False Alarm: House GOP Caved on Impeaching IRS Commissioner After Mere Hours

The House GOP caved on demanding a vote to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Late Wednesday night, Politico reported:

“House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte have reached a tentative compromise to postpone a vote to impeach the IRS commissioner, sources familiar with the talks told POLITICO.

“Under the terms of the emerging deal, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would testify before the Judiciary panel next Wednesday, and any impeachment vote would likely be postponed until after the November election rather than take place on Thursday, the sources said.”

In the late afternoon Wednesday, Freedom Caucus Reps. Jim Jordan, R-OH (A, 94%), Mark Meadows, R-N.C. (A, 93%), and Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. (A, 91%) spoke to reporters about their effort to impeach IRS commissioner John Koskinen for lying to Congress and destroying 24,000 emails relating to Lois Lerner’s targeting of conservative groups.

Jordan stated that the group was “strong on every count” against Koskinen, who was brought on as IRS Commissioner in the wake of the political targeting scandal in 2013. Koskinen was under three preservation orders and two subpoenas while the IRS destroyed 24,000 emails and 422 backup records with evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

Jordan told reporters that the impeachment measure has been on the table for a year, but Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. (D, 66%), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been reluctant to proceed with impeachment hearings. House GOP leadership has also been reluctant to go forward with impeachment before an election, despite the fact that the IRS continued to cover up the political targeting of conservative groups under Koskinen.

With the inaction from Goodlatte and House GOP leadership, Reps. John Fleming, R-La. (B, 86%) and Huelskamp introduced a privileged resolution to impeach Koskinen on Tuesday, meaning the House must hold a vote within 48 hours unless the resolution is withdrawn.

On late Wednesday afternoon, when the Freedom Caucus members met with reporters to discuss the resolution, they expected a vote to happen the next morning. Less than five hours later though, they reached an agreement with House leadership, negotiated by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. (B, 87%), to hold off on the privileged resolution until the lame-duck session —when it’s more politically expedient for moderate GOP members, and to have Koskinen testify under oath in front of the Judiciary Committee.

Jordan, Meadows, and Huelskamp agreed on Wednesday that in a case like Koskinen’s, where it is clear that the First Amendment rights of Americans were trampled on in an overreach of bureaucratic power and then covered up, it is proper and necessary that the House invokes impeachment. The Founding Fathers clearly thought that impeachment power should be used by Congress to keep abuse of power in check, which is why impeachment is mentioned in “The Federalist Papers” 58 times.

Instead of properly utilizing the power constitutionally granted to it, Congress has become the most ineffectual branch of government in the past few decades — well, maybe 14 decades. As George Will pointed out in National Review, it’s been 140 years since the House impeached a member of the executive branch. When Congress is ineffectual, the executive and judicial branches become more and more powerful, which is why, in 2016, we have a near-unaccountable president and activist judges.

As Rep. Huelskamp said of House Republicans yesterday, “How can you look someone in the eye and tell them you’re the backstop of the constitution, and you’re not willing to vote on this?” (For more from the author of “False Alarm: House GOP Caved on Impeaching IRS Commissioner After Mere Hours” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Just Had a Monster Polling Day

The first wave of polling after Hillary Clinton’s literal collapse over the weekend has started to be released. It’s a Trump rout. In the 11 polls released today, Trump leads seven and tied in two. Voters are reacting to their gut instincts after Clinton was caught lying about her health and giving Trump higher levels of support.

Here’s a quick snapshot of the recent polling as aggregated by RealClearPolitics.

big-polling-day-favors-trump

In that polling are some state jumps. The most significant being in Ohio and Iowa. Polls in both of those states have shown large gains for Trump versus prior polling.

The words “SHOCK POLL” are probably the most overused in the political commentary business. But what just got released in Iowa fits that bill. A Monmouth poll released today in Iowa shows Trump with an eight-point lead. This is a jump from its previous poll. The poll was taken from Monday, September 12 to Wednesday, September 14, 2016.

There have been three polls released in Ohio over the past two days. Trump leads in all of them. All of them were taken, at least in part, after Hillary’s collapse over the weekend. CNN/ORC and Bloomberg both show Trump with a five-point lead, and Suffolk shows the lead at three points. Clinton leads in only one poll of the state taken in September. That CBS/YouGov poll is looking more and more like an outlier.

Hillary Clinton’s comments calling half of Trump’s supporter “deplorables,” and her being caught lying about her health have combined to move the needle in Trump’s favor. What seemed like a sure thing for a Clinton win just three short weeks ago is now a competitive race. If the election were held today, it is anyone’s guess who would win. (For more from the author of “Trump Just Had a Monster Polling Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message

A pro-abortion group wrongly calling itself “Catholic” is once again drawing fire from those who actually adhere to the church’s 2,000-year-old, immutable teachings on life.

This week, the group “Catholics for Choice” ran full-page, color newspaper ads in multiple states where Catholics form a significant voting bloc. One such ad that ran in the Chicago Tribune carries the heading “Abortion in Good Faith,” featuring an elderly woman named Linda saying, “It is because of my Catholic faith, not in spite of it, that I support women who make conscience-based decisions to have an abortion.”

The ad is in direct contradiction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” and that the “teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable,” and that every willed abortion “gravely contrary to the moral law.” The ad goes on to call taxpayer-funded abortions a “social justice issue.”

Catholic bishops across America have taken issue with the group’s grossly errant statement and message, especially when it comes to portraying itself as a Catholic organization.

“Despite what is implied by its name, Catholics for Choice is not a member-oriented organization and has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church,” reads a statement from the Texas Catholic Conference, a statewide association of the Roman Catholic dioceses in Texas, in response to similar ads run in the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express-News. “Instead, it is financed by grants from a few secular organizations pushing a pro-abortion agenda. It seldom ventures beyond Washington to Texas, unless it is to buy expensive, full-page ads when it serves their pro-abortion agenda.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, issued a statement, calling the misleading ad offensive.

“The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person,” reads another statement from Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in Houston. “The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.”

This is not the first time “‘Catholics’ for Choice” has clashed with bishops over a media campaign. Last year, the group took out another full-page, color advertisement on The Washington Post’s daily Express tabloid in June smearing the National Bishops Conference “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign, which seeks to defend and uphold religious liberty against a host of secular attacks.

The ad depicts a cartoonish caricature of a Catholic bishop pointing to the reader (a la Uncle Sam), saying “We want YOU to help us discriminate.”

Ethics & Public Policy Center fellow Stephen White called the ad “old-timey anti-Catholicism” in response, saying “the folks at the Washington Post (who ok’d this travesty) and at Catholics for Choice could do with some prayers.” (For more from the author of “‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here! The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here!

Our Summer Intern Biff Spackle scoops the world with the latest Hillary banner ads, to be unveiled any minute now.

160915-hillary-banner-ads

(For more from the author of “The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here! The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December

By all appearances, Republicans will suffer some serious losses in the upcoming election. The House may remain in GOP hands, but the Republican majority is expected to shrink. The Senate, on the other hand, is tilting towards Democratic control.

If the Republicans Party loses its majorities, the GOP’s ability to lead conservatives in Congress will have lasted a measly two years. During that time, they have accomplished little. However, the time for Republicans to adopt something — hell, anything — remotely conservative, is now. There are only a few opportunities available, but perhaps none is as important as the upcoming spending bill, known as the Continuing Resolution (CR).

In a matter of days, 2016 spending authorization will expire, and it will soon become evident whether Republicans are prepared to fight for conservative principles — or relent to Obama. Unfortunately, in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) has already expressed interest in caving to Democrat demands by passing a short-term CR into December. House conservatives, on the other hand, want to lock in conservative spending priorities for a longer term, or at least for the next nine months.

McConnell knows that this December represents a lame-duck session of Congress. Lame-duck sessions are dangerous times for Congress. As my former colleague, Andy Koenig, noted in the Wall Street Journal,

Dozens of lawmakers on Capitol Hill will retire after November’s election, some voluntarily, some not. But many of them, on both sides of the aisle, are demanding a last chance to pass their preferred policies – in a lame-duck session, this time without interference from pesky voters.

Yes, those pesky voters mean YOU. While we should be clinging to one last chance to sway conservative policy in the CR, we must simultaneously fear the speed at which McConnell is so ready to allow liberals the last word. Here’s what has us concerned.

More Spending

Lame-duck spending bills are synonymous with more spending.

During the 2012 lame duck, Congress passed the “fiscal cliff” budget deal, which increased spending by $47 billion. The same scenario played out the following December, in 2013. Republicans again relented to Democrat demands for additional spending, agreeing to reverse austerity measures passed in the Budget Control Act (a 2011 conservative bill that was designed to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over a decade). The 2013 lame-duck spending bill, however, increased spending for two years; a $45 billion increase for 2014 and an $18 billion increase for 2015.

There was more of the same this past December. Congressional Republicans agreed to increase spending by $80 billion; $50 billion of which was tacked on to this year; the other was designed for next year.

If Congress is consistent at all, it’s in their desire to increase spending during December; particularly during a lame duck. Senator McConnell’s interest in jamming through a spending bill during the lame duck indicates that we should expect more of the same.

Union Bailout

Last week, thousands of unionized coal miners from the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) protested around the U.S. Capitol. Their demonstrations were meant to pressure Congress into providing a bailout for their broken pension and healthcare system. Those miners, in particular, expect Congress to write a check for nearly $490 million — per year.

That amount will cover just a fraction of the short-fall each year. In total, the miners’ pension fund is short nearly six billion in promised benefits. And pleas from the unions are starting to find sympathy among politicians. In July, The USA today reported bipartisan support for Congressional action, especially from Ohio’s Senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (F, 11%) and Republican, Rob Portman, R-Ohio (F, 49%).

The dangerous precedent Congress will set by bailing out this one constituency could lead to one of the world’s largest bailouts. As I wrote last week, unions in total (not just miners) across America have underfunded pension funds totaling more than $600 billion. Furthermore, there are other private, non-unionized plans that need $760 billion in order to fulfill pension promises — or more than $1.3 trillion.

Will Congress offer bailouts for some Americans and not others? Unlikely. Therefore, December could be the start of a multi-trillion dollar pension bailouts.

Obamacare Bailout

Last Friday, the Obama Administration released a discreet memo to every health insurer effectively offering an additional Obamacare bailout. The bailout is related to Obamacare’s risk corridors, created to help insurance companies initially transition into the exchanges. Companies with large profits were asked to deposit part of those gains with the government in order to help other insurance companies that were operating at a loss.

As you can imagine, this plan only works if the insurance companies are actually making money. As Chris Jacobs writes at National Review, “As with most things Obamacare, risk corridors haven’t turned out quite like the administration promised. In 2014, insurers paid in a total of $362 million into the risk-corridor program – but requested $2.87 billion in disbursements.”

Without the necessary funds to bailout all the insurance companies, the Obama administration attempted instead to use taxpayer dollars — a move that turned out to be illegal. It was actually Congress, shockingly enough, that stepped in to prevent Obama from using any funds for this purpose.

Yet, sure enough, Obama found a loophole. The administration has since been sending public notices that insurers are permitted to sue the United States government. Yes, you read that right — “Please sue me.” That letter, sent out in November 2015, signified that all unpaid risk corridor charges were “an obligation of the United States Government for which full payment is required.”

Therefore, instead of complying with the Congressional prohibition on bailouts, the Obama administration has instead encouraged insurance companies to litigate their case before a court; a procedure that would allow the Obama administration to pay the insurance companies from another taxpayer fund, the Judgement Fund of the Treasury; a fund that is used to pay out claims against the U.S.

Absent any action from Congress, Republicans could end up bailing out Obamacare. By doing nothing, Obama will continue to pay-off the insurance companies through the Judgement Fund, blatantly ignoring the intention of Congress.

Previous spending bills have been used to stop Obamacare bailouts; in this instance, Congress can once again prohibit insurance companies receiving payment from the Judgement Fund.

In the end, Congress may proactively bailout out the insurance companies — or do nothing, and accomplish the same end. But just remember, the health care lobby is massive, not to mention wealthy — and there will be many members leaving Congress who would like new employment.

Unneeded Emergency Funding

Flooding and severe storms wreaked havoc on Louisiana last month. In total, 20 parishes were declared a major disaster; at least 60,000 homes were damaged. The governor of the state is expecting damages could exceed $8.4 billion. Of course, that is a preliminary estimate — and everyone is hoping the federal government will pick up the tab.

At first glance, there appears to be enough money in existing federal coffers to help Louisiana. According to Roll Call, FEMA’s emergency fund has $5.3 billion available in its Disaster Relief Fund, not to mention another $7.4 billion that was appropriated this year. In total, the federal government has more than $12 billion available, more than enough to assist Louisiana.

Yet, that isn’t stopping Republican members of Congress from asking for more! In fact, Republican Senators David Vitter, R-La. (D, 69%) and Bill Cassidy, R-La. (F, 50%) along with House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise, R-La. (D, 64%) and the rest of the Louisiana delegation, sent President Obama a letter requesting more emergency funding, “With Congress considering appropriation bills to fund the federal government, it is crucial that a Louisiana supplemental disaster funding component be included as part of the funding bill.”

Congress has long been known to use emergency funding as an excuse to increase spending, even when it’s not particularly needed. Might we see more of this in the lame duck?

Zika Funding

Controversy has surrounded Zika since early summer when the first confirmed cases showed up in Florida. In late June, Congress departed for a summer break without consensus on Zika funding. Despite the government having access to $590 million, left over from Ebola fuding, both parties want at least an additional $1 billion. Republicans requested $1.1 billion, while Democrats demanded $1.9 billion. However, Democrats want more than simply an extra $800 million – they wanted that additional cash to get funneled to Planned Parenthood. That request left the two parties in stalemate.

Until today, that is. According to press reports, it appears Mitch McConnell is willing to relent in order to get a deal done on Zika. That means that in addition to the $550 million the federal government already sends to Planned Parenthood, they may now qualify for more federal money — this, let me remind you, is under a Republican Congress.

To clarify, this agreement may get done before the new fiscal year. But if Republicans and Democrats can’t settle the Zika debate in its entirety — or if the virus gets any worse, we should all prepare to see this issue addressed further in the lame duck.

Conclusion

Republicans spent years working to regain the House, and fought even longer to recapture the Senate. The opportunities that Republican gained by taking control of Congress were endless. Yet few, if any, truly conservative goals were accomplished. Instead, this Republican moment will be remembered for higher spending, larger debts, and bigger deficits. They have one more chance to make a name for themselves — this time by avoiding a complete sell out during this year’s lame duck. (For more from the author of “5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Nature of Upside-Down Alaska Politics

Donkeys, Elephants, and Rinos! Fitting names for the zoo like behavior of many in Alaska’s political environment where Democrats are running as Independents and Democrats claim they are running as conservatives, leaving Alaskan’s confused with their heads spinning as they try to make sense of it all. This mix-up likely stems from politicians and candidates not adhering to political party platforms which adds to the confusion regarding the definition of a libertarian.

What is a Libertarian? A Democrat, a Republican, a conservative or a liberal? How do you get to the truth and to the core of a candidate in order to understand who they “really” are? Many vote R or D out of tradition without understanding what their respective candidates actually stand for.

In order to understand our form of government and the division of parties we must begin with Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” It is my belief that in order to maintain and strengthen our freedoms, individual civil liberties and success we must sustain our Republican form of government. And, over time, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that this is best done through the implementation of Libertarian principles.

As I reflect upon my own upbringing, I have always been fiercely independent and self-determined with an eager desire to venture out into the world to pursue my own interests. Probably not that much different from most people. In many ways I attribute my internal compass to my Alaska Native Aleut heritage and the influences of my parents and grandparents who instilled their deep cultural Alaska Native roots in me.

Something I began to understand much better in my 20s was that a lot of people across all demographics shared many of the same feelings and beliefs. Naively I wondered if they were Aleut descendants too? Silly, I know. But, it became evident that we are naturally Libertarians, seeking to be free, independent, and respecting the freedoms of others. Being a Libertarian has always been natural for me. Being a Libertarian is being grounded in simple principles of liberty, personal freedom, individual responsibility, self-determination, and self-reliance, kindness, peace, and the utmost respect for life.

Let me correctly define what a Libertarian is in order to give clarity and correct stereotypes that have been made by non-libertarians about our philosophy.

First, there is a big difference between political party affiliation and philosophical beliefs. Just because one registers as a republican does not make them conservative. Take a look at the voting records of our elected officials and you’ll see what I mean. Republicans often self-ascribe as conservatives when many actually aren’t. Many that identify as conservatives often read parts of the Libertarian platform and comment, “that sure sounds conservative.” In fact many conservative principles are actually derived from Libertarian principles not the other way around.

Political party affiliation allows you to be a part of a group. Party registration is simply an association. And, when you consider that this is done completely outside of the authority of the parties, there are limited controls and standards applied to membership. Within that association however you will have many flavors of philosophical perspectives. The primary political affiliations include Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian. Political Ideologies may include but are not limited to Liberal, progressive, conservative, moderate and Libertarian. Libertarians are the only political party that describes its philosophy and the name of the party with the same term and this sometimes causes some confusion.

Libertarians believe in the idea of individual liberty, limited government, free market economics, constitutional government, adhering to the strict enumerated powers of government, self-reliance, the rule of law, and peace. These are just the tip of the iceberg.
Libertarians strongly believe in the rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution protecting life, liberty, and property. Libertarians defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful, doesn’t encroach upon the freedom of others and encourages the diversity that freedom brings.

Libertarianism is often misunderstood and incorrectly defined by people on the right and left. Libertarians are not some hybrid of republicans and democrats. Libertarians are not a concocted half-breed of political ideologies and dogma. Libertarianism, plainly stated, is the counterpoint to both the liberal and conservative perspectives.

Democrats and Republicans love to define, wrongly of course, what a Libertarian is, who we are and what we believe. This is done to diminish our influence and ideological strength as a strategy, drawing Libertarians into their parties, for self-aggrandizement. Almost always, republicans, democrats, and the media purposely or ignorantly wrongly state the Alaska Libertarian platform, policies and positions. This leads to some libertarians to in fact themselves misunderstand true libertarian principles.

I refuse to stand idly by while those with deceptive political intentions try to define who we are and what we believe.

Myth VS. Truth about Libertarians:

MYTH #1:
Libertarians are pro-abortion. (We are not. That is a liberal Democrat position)

– We stand with the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that humanity is endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life.“

MYTH #2:
Libertarians are Pro Same Sex Marriage (We are not. That is a liberal democrat position)

– We believe that it is an improper role of government to “grant” permission and charge a fee for a licenses to marry anyone.

MYTH #3:
Libertarians are Pacifists (We are not. Pacifists are Pacifists and not libertarians.)

– We believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and stand with the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, often referred to as the War Powers Act, that a declaration of war is the authority of the Congress, not the President.

MYTH #4:
Libertarians are Anarchists (We are not. Anarchists are Anarchists and not libertarians.)

– We believe in the constitutional form of republican government that is laid out in Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution. We believe in limited, defined, government.

MYTH #5:
Libertarians promote drug use through legalization. (We do not. This is a liberal democrat position.)

– Legalization is advocacy for access through permission from government with a fee or tax levied. This is not liberty, it is permission.

MYTH #6:
Libertarians pursue legalization of…

– We support the Declaration of Independence that demands that government does not over regulate. A prominent grievance by our Founding Fathers to King George was that “He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their Substance.” Our nation was founded on the principle that government, in most cases, ought to leave us alone.

In Conclusion, the Alaska Libertarian Party differs from the National Libertarian Party platform in two distinct ways. Alaska does not address abortion or personal relationships. In addition some semantic word changes exist which are slightly modified to meet the needs of our unique lifestyle and cultures in Alaska. Additionally, Alaskan Libertarian candidates are free to define their degree of national integrity or “border control.”

Government should be a last resort not a first resource!

__________________________________________

thumbnail_img_1369Terrence Shanigan is the first Alaska native to be elected as Chair to a major recognized Party in Alaska. The Alaska Libertarian Party is proud of this distinction. He is a veteran, retired Alaska State Trooper, Alaska Native Aleut, former President of the Native tribe of Kanatak and Tribal Judge.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tough Phoenix Sheriff May Have New Foe: George Soros

Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America who could face criminal charges for ignoring a judge’s order to stop targeting Latinos in anti-immigration roundups, may now have a new foe as he seeks re-election – George Soros, the billionaire liberal hedge fund tycoon.

The Republican sheriff already was battered politically and support for him had been slipping when a group linked to Soros mounted an anti-Arpaio attack in an attempt to weaken his bid for a seventh straight term.

The group started sending fliers to Phoenix-area voters two weeks ago, and a mailing last week accuses Arpaio of separating a mother from her child because of an unpaid traffic ticket, botching hundreds of sex crimes investigations and scaring immigrants so much that that they don’t report crime. (Read more from “Tough Phoenix Sheriff May Have New Foe: George Soros” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Powell: Clinton Should Have Admitted Email Practices up Front

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell doesn’t like GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump — but he thinks Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton should have been more forthright about her e-mail practices.

In a number of e-mails released by DC Leaks, Powell pushed back against the way Clinton had attempted to drag him into her e-mail scandals. The Democratic nominee, one of his successors as secretary of state, claimed Powell had advised her on e-mail policy.

Clinton Tried to Pin It On Him

Powell, who most famously served under both Presidents Bush, accused Clinton of “trying to pin” her e-mail scandal on him. In fact, according to an e-mail released by House Democrats, what the former Secretary of State under George W. Bush said was far less about violating the law, and more about giving advice to a colleague.

“If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law,” Powell wrote Clinton. “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”

After Clinton dragged him into the e-mail investigations by saying she got advice on her illegal practices from Powell, he denounced the effort. “I have told Hilleary’s [sic] minions repeatedly that they are making a mistake trying to drag me in, yet they still try,” he wrote earlier this year. “The media isn’t fooled and she is getting crucified. The differences are profound and they know it.”

Perhaps most importantly, according to Powell, “HRC could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me to it.”

Powell also commented on Clinton looking unhealthy, and said her “hubris” would likely cause problems. He criticized her exorbitant speaking fees, saying one university was unable to bring him to speak because they had to spend so much to bring Clinton to campus.

Trump, Birtherism and Racism

The famously centrist Powell didn’t mince words about Trump, either. “Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.”

Powell called the GOP investigation into the security failures and the subsequent cover-up a witch hunt, as well.

Powell endorsed President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, sending ripples through the GOP establishment. He has yet to endorse a presidential candidate in this election. (For more from the author of “Powell: Clinton Should Have Admitted Email Practices up Front” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Syrian Christian Refugees to US Still in Line Behind Muslims, and Obama’s Just Fine With That

Ten months ago, Syrian Christian refugees made up about 2.6 percent of the Syrian refugees being accepted into the United States. Today, they make up less than half of one percent.

According to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center, in the last year the United States has admitted only 56 Christians out of 11,157 Syrian refugees granted asylum. But according to the CIA’s World Factbook, Christians make up about 10 percent of Syria’s population. And given how Syrian Christians are being persecuted by ISIS and other jihadist groups, surely they represent at least 10 percent if not more of the would-be refugees from Syria.

So, why don’t Christians make up at at least 10 percent of the refugees admitted? And why hasn’t the Obama administration, apparently so eager to welcome Syrian refugees to our shores, corrected the imbalance? There are at least two possible explanations.

Two Explanations for the Missing Syrian Christian Refugees

Some argue that the U.S. intentionally picks Syrian Muslim refugees over Syrian Christian refugees. Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer writes, “This is social engineering, not humanitarian relief.”

Others argue that there is another, more practical reason. The refugees admitted to the U.S. are taken from Syrian refugee camps, and these camps are deadly places for Christians. Christians are regularly kidnapped, tortured, raped and endure all manner of atrocities, so they avoid the camps, said Jonathan Witt, managing editor of The Stream.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom concurs. “The Christians don’t reside in those camps, because it is too dangerous,” she said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”

Also, Kiri Kankhwende, senior press officer for the United Kingdom-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), said United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) workers routinely show favoritism to Muslims over those Christians who do choose to live in the refugee camps. “There are reports of UNHCR local staff discriminating against Christians and dissuading them from registering for resettlement,” she said in a statement to the Assyrian International News Agency, adding that her organization “interviewed many Christian refugees who described experiencing threats, intimidation and physical attacks from Muslim refugees.”

Ten months ago, Witt commented, “President Obama should act, but standing up to bullies takes courage and resources. Finding the truly helpless in a system rigged against the helpless takes effort and commitment. There’s still time for Obama, working with Congress, to make that effort and that commitment.”

Ten months later, the Syrian Christians are still waiting for Obama to so much as lift a finger.

Without Refuge

Those who choose to stay in their villages aren’t safe, either. Islamist militants took over Maaloula, Syria, in late 2013 and occupied the town for about six months, CNN reported. Even now Christians in the town are afraid for their lives, and some residents who were kidnapped by ISIS are still missing. One resident, a nun named Sister Antoinette, told The Telegraph that her brother-in-law had been killed by rebel fighters and his son kidnapped. Another villager said that his neighbor was slaughtered in his home and the rebels had tried to force another man to convert to Islam. Sister Antoinette said the Syrian army failed them, leaving the town even as residents begged them to help. “They sold us because we are a minority,” she said. “They abandoned us because we are Christians.”

In June, 2016, jihadists slit the throat of a Christian man in front of his wife and mocked her, saying “Your Jesus did not come to save him from us,” reported Christians in Pakistan. Militants arrived in Maaloula at dawn and shouted that they were from the Al-Nusra Front and aimed to make life miserable for the Christians. The persecution of Christians in Syria has resulted in the enormous refugee crisis, according to Christians in Pakistan.

A Still Declining Number

Overall, the number of Christian Syrian refugees admitted to the United States per month has declined, even after Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement in March that ISIS was indeed committing genocide against minority groups, including Christians. “In my judgment, Daesh [ISIS] is responsible for genocide against groups in territory under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims,” Kerry said, adding that ISIS had committed “crimes against humanity” and “ethnic cleansing.”

The State Department, however, has not changed how it is operating to actively seek out Christian Syrians and give them asylum, leading Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to introduce legislation that would give persecuted religious minority groups priority. “We must not only recognize what’s happening as genocide, but also take action to relieve it,” Cotton said, adding that Kerry’s words were “just lip service on the issue of the genocide.”

Shea told Fox News that it’s not just about helping Christian refugees safely escape Syria, but the survival of Christianity in Syria itself. “This Christian community is dying,” she said. “I fear that there will be no Christians left when the dust settles.” (For more from the author of “Syrian Christian Refugees to US Still in Line Behind Muslims, and Obama’s Just Fine With That” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will the Third Party Candidates Matter for Once? They Could This Year

For the first time in a while, not one but two third-party candidates are getting traction in the U.S. presidential race. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is polling from 7 to 12 points in general election polls, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein from 2 to 5 points — that’s at least one-tenth of the voters between them, and as much as one-sixth.

Although minor candidates tend to see their support shrink as the election nears, in a tight race each could take enough votes from one of the major candidates to give the election to the other.

The RealClearPolitics average gives Clinton a 2 point edge over Trump, with Johnson taking 9 points and Stein 3. If the election were held today, and Johnson’s voters went to Trump while Stein’s went to Clinton, Trump would win 49.9 to 44.8. But there are a lot of ifs.

What’s Happened Before?

In 1948, a divided Democratic party chose the unpopular Harry S. Truman, who had become president when Franklin Roosevelt died 82 days into his fourth term. One faction, upset with Truman’s support for civil rights, formed the States Rights Democratic party (the “Dixiecrats”) and nominated South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond. The other faction, upset with his Cold War policies, shifted to the recently formed Progressive party and its candidate, former vice president Henry Wallace.

Democrats worried that the two together would take enough votes from Truman to shift the electoral college to give Republican Thomas Dewey the presidency. They wouldn’t need to get many votes to tip some states to Dewey.

Thurmond drew only a little over one million votes (Truman got over 24 million and Dewey almost 22 million) and carried only four southern states and 39 electoral votes. Wallace got almost the same number of votes, but his support was spread across the country and he carried no state. Truman won with just under 50 percent of the vote and 303 electoral votes. Neither third-party candidate mattered at the end.

Most minor candidates have rarely cracked one percent of the vote, but at least a couple have tipped elections before. In 1968,the former governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who had been a lifelong Democrat, ran as the American Independent Party candidate and received 13.53 percent of the vote. It is believed he took enough votes away from Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey to allow Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon to win — by about 1 point.

In 1984, independent John Anderson took 6.6 percent and Libertarian Ed Clark 1.06 percent of the vote, not enough to stop Republican Ronald Reagan from winning the presidency.

Reform Party candidate Ross Perot fared the best of minor candidates in recent years, achieving 18.9 percent of the vote in 1992. He was widely perceived as having taken enough votes away from George H.W. Bush to tip the election to Bill Clinton. Perot ran again in 1996, but only received only 8.4 percent of the vote, not thought to have had an effect on the outcome.

What Will Happen This Year?

The question this year is whether come election day enough voters will be so turned off by Clinton and Trump that they’ll vote for a third-party candidate in high enough numbers to turn the election. The two major candidates have record high combined negatives.

Johnson is a somewhat conservative Libertarian, so if he were not in the race, it is possible most of his votes would go to Trump. However, he’s socially liberal on some issues, so Johnson voters are far from the GOP’s for the taking if Johnson’s support tanks in the runup to election day. Stein is a progressive, so if she were not in the race, most of her votes would probably go to Clinton. It’s also possible that if Johnson and Stein were out of the picture, many of their voters would either vote for another minor candidate or not vote at all.

The polls give different answers — and the answers are confusing. A recent Quinnipiac poll of voters in the battleground state of Florida found that including Johnson and Stein in the list of candidates did not affect the results. Without them, each of the two leading candidates got 47 percent of the vote, with only 2 percent saying they’d vote for someone else. With the two third-party candidates included in the poll, Trump and Hillary each got 43 percent.

But here’s part of what’s confusing: While only 2 percent had said they’d vote for someone else when only Trump and Clinton were included, 10% said they’d vote for someone other than Trump or Hillary when Johnson (8 percent) and Stein (2 percent) were included in the poll question. They’ll both be on the Florida ballot, but will voters consider them or focus on the two major candidates?

The same is true in two other battleground states, North Carolina and Ohio, according to the same poll. In both states Clinton wins by 4 points whether or not the other two candidates are included. In Ohio, however, the inclusion of Johnson and Stein increases Trump’s lead from one point to four — even though Johnson takes 14 percent of the vote and Stein six.

In at least one state, the two candidates may tip the balance, according to the latest polls. In normally Republican-voting Arizona, a Washington Post-SurveyMonkey poll found that Clinton edges out Trump by 46 percent to 45 percent in a two-way race. But with Johnson and Stein in the race, Trump takes the lead by two points, while Johnson comes in at 13 percent and Stein at four percent.

But The Electoral College

But the most important reality, as Cliston Brown notes in The Observer, a New York City weekly published by Trump’s nephew, is that Johnson and Stein probably won’t affect the electoral college numbers, and those are the numbers that elect presidents. Speaking of the fourteen states thought to be in play, the candidate who leads in the head-to-head vote is also leading when the two third-party candidates are included. Brown estimates that “On average, across the 14 competitive states, the third-party effect is benefitting Trump by about 0.25 percent.”

Yet that could change. A significant stumble by either major candidate could send some of their supporters to Johnson or Stein, enough to shift the vote in one of the close battleground states. Their presence allows disaffected Clinton or Trump supporters to participate in the election while feeling they’re voting on their principles, rather than just voting for the major candidate because they have to.

The third-party candidates could affect the race in another way: by changing the debate and forcing the major candidates to deal with their issues. If either minor candidate can reach 15 percent support in polling, he or she will be eligible to participate in the presidential debates. If Johnson is invited to the debates, he could become as significant a third-party candidate as Ross Perot was in 1992, due to the heightened publicity. (For more from the author of “Will the Third Party Candidates Matter for Once? They Could This Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.