Obama Once Again Imagines He Will Save the World

On his inauguration — perhaps apotheosis is a better word — President Obama said that the world would forever remember that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Seven years later, adjusting or forgetting his earlier prophecy, Mr Obama declared in Beijing that his signing of the Paris Agreement on global warming would be known throughout history as “the moment we finally decided to save our planet.”

Either way, if he is right then President Obama will have done what no man has ever done before; he will stop the earth’s climate from changing. How mighty a feat would this be?

Joshua prayed that the sun would stand still. Something very like that will and must occur to stop the climate from changing, because it is the sun’s variability, and the ever-shifting of earth’s position in relation to the sun, which cause the vast bulk of changes in the atmosphere. Though mankind surely influences the climate, just as every species from aardvarks to zebra muscles also influence the climate, our contributions pale next to the powers of the sun.

Can the President’s Agreement command the sun?

Epictetus said, “Crows pick out the eyes of the dead, when the dead have no longer need of them; but flatterers mar the soul of the living, and her eyes they blind.” No man has been as saturated in flattery as President Obama, so it is easy to understand how the poor man could be fail to see to his limitations.

An Agreement or a Treaty?

His blindness might also explain why Mr. Obama declared that he had the power to “ratify” the Agreement as if the Agreement was a legally binding treaty.

Now the President has the power to make treaties, but they only become valid “provided two-thirds of the Senators” concur, or so says the once-important Constitution (we are not forgetting the beatings it has been given by such personages as Anthony Kennedy). Without this concurrence, which no one thinks will be forthcoming, no treaty can become legally binding. This was very fate of the similar Kyoto Protocol on global warming engineered by the Clinton Administration, which also knew it could not convince its Senate to concur. Incidentally, none of its prophecies of doom came to pass.

Yet since Obama must be the savior of the world and “combat” a changing climate, he would bypass the Senate and call the Paris treaty an “Executive Agreement” instead. The President has the power to make Executive Agreements — as long as these do not legally bind the country.

There is no reason to rehash the faulty science behind global warming upon which the Paris Agreement relies. Nor need we dwell on what the legal document would compel the United States to do, mainly because the interpretation of much of the Agreement is open and fluid. Instead we wonder what the Senate will do.

It could insist that the Agreement is a treaty because it legally requires the United States to act in a certain way, and thus pronounce it null. But this would require going on record, which is not likely because many who oppose Mr. Obama are afraid of being labeled “anti-science,” and nobody wants the fight in an election year. Besides, about half the Senate supports Mr Obama’s action.

What will probably happen is that the Senate will allow Mr. Obama’s definition. It has already been noted, for instance, the Agreement uses the word “should” instead of “shall” in delineating its many requirements. Lawyers wrote the Agreement, not scientists, and its “hidden code” is for lawyers to wrangle over.

Because the Senate is controlled (weakly) by those who oppose Mr. Obama, they might think they will be able to stem the reach of the Agreement, for instance by denying its programs money. But Mr. Obama will probably marry the Agreement to the EPA and other agencies under his control, agencies which the Senate are reluctant to touch. The president won’t get everything he wants this way, but he’ll get something.

The end-around sought by the president could backfire, though. If, as he insists, the Agreement contains only suggestions, and is not a treaty, then in five short months under a President Trump, assuming such a thing happens and given Mr. Trump’s statements about global warming, the entire thing will be forgotten. The only way Mr. Obama can influence the climate then is by holding his breath, thus stopping his carbon-dioxide-laden exhalation from polluting the atmosphere. (For more from the author of “Obama Once Again Imagines He Will Save the World” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Catholics Fight Back, Picketing Tim Kaine’s Parish

This week I read a report in the indispensable LifeSiteNews about American Catholics who aren’t going to sit idly while their Church drifts toward the socialist, pro-choice left. In the process, it highlighted one practical step faithful Catholics can take to resist these trends.

Apparently some Catholics in Virginia got sick of the scandal of avowedly Catholic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine receiving Holy Communion like a Catholic in good standing — when canon 915 of Church law forbids him from doing so, and instructs his bishop and pastor to refuse it to him. Neither his bishop nor his pastor has done so. So these faithful citizens decided to go after the scandal at its root, by picketing Tim Kaine’s Catholic parish. As LifeSite recounts:

Roughly a dozen pro-life activists protested Sunday outside of pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine’s Catholic parish.

“Sen. Kaine has failed in his duty as a Catholic public servant to defend the preborn and Fr. Arsenault has failed in his duty as pastor to admonish Sen. Kaine and to instruct the rest of his congregation on the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life,” Virginia pro-life activist Maggie Egger told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“I, along with a group of Catholics from various parishes around the Diocese of Richmond, went to St. Elizabeth’s yesterday to do what Sen. Kaine and Fr. Arsenault will not: defend our preborn brethren by exposing abortion as the decapitation and dismemberment of tiny human beings, instruct the parishioners of St. Elizabeth’s on the teachings of the Church, and inform them that Sen. Kaine publicly supports the decapitation and dismemberment of tiny human beings under the guise of being ‘personally pro-life,’” Egger said.

Every four years, millions of Catholics vote for pro-abortion politicians with an apparently clear conscience. (Obama got majorities of Catholic votes in both elections; imagine the scandal if a majority of Catholics voted for a segregationist.) At the same time, as the Pew Study reports, 40 percent of adults who were raised as Catholics have left the Church never to return. These two trends are linked, as the very same tepidness enables pro-choice Catholics, and drives out some fervent souls who decide to worship elsewhere. Note that GOP vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence seems to be one of the fervent; he joined his wife’s evangelical church and stayed pro-life. Tim Kaine stayed Catholic and became pro-choice.

How does something like that happen? Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and almost 2000 years of Church tradition (going back at least to the Didache) have been absolutely clear that abortion is murder. Full stop. For the government to permit it is criminal, akin to Southern states that used to wink at lynching. Politicians who support legal abortion are “public sinners” akin to members of the Mafia. They have no more place receiving Communion than Al Capone.

How could someone like Jesuit-educated, former missionary Tim Kaine go to Mass every week, hob-nob with his local bishop and not get the Catholic pro-life memo? Maybe nobody sent it. LifeSiteNews delved into the parish which Kaine attends, and found the following:

Kaine’s parish, St. Elizabeth Catholic Church, gave him a standing ovation at Mass after he became Hillary Clinton’s running mate. His pastor, Father Jim Arsenault, praised Kaine in an NPR interview.

“I know that he’s definitely against capital punishment and works to help defend those who are on death row,” Arsenault said. “The church has a teaching with regard to we’re pro-life, and we believe in that seamless garment of life. We respect sometimes lawmakers make difficult decisions.” Arsenault was commenting on how as governor of Virginia, Kaine oversaw several executions. The priest told NPR that he thought the issues most important to Kaine were women’s pay and “social justice issues.”

And there we have our answer. Catholics like Tim Kaine have apostatized on the Church’s most fundamental moral teaching, that human life is good and sacred and cannot be snuffed out for our sexual convenience. When they defend such radical evil for the sake of naked ambition, they are applauded by their fellow-parishioners who think it’s cool to have a celebrity with them each week. And such politicians are protected by their pastors and bishops. Priests like Fr. Arsenault latch onto empty, shallow slogans like the “seamless garment” that have never been endorsed by the Church, just repeated as a mantra by countless tenured Jesuits till it’s hard to tell the difference.

God bless Maggie Egger for leading this witness to life and faith, and LifeSiteNews for reporting on it. Egger and company surely had more pleasant things they could have done with their Sunday morning than stand outside some posh parish and denounce its local hero to the glares of his friends and neighbors. They won’t win any prizes or praise from that quarter.

You see, by taking this stand these pro-life Catholics committed the one unforgivable sin in the suburban, lax post-Catholic church: They made a scene. They shattered the facile illusion of worldly, progressive Sadducees who are exquisitely cozy in our poisoned, post-Christian culture. Egger and company stood as a sign of contradiction, around the cross, and can expect to receive the same contempt as their Savior who hung on it.

We need millions more Catholics like that, confronting politicians, pastors and bishops across the country. If only for the sake of peace and quiet, they might start preaching the Gospel. (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Catholics Fight Back, Picketing Tim Kaine’s Parish” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michigan High School Football Team Shows What It Thinks of National Anthem

When a Michigan high school football team learned that the national anthem would not be played before its Wednesday game, the players took up the challenge.

They sang it themselves.

The Lapeer Lightning freshman team was playing a game against Carman-Ainsworth High School in Flint Township, Mich. Lapeer was told there would be no anthem played before the game.

“Like most schools in the state of Michigan, we choose to play the national anthem prior to the highest level of competition,” Carman-Ainsworth Schools Superintendent Eddie Kindle said, noting that the anthem was to be played before a junior high game later that night. He said that the lack of an anthem was not in any way a form of protest.

When game time rolled around, Lapeer’s freshmen lined up on the sideline, waiting for the anthem to be played.

When they learned it wouldn’t be, they started to sing.

“It’s an incredible feeling. I’ve been with most of these players for three years now. They’re just an awesome group of kids,” Lapeer head coach Bryan Sahr said. “It makes me incredibly emotional and I don’t usually get emotional.”

Sahr said the team was unaware that a formal decision had been made not to play the anthem, which was why the team lined up to hear it. They assumed it was not played due to problems with the sound system.

The coach said the players and fans on the host team’s sideline saluted while his team sang, and then cheered when their rendition was over.

“A lot of teenagers would be embarrassed to do that. I know I don’t like to hear myself sing,” Sahr said.

The school said it was proud of its freshmen.

“We’re just super proud of our guys to overcome that situation and take it upon themselves to sing the national anthem. We couldn’t be prouder,” said Lapeer High School athletic director Shad Spilski.

Lapeer mom Chell Byrnes posted an image of the team on her Facebook page with an explanation of what happened. The post was shared more than 1,700 times and attracted numerous comments.

“I was proud of my great nephew & team for being respectful,” posted Lynn Dunn. “It was the first time ever seeing him play. Kudos to the parents and coaches for installing the pride we should have of our country and the people who serve/served this great nation. … Please share this so that all kids know that it is cool to do the right thing, hard but cool.”

Nicole Driskell Mckenna added, “Maybe Colin Kapernick could learn a few things from our boys!” (For more from the author of “Michigan High School Football Team Shows What It Thinks of National Anthem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Icon Phyllis Schlafly Dead at 92 After Long Illness

“America has lost a great stateswoman,” said Eunie Smith, the organization’s first vice president, “and we at the Eagle Forum and among the conservative movement have lost a beloved friend and mentor, who taught and inspired so many to fight the good fight in defense of American values.”

The constitutional lawyer and author most recently helped pen The Conservative Case for Trump, a book meant to assuage the fear some conservatives have about supporting the brash billionaire in his White House bid.

“For the first time since 1980,” Schlafly and co-authors Ed Martin and Brett Decker wrote, “a significant number of Republicans are considering abandoning their party’s nominee.”

Publisher Regnery is touting the tome as a must-read for any voter who “can’t stand Hillary Clinton, but wonder if you could vote for Donald Trump.”

As Western Journalism reported, Schlafly last month added her voice to the chorus of critics who feel U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan should be replaced.

“Get rid of him!” she said at the time. “We don’t want anybody who believes in open borders. Obviously Paul Ryan is not an ‘America First’ guy.”

A longstanding critic of feminism, Schlafly rose to national prominence in the culturally tumultuous 1960s with her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and the successful if controversial book A Choice, Not an Echo.

While her life and death were ridiculed by some Twitter critics who viewed her ideology as offensive, her contributions were celebrated by social conservatives.

Smith said Schlafly died after a long illness. She is survived by her six children. (For more from the author of “Conservative Icon Phyllis Schlafly Dead at 92 After Long Illness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Progressives Just Warped the Word ‘Parent.’ Here’s What That Means for You

Last week, New York’s highest court effectively redefined what it means to be a parent. The New York State Court of Appeals determined Tuesday that non-biological, non-adoptive parents can claim custody or visitation rights, marking the unprecedented expansion of the understanding of parenthood.

The Ruling

Tuesday’s ruling overturned a 1991 decision that limited the legal definition of parenthood to biological or adoptive relatives, granting only these two groups the ability to seek custody or visitation rights. In this case, Alison D. v. Virginia M., the petitioner (Alison D.) sought visitation rights to see the son of the respondent (Virginia M.) whom Alison D. had helped raise before the lesbian couple split up. Since the respondent was the only biological “parent,” and the two were not married, it was determined that Alison D. had no standing under the New York Domestic Relations Law to seek visitation.

That all changed this week, when 25 years after Alison D. v. Virginia M., the court ruled in Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A. C.C that non-biological, non-adoptive parents can seek custody or visitation if “a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together.”

“This is a major step forward for same-sex couples and especially for the children of those parents,” said attorney Eric Wrubel, who argued on behalf of the winning appeal. “Tying the definition of parenthood to biology or adoption was no longer viable. This new ruling will help to protect children, regardless of the marital or financial status of their parents.”

Wrubel represented the child in Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A. C.C, who was seeking time with both of his mothers after his lesbian parents split up.

Tuesday’s decision comes five years after the New York State Senate voted to legalize gay marriage, and just more than a year after the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.

“In light of more recently delineated legal principles, the definition of ‘parent’ established by this Court 25 years ago… has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships,” wrote Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam.

The Implications

On the one hand, New York’s decision speaks to society’s acceptance of what some call “spiritual” motherhood or fatherhood — the idea that women and men can demonstrate real maternal or paternal qualities without having a biological connection to the child(ren) under their care. This is why adoption is accepted and even viewed admirably in most American circles.

But there’s a case to be made for why the definition of parenthood should be limited to biology and legal adoption: Parenthood is a monumental responsibility that requires demonstrable dedication to a vulnerable class of human beings. A biological mother who neglects her child is not a parent; nor is a caretaker who has not gone through the legal process of obtaining custody.

Parenthood is a form of stewardship that involves contributing to the formation of another human being. Treating the term “parenthood” as dispensable opens up the potential for ill-fit guardians, such as the state, to usurp a position that up until now has been protected under the law.

Writing for The Federalist last year, author Paul Kengor, who has written a collection of books on communist ideology, outlined several Marxist ideas that have gained popularity and taken form in American policy during the last few years.

In the June 29 piece, Kengor first details portions of “The Origin of the Family,” which scholars consider to be the first joint work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

There, and elsewhere, we see, among other things, a fanatical push to abolish all right of inheritance, to end home and religious education, to dissolve monogamy in marriage, to pursue pre- and extra-marital sex, to foster and “tolerate” (as Engels put it) the “gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse” by unmarried women, to nationalize all housework, to shift mothers into factories, to move children into daycare nurseries, to separate children into community collectives apart from their natural parents, and, most of all, for society and the state to rear and educate children.

As Engels envisioned, “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not.”

Kengor then moves on to the pair’s magnum opus, “The Communist Manifesto,” in which Marx and Engels voice similar goals for what they enthusiastically call the “abolition of the family.” In the work’s famous 10-point plan for bringing about a communist utopia, Kengor notes, one will find that half of these points depend on familial dissolution:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of all property of emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work….

8. … gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools…

More from Kengor:

Overall, stated Marx and Engels, “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” Yes, no wonder.

Among those ideas, at the epicenter, was natural, traditional, biblical family and marriage. It had to be targeted. Alas, only now, two centuries later, is it finally being redefined. In perhaps the most radical rapture of all, those pushing the redefinition are not crackpot German atheistic philosophers in European cafes but everyday mainstream Americans … .

Do we really want to redefine parenthood and open up a can of communist worms? Do we want to uproot the foundational social pillar that is the family? Are we ready to cede custody of our children to the state?

We already have. (For more from the author of “Progressives Just Warped the Word ‘Parent.’ Here’s What That Means for You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s Going on With the Senate Races?

It’s Labor day. There’s roughly two months to go before Election day, and while the media has been obsessed with coverage of the presidential election, less attention has been paid to U.S. Senate races.

It is very possible control of the United States Senate could change hands this November. With Democratic Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) retiring, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY (F, 2%) is next in line to become majority leader should the Democrats wrest control from the hands of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY. (F, 42%).

As rated by the Cook Political Report, there are nine Senate races that could be considered “toss-ups” right now. Of those nine, eight seats are currently held by Republicans and only one is held by the Democrats.

Those nine senate races are in: Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Remember, the Democrats only need to win five seats to obtain a majority in the Senate; just four seats if Hillary Clinton wins the election and Tim Kaine can break ties in the Senate.

So where do these races stand? Let’s go state by state, looking at polling data obtained from Real Clear Politics and financial information obtained from the Federal Election Commission to find out.

Florida

The Republican candidate is incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 77%). After initially denying that he would seek a second term in the Senate, Rubio was tapped by Republican leadership and GOP nominee Donald Trump to run for reelection following his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for president.

The Democratic candidate is Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla. (F, 13%). There has been controversy surrounding Murphy’s campaign after he was caught lying about his experience as an accountant. Liberals are also unhappy with Murphy, perceiving him to be too moderate.

Rubio has had a consistent lead in Florida polls. The RCP average of recent Florida polls currently has Rubio up 5.7 points as of last Friday. Rubio also has the advantage in fundraising. He has raised an impressive $53 million, a war-chest doubtless supplemented by donors who contributed to his presidential campaign. Rubio has spent a good chunk of that money, with his campaign having $4.7 million ending cash on hand.

Murphy has raised much less, clocking in at $11 million. He will be hard pressed to build his name ID against an incumbent Senator who is prepared to vastly out spend him. His campaign currently has $3.9 million ending cash on hand.

Illinois

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. (F, 17%), fearing for his political life, became the first member of Congress to repudiate his party’s nominee. His opponent, Democrat Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill. (F, 15%), is an Iraq War veteran and wounded warrior, having lost her legs when the Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting was shot down in 2004. She has been traveling extensively around the state of Illinois in a vigorous campaign to unseat Sen. Kirk.

National Republicans seem uninterested in investing resources to preserve this seat, and Kirk is lagging behind Duckworth in fundraising. Duckworth has $5.5 million ending cash on hand to Kirk’s $3.1 million.

This race has seldom been polled and Real Clear Politics currently does not have an average of polls available. The last major polling firm to poll the race was Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, which found Duckworth has a slight 3-pt lead at the end of July.

Indiana

The U.S. Senate election in Indiana is for an open seat, with incumbent Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind. (F, 42%) declining to seek reelection. The Republicans nominated Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind. (F, 53%), while the Democrats recruited former Sen. Evan Bayh to run for the seat.

Bayh has a considerable name recognition advantage, as he previously held the seat from 1999-2011. His father Birch Bayh held it before him from 1963-1981. He entered the race late, however, prompting the Democratic nominee who won the primary to withdraw his candidacy. Bayh’s late entry makes it difficult to ascertain how much money his campaign has on hand, as it will not be reported until the next FEC report. Republican Todd Young has $1.2 million cash on hand.

The only poll recorded by RCP has Bayh up seven points as of mid-August. Democrats in Indiana hope his name id will make up for his late start to help them win the seat.

New Hampshire

In the Granite State, incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. (F, 32%) is squaring off against the Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan. Both are incumbent politicians who have appeared on statewide ballots previously, so both candidates are well-known.

The Republican Party is fighting hard to keep Ayotte in the Senate, and she is currently sitting with $7 million cash on hand. Gov. Hassan has $4.2 million on hand, and has spent about $1 million less than Ayotte.

It is a very close race, with Hassan leading by a difference of less than one point in the RCP Average.

Nevada

The Senate race in Nevada is the only close race this cycle in which the prize is a seat held by a Democratic member of Congress. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) announced his retirement in March of 2015. Former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev. will face Republican Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev. (F, 40%) in November.

The Democrat, Cortez Masto has raised roughly $1.5 million more total than Heck, who has also spent about $2.4 million than his Democratic opponent, although Heck has more cash on hand: $4.7 million to Cortez Masto’s $3.4 million.

The polls show a close race with both candidates tied at 37 percent as of mid-August.

North Carolina

Incumbent Senator Richard Burr, R-N.C. (F, 41%) leads his Democratic opponent Deborah Ross in both fundraising and polling.

Burr’s campaign coffers are brimming with $8.3 million total raised and $6.9 million ending cash on hand. The Democratic candidate Ross hasn’t raised half as much as that and has only $1.9 million on hand. Burr is in a very good position to spend the last few weeks of the campaign vastly outspending his opponent with television and radio ads.

Burr’s lead in the polls is slimmer, ahead by only 2.6 points in the RCP average, but that’s out performing other Republicans in toss-up states. Burr’s cash on hand should help him maintain that lead.

Ohio

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio (F, 49%) is widely expected to win reelection in the Buckeye State. Though his Democratic opponent Ted Strickland is the former governor of Ohio, and as such has a higher name ID than an unknown challenger, Portman has been leading in the polls and has even earned the endorsements of four Ohio labor unions—typically not a GOP constituency.

Portman has blown Strickland away in terms of fundraising, raising $13 million to the Democrat’s $6.6 million. He is currently leading Strickland in the RCP average by 7.5 points.

Democrats are so unenthused about their chances that two Democratic outside spending groups have delayed “tens of thousands of dollars in television ads supporting Strickland.”

Pennsylvania

Democrats are more enthusiastic about unseating Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. (D, 61%) who is facing a tough reelection battle against Kathleen McGinty, the former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Recent polling has put McGinty in the lead by four or five points, depending on the poll, and she leads in the average by 1.8 points.

Toomey has the fundraising advantage, however, with $7.6 million cash on hand to McGinty’s $2.4 million. Toomey has outspent McGinty 3-to-1. If the polls are accurate though, McGinty’s dollars seem to be having more impact.

Wisconsin

The race in Wisconsin is a rematch between incumbent Senator Ron Johnson, R-Wis. (F, 58%) and the former senator he defeated in the Tea-Party uprising of 2010, Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

It’s looking bad for Johnson. Russ Feingold is leading him by nearly 10 points in the RCP average and is also outstripping him in fundraising. Feingold has raised $15.6 million and is currently is holding $7 million cash on hand while Johnson raised $11 million with $5.7 million cash on hand. Feingold has outspent Johnson by about $2 million.

And there is where things stand.

Should the Democrats win the White House, they will need to pick up four Senate seats to obtain a majority (with ‘Vice President Kaine’ breaking ties). The Republicans that seem to be in the deepest trouble are Mark Kirk of Illinois and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. That’s two.

Can these GOP candidates use the next two months to pull up their bootstraps and keep the Senate out of Democratic hands? (For more from the author of “What’s Going on With the Senate Races?” please click HERE)

What’s Going on With the Senate Races?

G-20 PHOTO O’ THE DAY: American’t

Click to explodify:

160905-Screen-Shot-2016-09-05-at-4.05.57-PM-1024x711

Weakening America: it’s not just Mr. Obama’s slogan, it’s also his motto. (For more from the author of “G-20 PHOTO O’ THE DAY: American’t” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslim Refugee Tells Court Raping Little Boys ‘Culturally Appropriate’ in His Homeland

A Muslim refugee on trial in Australia for raping a 10-year-old boy told the judge he did not know it was a wrongful act, as doing such is “culturally appropriate” in his homeland of Myanmar.

The Daily Telegraph reports, via the Daily Mail, that 20-year-old Mufiz Rahaman told Sydney’s Downing Centre Court that sexually assaulting children was not viewed as morally wrong in his country of origin, as he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault.

Rahaman and the boy, also a refugee, are stateless Rohingya Muslims, a religious minority of “people considered illegal immigrants from Bangladesh by the Buddhist-majority in Myanmar—who came to Australia to flee religious persecution,” according to the Daily Mail.

Rahaman attacked the 10-year-old boy while they were living among a community of refugees, including the boy’s father, in the southwest Sydney suburb of Lakemba.

The rapist argued he was completely unaware of his wrongdoings throughout the trial:

Rahaman told the court he had been a victim of sexual abuse as a child before he moved to Australia.

Judge Andrew Scotting said Rahaman failed to understand his actions would ‘physically’ and ‘psychologically damage’ his young victim.

He also said Rahaman, who insisted he thought sexual assault was not seen as morally wrong in his homeland, had not accepted responsibility for his actions and demonstrated a ‘lack of morality’, according to the Daily Telegraph.

‘There is a need for specific deterrence … The offence appears to have been (viewed) as being culturally acceptable conduct in the offender’s childhood,’ Judge Scotting said.

The 20-year-old rapist was sentenced to five years in prison. (For more from the author of “Muslim Refugee Tells Court Raping Little Boys ‘Culturally Appropriate’ in His Homeland” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McConnell Thinks Were Stupid? Here’s the Lesson He Still Hasn’t Learned

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) is gloating. He and his team believe they have achieved a noble and worthy feat.

“GOP establishment trounces tea party in congressional elections,” a headline in Politico blared yesterday. The Washington Post published an explainer titled “Why Mitch McConnell’s Strategy to Quash the Tea Party is Working.”

Both stories focus on the fact that incumbent Senate Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 77%) and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) staved off primary challenges this cycle. But that’s not notable. What’s notable is that the Senate Majority Leader views success as killing the grassroots—which is exactly the attitude that fueled the fury and fracture within the GOP that ultimately installed Donald Trump as its presidential nominee.

The stories do not talk about how the McConnell and his allied political operatives guided candidates to address voters’ concerns and message a principled, winning agenda. The pieces seek to snuff out reliably conservative fundraising operations such as the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth—groups that are a “shell of their former selves,” if you believe the Washington Post.

The gruel they’re serving up, however, is pretty thin.

For example, the Washington Post piece detailed how McCain was able to fend off his primary challenger by labeling her “Chemtrail Kelli Ward,” tying her to a conspiracy theory about airplane exhaust.

“It wasn’t pretty, but McCain won and Republicans have their best chance at keeping the seat in the red column in November,” the Washington Post story read. “It is a different story at the top of the ticket, and many establishment Republicans look at these Senate races as the petri dish for how to get a more palatable candidate in the next presidential primary.”

(Never mind that McConnell, along with McCain and the rest of the GOP establishment, are openly backing a non-palatable, conspiracy-theory espousing candidate for president. Or that the Club for Growth, which they ridicule, was one of the first conservative organizations to run ads opposing Trump’s candidacy.)

McConnell and his crew want people to believe they’re some kind of grand master strategists because they helped the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee McCain—who possesses an incredible donor network, name ID, and history in his state—beat a weak, loony challenger who wasn’t even supported by SCF and the like.

In other words, they think we’re stupid.

McConnell hasn’t learned his lesson and likely never will. He believes he will ultimately be able to use Trump to tar all future conservative threats. One problem: that involves losing the White House for the third straight presidential election.

McConnell titled his recently-released memoir “The Long Game.” That must be because there’s still no victory in sight.

Republicans have been boxed out of the White House for two terms. While the GOP has been in the wilderness, the only constant leadership figure in Washington has been McConnell, who offers nothing but false victories, embarrassing displays of political expediency, and disdain for the base.

McConnell is arguably the person in Washington most responsible for making Trump the GOP nominee, who is poised to lose to the most disliked and distrusted Democratic presidential candidate in history — potentially dragging down scores of GOP candidates down with him.

Had the party produced any meaningful leadership in Washington, any respected figure that instilled unity within the ranks, or delivered results for conservatives, Trump probably would not have had an opening to launch his candidacy.

Remember, it was McConnell openly loathed the Tea Party’s influence over GOP’s historic 2010 and 2014 midterm wins and infamously told the New York Times he would “crush them everywhere” in the future. And, that’s what he did, save Nebraska where Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%) prevailed against establishment forces to win his seat in 2015. It should be no surprise to anyone that Sen. Sasse is proudly #NeverTrump.

In short, if McConnell wants credit for crushing the Tea Party, he should get credit for the way Trump is crushing the GOP, as well. One is directly related to the other.

McConnell’s reign in Washington has been defined by three things: no leadership, no unity, and no results. Those three things that created the perfect storm for Trump to rise.

That’s certainly not anything to brag about. (For more from the author of “McConnell Thinks Were Stupid? Here’s the Lesson He Still Hasn’t Learned” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DHS Election Takeover? Agency Itself Was Hacked

As the Department of Homeland Security contemplates taking possibly unconstitutional power over the U.S. election system due to the threat of hackers, citizens should consider the fact that the agency itself was the victim of a major cyber intrusion that stole sensitive personal information of thousands of its employees, contends a former DHS officer.

That, combined with a politically correct approach to the Islamic-jihad threat that allows dangerous people to enter the country should be enough reason to reject the plan suggested by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, contends Philip Haney, the co-author with WND News Editor Art Moore of the expose “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”

Johnson said last week that DHS is considering whether or not it should declare the U.S. election system a “critical infrastructure” due to potential cyber threats.

The fear, Haney points out, is that the DHS could overrule powers given to local and state governments to mange their own elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the powers afforded states in the 10th Amendment.

“They certainly don’t have an exemplary record in safeguarding our borders,” Haney told WND. “What gives us confidence they will safeguard our electoral process?” (Read more from “DHS Election Takeover? Agency Itself Was Hacked” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.