U.S. Wire Payments to Iran Undercut Obama

The United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months, a Treasury Department spokesman confirmed Saturday, contradicting explanations from President Barack Obama that such payments were impossible.

Responding to questions at an Aug. 4 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government, Obama said, “[T]he reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money.”

But a Treasury Department spokesman acknowledged on Saturday that on at least two occasions, the U.S. did make payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer.

In July 2015, the same month in which the U.S., Iran and other countries announced a landmark nuclear agreement, the U.S. government paid the Islamic republic approximately $848,000. That payment settled a claim over architectural drawings and fossils that are now housed in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art and Iran’s Ministry of Environment, respectively. Then, in April 2016, the U.S. wired Iran approximately $9 million to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water, which is used to produce plutonium and can aid in the making of nuclear weapons. (Read more from “U.S. Wire Payments to Iran Undercut Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kaine Dodges on Whether Clinton Would Keep Promise of Never Putting Ground Troops in Iraq or Syria

Vice-presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) on Sunday dodged a question about whether Hillary Clinton would keep her promise to never put ground troops in Syria or Iraq.

Kaine appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday morning where host Jake Tapper asked him about Secretary Clinton’s plans to stabilize the Middle East . . .

Tapper read off this section of the editorial:

Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make

“Do you stand by Secretary Clinton’s declaration that your administration will never put ground troops into Iraq or Syria ever?” asked Tapper after reading this excerpt of the op ed. (Read more from “Kaine Dodges on Whether Clinton Would Keep Promise of Never Putting Ground Troops in Iraq or Syria” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Makes YUUUGE Pro-Life Commitment

By Bryan Fischer. Voters who have wondered where Donald Trump stands on the abortion issue need wonder no longer.

Trump today made perhaps the most pronounced pro-life move a presidential nominee has ever made by declaring a specific pro-life platform for his presidency and putting a prominent and unapologetic pro-life leader in charge of his pro-life coalition . . .

Here are [some of] the specific things he pledges to do if elected president:

Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide.

(Read more from “Trump Makes YUUUGE Pro-Life Commitment” HERE)

_____________________________________

Donald Trump Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

By Steven Ertelt. Donald Trump today has issued a call to make permanent the Hyde Amendment that bans almost all federal taxpayer funding of abortions and is credited with saving the lives of over 1 million Americans from abortion. Trump-‘s call comes as Hillary Clinton is campaigning in reversing Hyde and forcing Americans to fund free abortions for women with their tax dollars.

Every year, Congress is forced to fight the battle to protect Americans from being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars. Democrats annually fight the pro-life budget provision and hope they can eventually reverse it should they take control of both the White House and Congress.

That has led to pro-life groups calling to the adoption of a permanent law putting Hyde in place long-term and making it more difficult for pro-abortion forces to reverse. Today, Trump announced his support for such a law.

The call for banning taxpayer funding of abortions comes in a new letter from Trump. Trump commits to a new policy: “Making the Hyde Amendment permanent law to protect taxpayers from having to pay for abortions.” (Read more from “Donald Trump Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump ruffled a few feathers, including those of former congresswoman and shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords, when he pointed out what he perceived to be rival Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy on Second Amendment issues.

Giffords, who was a Democratic U.S. representative from Arizona when a would-be assassin shot her in the head, took exception to the rhetoric Trump used during a speech in Miami this week.

After insisting Clinton wants to dismantle the constitutional right to bear arms, Trump suggested the former first lady’s security guards should get rid of their guns first.

“They should disarm,” he told a crowd of supporters. “Right? I think they should disarm immediately. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns … let’s see what happens to her.”

He went on to assert the result would be “very dangerous.”

Trump made a similar point the same day on Twitter.

Along with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, Giffords put public pressure on the brash billionaire to apologize.

In a statement following Friday’s speech, the couple described Trump as “dangerously unfit” to serve as president, citing his comments about Clinton’s bodyguards as the latest evidence.

The joint statement noted Trump’s previous acknowledgement that he regrets some of his more incendiary rhetoric, expressing a desire he will “immediately renounce these comments, apologize to Hillary Clinton, and acknowledge that once again he has gone dangerously too far.”

Other public figures joined the couple in their dismay over the statement.

Giffords and Kelly, along with other Trump critics, implied the statements could prompt an unstable supporter to attempt violence against Clinton.

“They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed,” the statement concluded.

In the online debate that ensued over Trump’s campaign remarks, numerous comments expressed a much different interpretation.

The Giffords-Kelly statement was not the only official denouncement of its kind. In a statement from campaign manager Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign not only criticized Trump’s comments but alleged the GOP nominee “has a pattern of inciting people to violence.” (For more from the author of “Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference

First lady Michelle Obama was present Friday at a Hillary Clinton campaign event, held at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., where she spoke to a group of college students.

After taking the stage, Obama said, “My family is almost at the end of our time in the White House.” This statment was met with groans, followed by shouts of “four more years.”

During Obama’s speech, she lauded her husband for his accomplishments and the decisions he has had to make while in office.

She also urged them to vote for Clinton, adding, “Being president isn’t anything like reality TV.”

“Hillary is one of the few people on this entire planet, and clearly the only person in this race that has any idea what this job entails,” Obama said. “Who has seen it from every angle, hear me, the staggering stakes, the brutal hours, the overwhelming stresses. And here’s the thing: She still wants to take it on.”

She suggested that Donald Trump’s actions throughout the campaign speak to how he would act should he win the election.

“A candidate is not going to suddenly change once they get into office. Just the opposite, in fact.” Obama said. “Because the minute that individual takes that oath, they are under the hottest, harshest light there is. And there is no way to hide who they really are. And at that point, it is too late.”

The first lady told the college students, “I hear folks saying they don’t feel inspired in this election. Well let me tell you, I disagree. I am inspired. Because for eight years, I’ve had the privilege to see what it takes to actually do this job, and here is what I absolutely know for sure. Listen to this: Right now we have an opportunity to elect one of the most qualified people who has ever endeavored to become president.”

The first lady told the crowd the president of the United States needed to be someone committed to taking the job seriously.

“We need someone who is steady and measured because when you’re making life or death, war and peace decisions, a president can’t just pop off,” she said, without mentioning Trump by name.

Praising Clinton, Obama told the crowd she has what it takes to be president.

“When she didn’t win the presidency in 2008, she didn’t throw in the towel. She once again answered the call to serve, keeping us safe as our secretary of state. And let me tell you, Hillary has the resilience that it takes to do this job.” Obama added, “See, because when she gets knocked down, she doesn’t complain or cry foul. No, she gets right back up and she comes back stronger for the people who need her the most.”

The first lady went on to say she has been inspired by Clinton’s “persistence and her consistency, by her heart and her guts.” (For more from the author of “First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California Could Let Felons Behind Bars Vote, Despite What the State Constitution Says

California Gov. Jerry Brown is considering whether to sign a bill that would allow tens of thousands of incarcerated felons to vote, while continuing to deny the vote to others.

The Legislature sent a bill to Brown’s desk that would restore voting rights to an estimated 50,000 convicted felons who are behind bars in county jails, but not to felons who are serving their sentence in prisons.

The legislation is a means to get around the language of the state constitution, which specifies:

The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

In 1976, California voters approved an amendment to the constitution to restore voting rights to felons so long as they are not still “imprisoned or on parole.”

In 2011, Brown, a Democrat, signed the Realignment Act, which empowered officials to move low-level offenders to county jails as a way to address overcrowding in the state’s prisons.

The stated goal of the legislation on Brown’s desk was to clarify the distinction between voting rights for felons in prison and those serving in county jails, something left murky by a 2014 court ruling.

Supporters contend that the word “imprisoned” in the California Constitution refers to a state prison, but not a county jail.

If Brown signs the bill, he would add 50,000 felons to the voter rolls, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The state has 123 county jails.

The governor’s office would not say whether Brown will sign the bill.

“Generally, we do not comment on pending legislation. The governor has until September 30 to act on the legislation and when he does so we will issue a news release and post on our website,” Brown spokesman Gareth Lacy told The Daily Signal in an email.

If the bill becomes law, it would create an odd circumstance in which inmates out of prison on parole are prohibited from voting, but felons behind bars in county jails could vote, said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association, which represents 58 county sheriffs.

“We think that it’s appropriate to keep felons from voting while they are incarcerated,” Salzillo told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Our notion is that it’s a consequence of being incarcerated. Society has said for a certain period of time you are precluded from participating in certain aspects of civic life.”

The bill passed by a vote of 23-13 in in the state Senate in August and by a vote of 41-37 in the state Assembly in June.

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, sponsored the legislation, saying it addressed voting rights questions gaining attention in other states.

“While national attention is focused on a few states, many fail to realize that in California voters of color have suffered new restrictions on their right to vote in recent years,” Weber said in prepared remarks. “I wrote AB 2466 because I want to send a message to the nation that California will not stand for discrimination in voting.”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris asserted her support, saying in a formal statement: “The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and society, and yet for too long we have stripped certain individuals of that right.”

If Brown signs it into law, the measure also would guarantee that juvenile offenders retain their right to vote when they turn 18 if they committed a delinquent felony offense, according to a “fact sheet” from Weber’s office. It also would clarify information that courts send to election offices, to ensure eligible voters aren’t denied the right to vote by mistake.

But the controversy is over what Weber’s office describes as the provision of the bill that “defines the term ‘imprisoned’ for purposes of voting as a state-prison or federal-prison sentence.”

To differentiate prisons and jails regarding voting rights would be splitting hairs, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation who specializes in election-related issues.

“If you look at the state constitution, you would have a hard time believing that jails and prisons aren’t the same intent,” he told The Daily Signal. “If the governor signs the bill, any voter in the state will have a cause of action [to sue the state]. If the state is taking action in diluting an individual’s vote, it is easy to get standing.”

Earlier this year, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, took executive action to restore voting rights to felons after they are released.

“Social science shows that felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat,” von Spakovsky said.

Only Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote even while serving their sentence in state prisons. If Brown signs the measure, California would not be going as far as those New England states in granting inmates the right to vote.

In a formal statement, Lori Shellenberger, director of the ACLU of California’s Voting Rights Project, said:

The Legislature’s vote demonstrates that our elected officials want to be on the right side of history and end this insidious form of voter discrimination. It’s also a vote for public safety. When we allow people to exercise their civic duty to participate in our elections we reduce their chances of re-offending and make our communities safer.

Massachusetts used to allow felons to vote from behind bars, von Spakovsky said. However, after inmates formed a political action committee to influence legislators, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban felons from voting while incarcerated.

Nationally, 38 states and the District of Columbia allow most ex-felons to regain voting rights after completing their sentence, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some of these states restore rights automatically, others either require felons to wait or apply to have their rights restored. (For more from the author of “California Could Let Felons Behind Bars Vote, Despite What the State Constitution Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.

Yes, it’s terrorism.

Say it.

Why is this so difficult for political leaders? They engage in verbal contortions to avoid stating the obvious after a terrorist attack.

While it’s perfectly appropriate to gather the evidence and available information on the Chelsea explosion before drawing a definitive conclusion as to the motive, it’s bizarre the lengths to which some left-leaning politicians will go to avoid using the word “terrorism.”

Speaking to Americans as if they’re children and intentionally, consistently avoiding the word “terrorism” — while simultaneously telling people that an explosive device was intentionally placed in a crowded downtown area of Manhattan on a Saturday night — is the pinnacle of leadership failure. Avoiding calling a threat what it is speaks to a persistent weakness among our political leadership and sends a dangerous signal to the people around the world who wish to do us catastrophic harm.

There are two clear consequences to this hesitancy to call the terror threat what it is.

First, it sends a signal to the American people that this isn’t the severe threat we all instinctively know it is. This isn’t a law enforcement matter to be treated as some nuisance crime, it’s an attack on liberty and our way of life and its severity demands a commensurate response.

Second, it sends a dangerous signal to our terrorist enemies that politics matters more to elected leaders than public safety. They have already leveraged political correctness, the culture wars, and the American legal system against us all, just to make sure we focus on grotesquely exaggerated and politically motivated charges of “bigotry”before we focus on the threat to our public safety.

American politicians need a wake up call. American citizens don’t.

We will never remedy a problem which our failed political class can’t recognize. (For more from the author of “Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media Upset With Trump’s Honesty Around NY Bombing

Yesterday a bomb went off in the Chelsea section of New York City, after an earlier bomb went off in Seaside, New Jersey. Donald Trump announced the bombing at his next scheduled event. The media went into a frenzy because Trump called a bombing a bombing before city officials confirmed.

They even asked Hillary Clinton about Trump’s remarks right after she called the incident a bombing herself on her campaign plane.

It is not irresponsible to call a bombing a bombing. That is in fact what happened and what social media networks were calling it. What the media don’t realize is that Americans are sick and tired of being lied to.

Almost contemporaneously to Trump calling it a bombing, the mayor of New York, Bill DeBlasio, was quick to rule out terrorism even before authorities had conducted a full investigation. You don’t see Clinton attacking him. No, she’s talking about how she’s in contact with him.

So let’s recap the past 24 hours: a bombing at a Marine Corps 5K in Seaside, New Jersey; a bombing in the Chelsea area of New York City; the discovery of a secondary Al-Qaeda-style pressure cooker bomb in NYC; and a jihadist stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. But of course the media aren’t incredulous at DeBlasio calling the bombing “intentional” but not terrorism.

Is there any wonder why Trump has taken a lead in the presidential race? People are hungering for their leaders to speak the truth about terrorism, not to continue to obfuscate and lie. (For more from the author of “Media Upset With Trump’s Honesty Around NY Bombing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Heroic Cop Jason Falconer Stopped the St. Cloud Jihadist. Here’s What You Need to Know

The hero off-duty police officer who intervened to stop the St. Cloud jihadist attacker has been identified as firearms trainer and concealed carry advocate Officer Jason Falconer.

Falconer was identified by the St. Cloud Times as the off-duty police officer who shot and killed Dahir Adan, a Somali immigrant who entered Crossroads Center Shopping Mall on September 17 with a knife and stabbed nine people.

“I want to recognize the individual off-duty police officer who eliminated the threat, and took down the suspect,” said St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis, noting that Falconer “clearly prevented additional injuries and potentially loss of life.”

Kleis called Falconer a hero, saying he “happened to be in the right place at the right time.”

Falconer identified himself as a police officer, and the suspect lunged at him, Kleis said according to the St. Cloud Times. It was at that moment Officer Falconer opened fire, killing the suspect.

The Minnesota Star Tribune reports that Falconer is not seeking recognition for his heroism.

“The officer’s life was clearly in danger,” Kleis said, pointing to interior surveillance video that shows the officer shooting, and the suspect falling and getting back up three times, and at one point lunging toward Falconer.

Alerted to the praise for his actions coming from Gov. Mark Dayton and Sen. Amy Klobuchar for his actions inside the mall, Falconer said Sunday afternoon, “I’ve been trying to stay away from it all, for the time being.”

All the same, he is a hero.

(For more from the author of “Heroic Cop Jason Falconer Stopped the St. Cloud Jihadist. Here’s What You Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CLASSIC: Fundamentally Transforming America

Dialogue via Lee Cary, artwork via the unparalleled Biff Spackle:

160917-barry-010
160917-barry-020

Got Cloward-Piven? (For more from the author of “CLASSIC: Fundamentally Transforming America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.