third, the EPA even failed to comply with the source-specific requirements of the act because it neglected to make a finding that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants endanger human health and the environment. Without that endangerment finding, the regulation cannot stand.

These are only some of the issues that the D.C. Circuit will hear at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 27. The court has devoted the entire day to oral argument, and many lawyers will present their cases. Even more lawyers, media representatives, policy analysts, politicians, and others will be present to observe and listen. We can only hope the court will uphold our constitutional freedoms, rather than kowtowing to the EPA’s power grab. (For more from the author of “With DC District Court Oral Argument, a Chance to Push Back Against EPA’s Power Grab” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

One Lawmaker’s Plan to Rein in Spending and Assert Conservative Principles

/0 Comments/in , /by

Before lawmakers in the House could read the Senate’s plan to fund the government after the end of the month, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was dismissing the measure out of hand, calling it “unconstitutional.”

Congress is trying to hammer out a compromise to extend federal funding before the government’s annual spending authority expires Oct. 1. But King complained that GOP leadership, in the process, is furthering President Barack Obama’s executive actions to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Iowa Republican has drafted an alternative spending package. And although he admits his plan isn’t likely to pass, he says it provides a conservative benchmark that contrasts with the short-term spending solution pushed by GOP leadership in both the House and Senate.

“They’re asking us to vote for an appropriations bill that funds clearly unconstitutional acts,” King told The Daily Signal, citing Obama’s move to exempt the children of illegal immigrants from deportation. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., predicted Thursday morning that House passage of the Senate’s continuing resolution would “be low drama.”

Shortly afterward, King predicted that Senate Republicans’ package could not pass the House without Democrats’ support.

“A greater percentage of Democrats will vote for this [short-term spending measure] than the percentage of Republicans in the House,” King said. “I think that’s true, and to me that says there’s not a reason to hold back and put an alternative down.”

That alternative, which King said he would introduce Friday, is further to the right than anything proposed previously, even by the conservative House Freedom Caucus and the much larger Republican Study Committee.

His plan is meant to serve as a “benchmark,” King said, to show what’s possible if Republicans keep both chambers of Congress and retake the White House in the Nov. 8 elections.

It contrasts with the Senate measure, unveiled Thursday, which locks in spending at the current $1.07 trillion level until Dec. 9 and doesn’t include any of the policy riders conservatives have pushed. The Dec. 9 expiration date would mean that defeated or retiring lawmakers, who don’t leave until January, would vote on a new measure to continue to fund the government.

On the fiscal front, the King plan adopts a spending position that even conservatives abandoned as politically impractical this year. It would lock in a government spending level of $1.04 trillion, nearly a $30 billion reduction from the current level.

The plan, some of which reads like a carbon copy of the Republican Party’s 2016 platform, calls for repealing 14 of Obama’s marquee accomplishments.

King proposes to defund Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank regulation of the financial industry, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. He calls for barring resettlement of refugees in the U.S., halting implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran, and stopping the transfer of internet regulation from a U.S. agency to a global body.

The King plan also would halt funds for executive enforcement of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage and the Department of Education’s transgender bathroom directive to schools that receive federal funds. It would block federal funding of Planned Parenthood and implementation of the EPA’s Waters of the United States regulation.

King also would stop new regulations from the Labor Department, defunding implementation of new overtime rules and fiduciary rules, which govern private retirement investment.

And it would take aim at the Obama administration’s executive orders relaxing immigration enforcement and implementation of the Paris accords on climate change.

King admits the “odds of succeeding aren’t good” for his grab bag of conservative priorities. But that’s not the goal, he told The Daily Signal:

It puts a marker down that says to the negotiators that there are a core of people here who actually believe in our platform and our conservative principles, and we’re just not willing to walk away without expressing them.

(For more from the author of “One Lawmaker’s Plan to Rein in Spending and Assert Conservative Principles” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In New Spending Bill, McConnell Sides With Liberals, Ignores Conservative Priorities

/0 Comments/in , /by

After voting to proceed to a bill that didn’t exist earlier this week, the Senate has finally produced text of the continuing resolution, a short-term government spending bill.

The bill, written behind closed doors by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was brought to the floor late Thursday afternoon, and for the majority of Senate Republicans, represented their first opportunity to see the text. According to McConnell, senators will have four days (two of them on a weekend) to review the bill before having to cast their votes next week.

As far as conservative priorities go, the bill is a failure. Among its many obvious flaws, it funds the government through Dec. 9—setting up a lame-duck session of Congress.

In the lame-duck session, which occurs after the election but before new lawmakers are sworn in, unaccountable legislators are likely to pass a bevy of backroom deals, to the detriment of representative democracy (and, we can assume, to the wallets of the taxpayer).

Even though it only funds the government for a scant 69 days, the McConnell continuing resolution manages to do it at the bloated Boehner-Obama spending levels that were jammed down the throats of conservatives in 2015.

In doing so, the continuing resolution sets up yet another spending cliff that will spawn a false panic in the lame-duck session, and lay the groundwork for more “must-pass” terrible deals. In other words, in December, lawmakers will once more have to pass yet another spending bill in order to ensure the government continues normal operations.

Worse still, this continuing resolution fundamentally grows government. The bill includes $500 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address flooding in Louisiana—despite the $12 billion the agency already has.

Furthermore, it grants President Barack Obama vast new hiring authority, so he can bring in a bunch of bureaucrats to burrow into federal agencies right before he leaves office.

The most troubling elements of the McConnell continuing resolution, however, come down to policy. Conservative priorities are abandoned—or outright ignored—while liberal policies are given priority.

Conservatives in the House and Senate have long been focused on delaying the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) transition—the deal that will pass governance of the internet from the United States to a “multi-stakeholder community” that includes authoritarian countries like Russia, China, and Iran.

Despite a multitude of congressional hearings and engagement from key Senate Republicans, McConnell chose not to address the ICANN transition—and in doing so, will allow it to proceed as scheduled on Oct. 1.

Perhaps the biggest slap in the face to conservatives, however, is the bill’s treatment of emergency funding to address the Zika virus. Whether or not Planned Parenthood—America’s largest abortion provider—would receive access to the Zika funding was a key sticking point in negotiations of the continuing resolution, with Democrats insisting that Planned Parenthood be able to access Zika funding, and conservatives in the House and Senate demanding that they be barred from doing so.

In his final bill, McConnell chose to side with the Democrats over conservatives. Not only does this bill lack a prohibition on funding for Planned Parenthood, it actually creates the opportunity for Planned Parenthood to get a raise.

Yes, you read that right. Under the funding bill written by the Senate majority leader, Planned Parenthood can get a raise.

How? According to analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino, Planned Parenthood already receives over $500 million in taxpayer money every year (legally, this money must be spent on family planning services other than abortion).

In the McConnell continuing resolution, Planned Parenthood gets its normal half a billion dollars in taxpayer funding. However, because the continuing resolution also gives it access to Zika funds, Planned Parenthood can receive even more money.

This state of play was confirmed earlier this week in press reports of Democrats publicly gloating over their win. With McConnell’s office silent on the state of negotiations, the Democrat leader in waiting, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told Congressional Quarterly that the “Zika issue has been resolved” because GOP negotiators were “dropping all their riders.”

This short-term continuing resolution contains nothing for conservatives to be happy about. It hands Democrats victories while ignoring conservative priorities and growing government.

The fact that Senate leadership would put this type of bill forward now—before they have to face the voters in November—should raise serious concerns about what they intend to try and pass in the lame-duck session, when even fewer people will be watching. (For more from the author of “In New Spending Bill, McConnell Sides With Liberals, Ignores Conservative Priorities” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.