JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FAITH… Where the Rivers Run Red With Blood

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s no violence here against anyone except animals. It’s a surreal sight. Shocking in some ways. And another reminder of just how different Islamic culture is from our civilization.

Huge swathes of animal sacrifices marking the Islamic festival Eid al-Adha turned the streets of Bangladesh’s capital into rivers of blood.

Authorities in Dhaka had designated areas in the city where residents could slaughter animals, but heavy downpours Tuesday rendered them out of action.

Instead, Muslims took to car parks, garages and alleyways to traditionally mark Eid al-Adha – or the Feast of Sacrifice – by slaughtering livestock and when the blood flowed into the streets, it turned them red.

It’s a scene out of a horror movie. And yet it’s life in the Muslim world. (For more from the author of “JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FAITH… Where the Rivers Run Red With Blood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Hispanics, Blacks Have Fared in Obama Economy

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama will be speaking this week for the last time during his presidency to annual dinners for black and Hispanic members of Congress, even as his record for the two largest minority groups in the country is at best questionable, based on government numbers.

A Census Bureau report this week found wages have climbed back to pre-recession levels in 2015, including for blacks and Hispanics. However, throughout Obama’s two terms, the highest unemployment rates continue to be among African-Americans and Hispanics, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The president’s policies haven’t helped either group, said Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a black conservative group.

“The black community has suffered tremendously under the president’s policies,” Cooper told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“The president seems to be so proud that wages are back, but that just means the misery has endured until his last year in office,” Cooper added. “He has turned the Great Recession that should have been two to three years into five to seven years. We haven’t had full job growth for almost eight years.”

The president, not surprisingly, had a different perspective, touting the Census numbers in a White House video Tuesday. Obama said:

Incomes actually went up 5.2 percent. This is actually the biggest jump year over year since 1968. The good news is, it went up for everybody, all income groups, except those at the very, very top, all races, genders … It paints a picture of an economy that is improving, that is reducing poverty and increasing incomes. This is all a consequence of some of the smart economic policies we’ve been putting in place over the last several years.

The White House noted that Hispanics saw the largest gain in median income at 6.1 percent, while seeing a 2.2 percent drop in poverty. Further, blacks had a 2.1 percent drop in poverty.

However, the recovery has been too weak to celebrate, said James Sherk, a research fellow for labor economics at The Heritage Foundation.

“This has been the slowest recovery of the post-war era,” Sherk told The Daily Signal. “All racial groups suffered losses in the downturn that are only now being recovered.”

On Thursday, Obama is speaking to the 39th Annual Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Conference and Annual Awards Gala. Then, on Saturday, he will speak at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 46th Annual Legislative Conference Phoenix Awards Dinner. Both events are in Washington.

Based on the new Census report, the estimated median income for blacks in 2015 was $37,211. That’s up from the previous year, when it was $35,694. But it’s only nominally higher than when Obama came into office at $36,179. The year before Obama ran, the estimated median income for blacks was $37,809. Pre-recession, 2007, the median income for black Americans was $38,970.

However, the wages picture is better for Hispanics, whose estimated median income for 2015 was $45,148, up about $2,600 from the previous year. It marks the only significant increase for Hispanics during Obama’s tenure. In 2009, the median income was $42,022, then leveled to $40,000 or $41,000 until a slight increase in 2014. In 2007, before the recession, the median income was $44,215.

However, a year-to-year comparison could lack precision based on a redesigned survey from the Census Bureau in 2014, which is intended to capture more income than the old survey.

The employment situation for the two demographics is more cloudy, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. African-Americans are hit hard on both fronts. Hispanics have one of the highest labor force participation rates of any demographic, but also lag in employment. Labor force participation has actually declined slightly for both groups, going from 63 percent in 2008 to 61 percent for blacks during most of Obama’s time in office. Hispanics had a 68 percent workforce participation rate in 2008, but after 2010 fell to 66 percent and remained there.

Pre-recession, the unemployment rates were 8.3 percent for blacks and 5.6 percent for Hispanics in 2007. This climbed in 2008 during when the recession hit. During Obama’s first year in office, according to the statistics bureau, blacks had an unemployment rate of 14.8 percent. Hispanics had a 12.1 percent unemployment rate. They remained mostly steady the next two years.

By 2012, the unemployment rate dropped for both groups, but was still much higher than the national average. It dropped slightly during the first year of Obama’s second term. However, in 2014, overall unemployment had decreased to 6.2 percent, but actually increased to 11.3 percent for blacks. Hispanics, that year, were on a par with the national average.

Obama and progressives in general would prefer to identify various voting blocs instead of boosting economic advancement, said Michael Gonzalez, a senior fellow in foreign policy for The Heritage Foundation and author of “Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.”

“My main beef with progressives is blocs rather than individuals,” Gonzalez told The Daily Signal. “They want to drive a narrative that you have no power to change things and must depend on the government for help. We shouldn’t look at Hispanics as a group, that’s their mistake.”

Cooper, of Project 21, said that African-Americans did fare better during the Ronald Reagan years, and even during the 1990s with Bill Clinton, along with every other demographic, before Obamacare, the stimulus spending, and other regulation crowded out the private sector.

“There was an increase in black Americans owning homes, in high school graduations, and attending college,” Cooper said. “Today, it’s harder for entrepreneurs. If not for the digital economy, all opportunities might be eliminated. Barriers for entry into the economy are artificially higher because of the federal government.” (For more from the author of “How Hispanics, Blacks Have Fared in Obama Economy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ahead of Vote on Impeachment of IRS Commissioner, Freedom Caucus Pushes Republicans

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservatives who belong to the House Freedom Caucus are trying to corner any Republicans thinking twice about impeaching the head of the Internal Revenue Service. They’ve framed the debate as a strict binary, telling fellow members of the GOP that they either can be with conservatives or with the IRS.

Skipping the regular committee process, the Freedom Caucus took their case directly to the House floor.

Reps. John Fleming, R-La., and Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., introduced a “privileged resolution” Tuesday to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

The House has scheduled a roll call vote Thursday. It’s the closest conservatives have come in their effort to remove the top taxman, who they accuse of obstructing a congressional investigation into IRS targeting of conservative groups.

And conservatives interpret any parliamentary tactic to delay a vote as part of a strategy to scuttle impeachment.

“Any motion to table or refer to a committee is meant to kill the impeachment,” Fleming wrote in a statement, “and should be viewed as a vote against impeachment by that member.”

That notice is born from a well-founded fear.

House Democrats already warn that they will vote in unison in support of Koskinen and against impeachment. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Tuesday that “every Democrat is going to vote against this.”

And if liberals poach enough conservatives, they could spoil the effort. Lawmakers wouldn’t need to vote against impeachment Thursday: They either could vote to table the resolution or refer it to committee.

Centrist Republicans—among them Tuesday Group Chairman Charlie Dent, R-Pa.—are pushing for the second option.

“There has got to be some level of due process afforded here,” Dent told The Daily Signal on Tuesday. “If there’s going to be an impeachment vote, it should go through a regular order process and you shouldn’t try to sneak something this important through.”

Conservatives balk at that characterization. They argue that ongoing reluctance to impeach from House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has soured the process.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., described the Freedom Caucus strategy as an emergency valve.

“This privileged resolution is regular order,” Mulvaney, a founder of the Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal. “It’s regular order when the other parts of the process break down.”

The conservative push to impeach is nothing new. They’ve been calling for the IRS commissioner’s retirement since October, arguing that he obstructed the congressional investigation into the agency’s treatment of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

The White House has decried that targeting but remained unwavering in its defense of Koskinen, who was brought in to reform the agency.

Koskinen, who has hired a personal defense lawyer, has described allegations of wrongdoing as “unwarranted” and the articles of impeachment lodged against him as “without merit.”

To the chagrin of conservatives, the tax chief met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill last Wednesday to make his case for why he should keep his job.

Republicans will huddle in a closed-door conference meeting Thursday morning to discuss their party’s official position.

Though there hasn’t been an official GOP vote count, the Freedom Caucus backs the privileged resolution to impeach, as do Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, and Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

The Freedom Caucus received a boost from conservative columnist George Will over the weekend. Will lent their cause intellectual firepower, writing that “Congress should fulfill its constitutional duty to police executive branch lawlessness.”

“What we have in the houses of Congress are agents of our own obsolescence,” Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, said Tuesday, referring to Will’s article. “And it’s because of the leadership of the Republican Party.” (For more from the author of “Ahead of Vote on Impeachment of IRS Commissioner, Freedom Caucus Pushes Republicans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Planned Parenthood looks to spend a record $30 million this fall to influence the November elections and keep its taxpayer funding flowing, Live Action has released a new online tool pro-lifers can use to help counter the kind of propaganda $30 million can buy.

Live Action’s new “3 Percent Abortion Myth” video dispels one of Planned Parenthood’s greatest myths—that abortion only makes up 3 percent of its services.

In order to justify its half-billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, Planned Parenthood downplays its abortion numbers by falsely claiming that abortion only makes up three percent of its business—and instead plays up its cancer screenings and so-called “women’s health care.”

However, Planned Parenthood’s own numbers prove that it’s an abortion corporation, focused on abortion, not on women’s health care. The fact is, Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform a single mammogram and performs less than 2 percent of all women’s cancer screenings in the United States. Yet, as America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood commits over 30 percent of America’s abortions—887 abortions a day, one abortion every 97 seconds, and over 320,000 abortions last year alone.

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so focused on abortion that it aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption (it doesn’t do adoptions itself). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy goes to Planned Parenthood, that child is 160 times more likely to be poisoned or dismembered than to be put up for adoption to a waiting family.

Live Action’s new motion graphics video not only shows that Planned Parenthood’s market share of abortions dwarfs its share of cancer screenings, it also illustrates how Planned Parenthood calculates its ridiculous 3 percent statistic to deliberately mislead the public and downplay its abortion business. The figure is derived by dividing the number of abortions it does by the total number of services it provides, counting a $10 pregnancy test or a pack of condoms the same as a $500 abortion.

Even The Washington Post and Slate have called out the abortion corporation for its deception.

Three percent is a hugely important figure to understand, because Planned Parenthood and its allies in Washington, Hollywood, and the media often use it to dismiss its critics as well as taxpayers who object to being forced to support the abortion chain with hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Three percent is not a real number, but over 320,000 abortions a year and a 30 percent market share of all U.S. abortions are.

Planned Parenthood by the numbers:

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for Pap tests is 0.97 percent. It performed 271,539 tests in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 28.1 million tests nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.

Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption.

Planned Parenthood is spending more than it ever has — and double what it spent in 2012 – to influence this November’s election. Citizens have a right to know the truth about an organization that has a hold on the media, our elected leaders, and our wallets.

You can share this video to help counter one of Planned Parenthood’s biggest lies and help educate other voters. Planned Parenthood’s millions of dollars are no match for the millions of voices speaking up for the most vulnerable among us — our precious preborn children. (For more from the author of “The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Key Internet Giveaway Advocate Can’t Give a Straight Answer on Free Speech Concerns

/0 Comments/in , /by

A key player of the Obama administration’s internet giveaway was unable to offer a straight answer about how the organization that handles the system’s road map would be run, or whether or not it would be moved outside of the United States.

At a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the proposed internet giveaway at the end of the month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) confronted Goran Marby, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is responsible for maintaining the internet’s address systems.

In a particularly tense exchange with Marby, the ICANN chief could not seem to find a straight answer on whether or not the organization — which currently operates as a nonprofit under California law — could see its bylaws altered by a multi-stakeholder body, or whether the organization could be moved to countries under oppressive regimes.

Under the structure of the proposed giveaway, ICANN would be no longer be tied to the United States government, which opponents of the move argue would remove free speech protections from the government’s overall administration.

During the exchange, in which Goran repeatedly dodged the chair’s questions, the nonprofit leader could not even answer the question regarding whether or not he agreed with Reporters Without Borders’ assertion that the People’s Republic of China is an “enemy of the internet” due to its repeated free speech violations.

Cruz: So, just to clarify your testimony is the community – the U.S. businesses – who have had a questionable record of protecting free speech in the past have the authority to change the bylaws in the future. Is that correct.

Marby: As I stated earlier, if someone really wants to change this setting, it’s easier to start an alternative ICANN … outside the U.S.

Cruz: I’m not asking you which is easier. I’m asking if the bylaws can be changed.

Marby: There are so many checks and balances within the system, I would say that it’s hardly possible to do.

Cruz: Sir, this isn’t a complicated question. Can the bylaws be changed? You’re saying, ‘gosh, it would be easier to do something else.’ Either the bylaws can be changed, or they can’t.

Marby: I think I’ve answered this to the best of my ability. I cannot do it, the community can after all checks and balances, but the whole bylaws are built on California law.

Cruz: And under California law, the bylaws can be changed under what you referred to as the stakeholders community, is that correct?

Marby finally gave a stilted answer assuring that the bylaws could indeed be changed by the parties mentioned, but only after satisfying ICANN’s “checks and balances,” which also represent internet users and other stakeholders outside of large tech companies.

Earlier in the hearing, Sen. Cruz also voiced his concerns about the role that private corporations would play in the governance of the internet under the terms of the transition, given the reputation that many have earned for suppressing free speech on their own platforms.

“Under the guardianship of the United States and the First Amendment, the internet has truly become an oasis of freedom,” said Cruz in his opening statement, but warned that severing that role could lead to infringement of free speech due to powerful corporations and oppressive regimes.

“Imagine an internet run like one of our large, private universities today, with speech codes and safe zones — an Internet that determines some terms are too scary … microaggressions are too troubling … we will not allow them to be spoken on the Internet.

“Imagine an internet run like far too many European countries that punish so-called ‘hate speech’ — a notoriously malleable concept that has often been used to suppress views disfavored by those in power,” Cruz continued. “Or imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy. Or imagine an internet run like China or Russia that punish and incarcerate those who engage in political dissent.”

Cruz referred to ICANN as a “corporation with a Byzantine governing structure designed to blur lines of accountability that is run by global bureaucrats who are supposedly accountable to the technocrats, to multinational corporations, to governments, including some of the most oppressive regimes in the world like China, Iran, and Russia.”

In his opening statement, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa (D, 68%) also voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed handoff, which rests on whether or not America’s “historic role” as steward of the internet also means that the information system counts as U.S. government property.

“We’ve continued to engage with the administration about this transition and to date the answers we’ve received have been inadequate,” reads a statement from Grassely. “It’s clear that the administration hasn’t conducted a thorough legal analysis of the many issues outstanding.”

Proponents of the handoff argue that the handoff is somewhere between a good thing and an irrelevant thing, like Techdirt’s Mike Masnick, who calls the government’s role in internet governance “flimsy” and near-nonexistent.

During the hearing, pro-giveaway testimonies attempted to cast the handoff in terms of decentralization and free markets, quoting reports from center-right organizations and urging those distrustful of the move to trust market forces and privatization in the matter.

“The best way to preserve Internet freedom is to depend on the community of stakeholders who own, operate, and transact business and exchange information over the myriad of networks that comprise the Internet,” said National Telecommunications and Information Administration Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling, who also said that the U.S. government’s current internet infrastructure framework “is too limited in scope” to effectively protect freedom of expression on the Web.

Sen. Cruz took issue with this sentiment, pointing to the fact that many of the tech companies who have come out in support of the giveaway have a spotty record on internet censorship themselves. In May, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube partnered with the European Union to promote a code of conduct that would crack down on what the international body considers “hate speech.”

“That’s not what I would call a fine record of free speech,” said Cruz, who accused proponents of “asking the American people to trust private companies with control of their free speech.”

NTIA’s Strickling contested the assertion, saying that the government’s role is at the highest level and has no control over content on websites at the “second and third level.”

During the second panel, Tech Freedom president Berin Szoka also urged congress to assert the power of the purse on the issue — alleging that the NTIA had already violated previous congressional mandates to not use public funds to work on the transition — and block the transition via appropriations riders at the end of the month.

“The power of the purse is not an auxiliary power, to be used sparingly and construed narrowly, it is the ultimate power of Congress,” he concluded.

The giveaway will take place on September 30 unless congress passes legislation specifically blocking it. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Key Internet Giveaway Advocate Can’t Give a Straight Answer on Free Speech Concerns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.

/0 Comments/in , /by

How often have you heard sexual progressives claim that those of us who hold to traditional sexual morality and marriage are “on the wrong side of history?”

But as one new book points out, it’s the proponents of the sexual revolution who are embracing a sexual morality that history left behind millennia ago—in the dusty ruins of the Roman Forum.

Yes, today Western civilization is undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. In just a few short years our society has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage, embraced the notion that men can become women, and is now promoting the idea that grown men should be welcome to share a bathroom with women and young girls. Not unexpectedly, we’re also seeing movement toward the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest.

It’s precisely in times like this that we need some historical perspective. Which is why Lutheran pastor Matthew Rueger’s new book, “Sexual Morality in a Christless World,” is a timely godsend. In it, Rueger shows how Christian sexual morality rocked the pagan world of ancient Rome. The notions of self-giving love, sexual chastity, and marital fidelity were foreign, even shocking to the people of that time.

Citing existing scholarship, Rueger details the Roman sexual worldview that prevailed for hundreds of years. Women and children were viewed as sexual objects; slaves—male and female–could expect to be raped; there was widespread prostitution; and predatory homosexuality was common. Christian sexual morality might have been seen as repressive by the licentious, but it was a gift from God for their victims. (Read more from “We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Your Tax Dollars Are Going to Fund This Army Prisoner’s Sex Reassignment Surgery

/0 Comments/in , /by

The government is footing the bill for Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who is currently serving a 35-year sentence for participating in a national security secrets leak, to undergo gender reassignment surgery while in prison.

According to Manning’s lawyers, Manning ended a hunger strike that began last week after the Army said it would provide the surgery, USA Today reports. Previously, Manning sued the Army for not providing hormone treatment, causing the Army to initiate hormone therapy.

When Manning’s gender reassignment surgery will transpire is still in question, but Manning is meeting with doctors this month.

To be clear, this surgery isn’t cheap and American taxpayers could be picking up the tab, as they are with Manning. Estimates for male-to-female transitions range from $7,000 to $24,000 and female-to-male reassignment can exceed $50,000. Even so, efforts to include gender-transition healthcare services to military members is gaining momentum.

Tricare, the military’s healthcare program, is forging ahead in paying for some gender-transition health care services to military family members and retirees, despite the fact the official policy — scheduled for finalization in October — hasn’t been authorized yet.

“It is no longer justifiable to categorically exclude and not cover currently accepted medically and psychologically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria (such as psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and hormone replacement therapy) that are not otherwise excluded by statute,” the proposed regulation states.

Raquel Bono, Navy Vice Admiral and head of the Defense Health Agency, said last month she will not wait for the final policy and, instead, is having Tricare proceed in administering these services.

Although Tricare and the Veterans Health Department are explicitly prohibited from covering sex-change surgeries, Democratic lawmakers are requesting the Department of Veterans Affairs to include covering gender reassignment surgery for transgender veterans.

Just this week, a group of six House members submitted a letter asking for sex-reassignment surgeries to be covered.

“We write to you today as members of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus Transgender Equality Task Force to urge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to move swiftly to ensure access to medically necessary surgical care for transgender veterans,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald. “We urge you to move forward with publishing a proposed rule to remove the arbitrary and outdated restriction that prohibits VA from providing medical services to treat gender dysphoria.”

In June 2016, Defense Secretary Ash Carter eliminated the ban prohibiting transgender individuals from openly serving in the military. (For more from the author of “Your Tax Dollars Are Going to Fund This Army Prisoner’s Sex Reassignment Surgery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sniper Takes out ISIS Executioner From a Mile Away

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.

The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.

The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.

The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner. (Read more from “Sniper Takes out ISIS Executioner From a Mile Away” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can’t remember certain details on her emails and on many issues she remains evasive. On the other hand, for some observers, FBI director James Comey has clarified recent actions in regard to the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Comey released documents concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails on September 2, the afternoon before the Labor Day weekend, as Paul Ryan observed, the time when they were least likely to command attention. Comey defended the action and told reporters the FBI released the documents when they were ready. Those suggesting the FBI was being “political” or part of “some fix,” he wrote in a memo, “either don’t know us, or they are full of baloney (and maybe some of both).”

The FBI director also said that the decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and “there really wasn’t a prosecutable case.” Comey referred disparagingly to “all the chest-beating by people no longer in government.” That may be a reference to former Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano, who described the FBI interview with Clinton as “very troubling.”

Napolitano counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have the material it needed. “This is the FBI’s own fault,” Napolitano wrote. “This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials. Someone restrained the FBI.”

Further, “the FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them – particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.”

For the judge, “it is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI’s failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it.”

The FBI’s release of the document on the Friday before Labor Day did not escape media coverage. On the other hand, the old-line establishment media has been slow to recognize James Comey’s history with the Clintons.

As Christopher Andersen noted in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, after Bill Clinton left the White House, the goal was to get Hillary back in. The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that she discussed any pardon.

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson noted, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.” Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen found it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

Hillary’s cleanup hitter is stepping up to the plate again, according to Andrew Napolitano. By his count, Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t remember a full thirty-nine times. She claimed she used a single electronic device but she actually used thirteen. When Congress began requesting information, her staffers smashed the devices with a hammer and a critical laptop was supposedly lost in the mail.

For Napolitano, destruction of the thirteen Blackberries was “obstruction of justice,” but nobody was charged. The only explanation, as the judge sees it, is that FBI bosses “blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton.” (For more from the author of “FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Parting Gift to Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

What do you give to a cash-flush abortion business and political ally that has everything? More taxpayer dollars, of course.

In his remaining few months in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama has found a new way to direct more taxpayer money to his friends at Planned Parenthood.

The Department of Health and Human Services has announced a new regulation that would force states to give federal family planning funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists. The move could mean millions more in taxpayer dollars for the nation’s abortion market leader at the expense of women’s health.

Title X is a federal program designed to fund “family planning” for low-income individuals. Created in 1970, it was only authorized through 1985. But Congress just keeps appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars anyway, and a large share of that goes to Planned Parenthood every year.

The Office of Population Affairs, which runs Title X, grants funds for “family planning services” (like contraceptives and sterilizations) and “education and information” for low-income individuals. While the common understanding is that Title X-paid counselors must inform a woman of all her options, the Clinton-era regulations actually make adoption counseling optional, perhaps explaining Planned Parenthood’s sometimes over 300-1 ratio of abortions over adoptions.

Grants are available to both public entities (like state health departments) and private networks. Where a state health department chooses not to apply, private entities often receive and distribute Title X funds. Among states that receive Title X funds, some have wisely chosen to prioritize the funds to more comprehensive health care providers than Planned Parenthood, thereby avoiding state entanglement with abortion. That’s why the Obama administration is upset.

Consider Kansas.

Recognizing that it made little public health sense to have women go to one location for birth control pills and another for other health needs, Kansas chose to prioritize the Title X funds it received to public health departments and clinics, nonpublic hospitals, and federally qualified health centers.

This would mean that any woman receiving Title X services would also be connected to a provider that could meet the primary care needs for her and her family, including preventive services, immunizations, diagnostic and radiological services (often including mammograms), and pediatric care.

She would have one primary care provider who knows her medical needs and history and wouldn’t need to travel to multiple sites for services that can be provided at one location more cost-effectively. Planned Parenthood is simply not equipped to provide these primary care services.

Kansas’ desire to consolidate public health funding to encourage primary care and preventive services rather than discrete “family planning” boutiques that detach patients from the broader health care system is shared by other states like Texas, Utah, Arizona, Wisconsin, Indiana, and others that have passed similar laws.

The Obama administration itself recognizes that “primary care providers are critical for ensuring better coordinated care and better health outcomes for all Americans.” So there should be common ground here on directing Title X funds to places where these primary care providers can be found, better coordinating an individual’s health care.

Alas, Planned Parenthood sued Kansas. Kansas won. But rather than allowing Kansas to meet women’s health care needs better through other providers, the Obama administration cut Title X funds to Kansas, hurting women in retaliation for the perceived slight to its ally.

A similar pattern has played out in Tennessee, New Hampshire, and other states where the Obama administration has directly granted money to Planned Parenthood, ignoring the judgment of states that Title X services should be provided where patients can connect to providers able to meet their comprehensive health care needs.

In New Hampshire, the administration even refused to disclose information about its direct Planned Parenthood grant, claiming disclosure would harm the nonprofit’s “competitive position.” But in just a few months, Obama won’t be around to help his friends at Planned Parenthood anymore, so the administration is trying to make it official before Obama is gone.

In the three decades since Title X’s authorization lapsed, many other government programs have served the purpose it was once intended to serve.

Federally qualified health centers serve at least eight times as many patients than Planned Parenthood. Medicaid has expanded, and many states employ federally approved Medicaid waiver programs to provide the same services covered under Title X to many more people. And, of course, Obamacare now mandates coverage of contraceptives on virtually every health plan.

In 2016 there would seem to be little need for a program that was supposed to end in 1985. Certainly, there is no need for that program’s more recent use to direct patients away from preventive services and primary care providers—unless, of course, the aim is actually to reward an industry that has been one of the president’s chief supporters, even at the expense of public health.

It’s difficult to read the president’s new regulation as anything other than a parting taxpayer-funded gift to a loyal crony. “For more from the author of “Obama’s Parting Gift to Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.