Wikileaks Confirms Damning Veritas Videos. Ted Cruz Demands Criminal Investigation

New Wikileaks revelations from John Podesta’s emails seem to confirm, at least in part, the veracity of Project Veritas’ findings during an undercover sting investigation that resulted in the firing of two Democratic operatives.

Earlier this week, Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe released a two-part video series featuring Democratic operatives explaining their efforts to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and commit voter fraud.

In the organization’s first video, paid activist Zulema Rodriguez describes a particularly notable 1 p.m. phone call with the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Rodriguez claims to be one of the rioters present during the violent confrontations in Chicago in March that led to the cancellation of a Trump rally. As the Project Veritas video reveals, some of the agitators were paid to do so by Democratic operatives, and their operations were coordinated on said phone call.

While working at Democracy Partners, a consulting group, party operative Robert Creamer also makes reference to this phone call in the video, describing how the Clinton campaign discusses “the focuses that need to be undertaken each day” with their activists.

Now what seems like reference to this very same conference call can be found in one of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s leaked emails:

“Reminder — Trump Rapid Response/Bracketing Call — Today – Tues – May17 – 1PM Eastern … Including updates on plans for Trump appearance at NRA Convention Friday…. and New Jersey on Thursday,” an email from Creamer to individuals working for the Clinton campaign reads (emphasis mine).

If indeed this is the same call that Creamer and Rodriguez make reference to in Project Veritas’ video, then it is clear that the DNC has been implicated in illegal activities and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is well due for an investigation.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) is wasting no time.

As RedState noted, Creamer — a convicted felon and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. (F, 22%) — has personally visited President Barack Obama at least 45 times.

All the circumstantial evidence is undeniably damning. An individual linked to allegations of voter fraud and voter intimidation meeting with the president of the United States demands strict and immediate scrutiny by law enforcement — perhaps even the appointment of a special prosecutor, to ensure the integrity of the entire process. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks Confirms Damning Veritas Videos. Ted Cruz Demands Criminal Investigation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his “separation” from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.

Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.

“In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,” Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.

“Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost.”

Duterte’s efforts to engage China, months after a tribunal in the Hague ruled that Beijing did not have historic rights to the South China Sea in a case brought by the previous administration in Manila, marks a reversal in foreign policy since the 71-year-old former mayor took office on June 30. (Read more from “Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies across the country have rescued 82 girls and arrested 239 alleged pimps and traffickers as part a cross-agency effort to crack down on sex traffickers. An international effort rescued 41 children in Canada, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines.

It is the 10th annual operation by Operation Cross Country, which began expanding internationally this past year with the launch of a Canadian branch, Northern Spotlight.

“Operation Cross Country aims to shine a spotlight into the darkest corners of our society that seek to prey on the most vulnerable of our population,” said FBI Director James Comey in a press release issued by the FBI. “As part of this effort, we are not only looking to root out those who engage in the trafficking of minors, but through our Office for Victim Assistance, we offer a lifeline to minors to help them escape from a virtual prison no person ever deserves.”

The release outlines the scope of the operation, which the FBI says “has yielded more than 6,000 child identifications and locations,”

Operation Cross Country X is the largest ever in the history of the initiative, with 55 FBI field offices and 74 Child Exploitation Task Forces representing more than 400 law enforcement organizations taking part in the operation. In addition, several dozen operations across Canada, and approximately 10 operations took place in six cities across Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines.

A FBI spokesperson told The Stream that because Operation Cross Country is focused on rescuing children from trafficking, the agency did not have a readily available number as to how many adults were rescued during the stings.

State By State

Here is a non-exhaustive list of how many people were rescued and/or arrested in several states and cities:

According to The Spokesman-Review, Operation Cross Country saved 67 women and five girls from sex trafficking in Washington State. Fourteen people were arrested.

In Kansas, 26 people were arrested and five minors were rescued. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw “nearly 70 people” arrested on trafficking-related charges, and 15 were arrested in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area.

Nine children were rescued in Colorado and Wyoming. Nine pimps and 32 “customers” were arrested, according to The Denver Post. Dozens of people were arrested and several minors rescued in Florida, and in Mississippi, almost 30 people were arrested.

The Houston, Texas, area saw three minors rescued and “three traffickers and their associates” arrested, according to Fox4 in Beaumont, Texas. The outlet reported that one teenager “was … reunited with her family.”

Complexity in Helping Rescued Girls and Women

Shared Hope International seeks to end sex trafficking. Senior Director Samantha Vardaman told The Stream that “In the U.S., girls who are recovered from a sex trafficking situation might receive services depending on which state they are in, how they are recovered (e.g., through [law enforcement] arrest vs. child protective services), and whether they cooperate in some cases.”

“Shared Hope is working to correct the inconsistencies and develop more integrated systems of services across the nation through our JuST Response project,” said Vardaman.

Vardaman also addressed a common problem in sex trafficking, where girls and women manipulated or forced into becoming part of a trafficker’s recruitment team. This can end with a trafficked woman being listed as a sex offender or some other type of law violator.

“In the U.S., the largest problem for survivors is the criminal record many of them have after having been trafficked. Nearly all adult women are arrested at some point, and far too many minors still are arrested. In fact, it is still legal in 31 states in the nation to arrest a minor for prostitution,” she explained.

“This is in direct contradiction to the federal law and often in contradiction with their own state laws! Any child used in a commercial sex act is a victim of sex trafficking,” she explained. “Advocates have pressed FBI to institute a meaningful screening mechanism when encountering adult women to determine if they are, in fact, sex trafficking victims or were minors when they first were exploited in prostitution.” (For more from the author of “Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition

Many years ago, while participating in an Operation Rescue sit-in at an abortion clinic near Washington, D.C., I was struck by the make-up of the pro-abortion protesters. They were largely a mix of atheists, Satanists and gays, and they proudly identified as such. What a coalition!

I remember asking myself, “Why would homosexuals be so adamant about this — adamant enough to show up early in the morning to protest our event — when, for the most part, it’s not relevant to their lives, since they’re not having babies?”

To this day, colleagues of mine who share the gospel outside abortion clinics and offer pro-life alternatives are accosted by this same unholy coalition, often led by aggressive LGBT protesters. Why?

Just this week, after I posted some pro-life tweets in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, the two men who immediately challenged my views were a gay pastor and a Satanist.

Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

I had tweeted, “I urge every Hillary supporter to take time to study late term abortion. She aggressively supports this barbarism. Don’t be partner to it.”

The gay pastor argued that, while not being pro-abortion himself, late-term abortions were only done for the life and health of the mother.

The problem with that, of course, is twofold; First, it does not reduce the barbarity of the procedure; second, “the life and health of the mother” can be twisted to mean almost anything, allowing late-term abortions for things like alleged “mental duress.”

So, this gay pastor’s defense of this horrific procedure was baseless. But it was not surprising, given the moral compromise he already lives in as a practicing homosexual who pastors a “gay-affirming” church.

In similar fashion, Harry Knox, a prominent gay activist, moved from leading the religion branch of the Human Rights Campaign to heading up the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice. No surprise!

As for the Satanist, he was more direct in his tweets, using mild profanity in attacking me before affirming a woman’s right to choose. This too was no surprise.

Now, I’m fully aware that many women agonize over their decisions to abort and that some of the decisions are gut wrenching and heartbreaking, perhaps even more so with late-term abortions.

Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by a demented pro-life activist, actually performed baptisms on some of the aborted babies, dressing them up and joining together with the families in what must surely have been one of the most perverted and macabre religious scenes imaginable. He even gave the babies funerals.

Kill the baby, baptize the baby, bury the baby. How sick!

But this leads me back to the question of why, undoubtedly, the vast majority of Satanists, atheists and gays are pro-abortion.

I’m sure that there are, in fact, pro-life atheists and gays, although they must be a small minority in their communities. And I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any?) pro-life Satanists.

So, the question again is: Why?

The Anti-Life

I believe the answer is primarily twofold: First, these people reject biblical morality; second, these people reject the God of life.

As for the first point, it’s obvious that most of these pro-abortionists would not be moved by a scriptural presentation of the pro-life position. It would either be rejected with scorn, as in, “Who cares what your dumb book says?” Or, in the case of those who profess some kind of biblical faith (like the aforementioned gay pastor), it would be met with a reinterpretation of the clear biblical witness, just as other passages must be reinterpreted in order to justify the sinful practices in their lives.

As for the second point, just ask yourself, on average, who has bigger families, Bible-affirming Christians (and Jews who affirm the Hebrew Scriptures), or atheists, Satanists and gays? Who puts more emphasis on babies and children? Who opposes euthanasia more vigorously?

You see, the battle over abortion is not merely a social and political battle. It is also a spiritual battle, which is why I will flatly and unashamedly rebuke professing Christians — especially fellow-leaders — who are strongly “pro-choice.” In reality, they are anti-life.

By all means, let us address holistically the many problems surrounding abortion — including problems of poverty, education, childcare, adoption, family structure, sexual abuse and more — and let us truly be pro-life, from conception until old age and death.

But let us not join together with the forces of darkness that promote abortion on demand until the last day of pregnancy. To do so is to join forces with a coalition from hell. And you can quote me on that. (For more from the author of “Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.

Only minutes into Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace broached one of the most controversial issues splitting Republicans and Democrats: abortion — and specifically, partial-birth abortion. While Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton quickly dismissed Republican nominee Donald Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion as “scare rhetoric,” the facts are against her.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Where do Trump and Clinton Stand?

After asking each candidate their stance on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationally in 1973, Wallace turned to Clinton. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late term partial birth abortions. Why?”

Clinton’s answer was couched with claims that the government shouldn’t make such “personal” decisions for mothers. She also said that Roe v. Wade allows regulations on partial-birth abortion, though she admitted to opposing a ban on the practice as a senator. Here’s her full answer:

Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

Trump responded that he thinks the practice of partial-birth abortions is “terrible.”

If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Clinton and Supporters Deny Realities of Partial-Birth Abortion

Clinton immediately attempted to discount Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion. “Well that is not what happens in these cases,” She said. “And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.”

Viewers’ reactions on Twitter reveal that many people bought Clinton’s “scare rhetoric” narrative, believing was Trump was either lying or grossly misinformed when saying that abortions could still take place at nine months.

The social media-driven news outlet @nowthisnews tweeted, “No, Trump, you can’t rip the baby out of the womb.’” User @LoriSums alleged that “No one is taking full-term babies out of womb and sacrificing them.”

Others on Twitter like @shondarimes and @JillFilipovic claimed that Trump had “accidentally” described a C-section.

These people who are denying the reality of partial-birth abortion are either misinformed themselves or actively trying hide the reality.

Abortion Doctor Describes Partial-Birth Abortions

Inconveniently for them, a Dr. Amna Dermish of Texas, an abortion provider, was caught on tape almost exactly one year ago describing the process of pulling a baby out of the womb and harvesting its organs up to 22 weeks into the pregnancy — and her clinic only stops there “because of the ban” Texas has in place. The process she describes is identical to partial-birth abortion.

Here’s what she said to the investigator from the Center for Medical Progress, who posed as an organ buyer. The video itself is below.

Dermish assures the potential organ buyer, “My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact.” She uses laminaria sticks to slowly dilate the cervix and prompt labor.

Then, in an uncut sequence, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Dermish walks the organ buyer through the method she uses for infants older than 18 weeks.

She uses ultrasound guidance to convert a second-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation.

“With a further gestation, I will sometimes do that [deliver breech] if it’s a cephalic [head-first] presentation, just cause it’s easier to get … convert to breech, grab the spine.”

This is a textbook description of partial-birth abortion, which is illegal. The baby is alive and mostly outside of the mother’s body when it is killed.

For an even more detailed and medically verified explanation of this exact procedure, click here. As a side note, the “20-weekers” that Dermish describes aborting in the video below — the “specimens” that are more difficult to keep “intact” — are capable of feeling pain even more acutely than adults.

Democrats’ Extreme Positions on Abortion

Here are a few other facts Clinton supporters should look into before denying the reality of nine-month or partial-birth abortions, courtesy of The Federalist on Thursday:

The Democratic Party is on record as supporting abortions up to nine months

The Democratic Party has fought to protect the right to have an abortion based on gender, race and disability discrimination

Though partial-birth abortion is currently illegal, Democrats have previously advocated for its legalization.

So, it is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who are incorrect on the facts. To summarize:

Yes, you can rip a baby out of the womb. At the time of the undercover video above, Dermish said her Austin, Texas clinic alone did it 25 times a day. No, dismembering a baby with a sopher clamp as its heart beats inside the womb is not the same as a C-section. Yes, abortion up to nine months is federally legal because of Roe v. Wade. And yes, partial-birth abortions are real. They are technically illegal. And they happen — not as rarely as Democrats would like us to believe. (For more from the author of “Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?

Americans are still recovering from the whiplash of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric concerning women during the final presidential debate Wednesday evening.

Clinton’s anti-women, anti-family politics were on full display during the final pre-election showdown, masquerading before millions of viewers as “women’s empowerment” and “feminism.” But in the end, instead of brandishing her womanly strength, the Democratic nominee abandoned her campaign slogan, “Stronger Together,” and whipped out her woman card.

Prior to the event, Clinton tweeted this inspiring statement to her supporters:

Her message was clear: Women need to stand up to men like Donald Trump and show them that they won’t be pushed around.

But as with all things “progressive,” over the course of the evening, Clinton laid out her case for female victimhood instead. Her long list of grievances included the fact that states are restricting women’s “right” to an abortion by defunding Planned Parenthood, and the fact that the so-called wage gap is a roadblock in the fight for women’s equality.

And of course, she addressed Trump’s lewd comments about groping women:

“Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like.”

Donald Trump’s poor track record with women shouldn’t be ignored or diminished. But while Trump absolutely does belittle women (and everyone, for that matter), Hillary belittles women as well — but in a much deeper sense. Laying aside the fact that she has received millions from countries that do actively persecute women, the way she undermines women’s dignity is far subtler, and far more dangerous.

Hillary capitalizes on the emotions of American voters in order to convince them of their ultimate dependency on Big Government. Her vision for America is beyond belittling — it’s a direct assault on the dignity of women and all people.

Everything about Clinton’s rhetoric Wednesday said that women need to be rescued from men like Trump. And though they are “strong,” their strength is ultimately dependent on Big Government handouts and Planned Parenthood.

So, do women need to be empowered, or are they already powerful?

Why should women be forced to pay for other women’s abortions? Why should they be forced to welcome in millions of migrants who hail from countries where actual abuse of women is the norm? (We see the consequences, on a regular basis, throughout Europe.)

That seems like a hefty price to pay for “empowerment.”

If there’s one thing the former secretary of state has shown the American people during this election season, it’s that she hates accountability. But anyone who truly supports women should hold her accountable for victimizing women, patronizing them, and yes, bullying them into compliance. Trump may be an unapologetic bully, but Clinton is a sneaky, hypocritical bully with a much more damaging message. (For more from the author of “Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Judge Paves Road for Thousands of Potential Non-Citizens Voting in Kansas

Despite news percolating throughout the country about non-citizens registering to vote under loose Motor-Voter practices, the courts are refusing to allow states to verify citizenship as a condition for registering to vote. Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s injunction against a Kansas law requiring those registering with federal Motor-Voter forms to show proof of citizenship. The original injunction forced the state to register 20,000 individuals who failed to show proof of citizenship.

Now, that number could rise to 50,000.

In September, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the arrangement that Kansas and several other states worked out with U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — the agency responsible for drafting the federal voter registration forms — to accommodate those states and provide space on the federal form to require proof of citizenship. Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit, in a unanimous decision, upheld an injunction against the state law itself, which requires proof of citizenship in order to register.

The three-judge panel, which included a Republican-appointee (surprise surprise!), used the typical tactics of the judicial tyrants to crush the states. They asserted that by complimenting federal law with the most basic integrity measures needed to fulfill the law’s mandate for clean rolls, the state was in fact violating federal law. This is similar to the shtick the court uses against states that wish to compliment federal immigration law. Courts have ruled that states cannot do anything to protect the sovereignty and the franchise of their citizens unless it is explicitly provided for in the most literal terms by the federal statutes.

They have it exactly backwards.

States have full power over protecting elections, especially in light of the existential threat of non-citizens voting, unless the statute explicitly bars them from doing so.

This decision doesn’t even give the veneer of respect for constitutional powers of states and basic statutory construction. “This opinion by the Tenth Circuit is divorced from the facts and the law and is just another example of federal courts interfering with the constitutional authority of states to administer their elections and determine the qualifications and eligibility of their voters,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “This deplorable decision ignored the overwhelming evidence that noncitizens are illegally registering and voting in our elections and gives them a green light to continue their illicit behavior, which steals votes from eligible American voters.”

Judge Jerome Holmes, the George W. Bush appointee who wrote the opinion, asserted that because Section 5 of the Motor Voter law provides that states only require “the minimum amount of information necessary” on the registration form in order to assess eligibility, by asking for proof of citizenship Kansas had violated the statute. In Judge Holmes’s estimation, proof of citizenship is some gratuitous and burdensome requirement. After all, you could simply work on the honor system and just ask them nicely if they are U.S. citizens. Evidently, Judge Holmes and his two colleagues, along with the district judge and the D.C. Circuit, believe that the minimum requirement to assess any eligibility in life dictates that the service should be provided without any verification. Trust, and don’t verify!

While conceding that the state had an interest in ensuring non-citizens don’t vote, Judge Holmes asserted that states must provide “a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections,” and evidently, requiring proof of citizenship is not “simple.” He warned that the federal law was “designed to increase the number of eligible voters who register and vote.”

Well, yes, but not for non-citizens!

Section 8 of the law requires states to “make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” [52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4)(B)]. If states can’t ask for photo ID when voting to weed out fraud, proof of citizenship up front when registering, or removal of names of dead voters without going through an endless, cumbersome process fraught with lawsuits – how can a state maintain clean rolls?

This is part of a growing trend we warned about with judges molly-coddling the American people, essentially requiring states to hold their hands all the way to the polls, asserting that anything short of what Democrats want is tantamount to suppressing the vote.

We are strangers in our own land when states can’t protect against voter fraud. As we noted earlier this month, a 2014 study concluded that up to 6.4 percent of all non-citizens participated in the 2008 elections and up to 14.7 percent voted that year, likely changing the outcome of some Senate races. In 2012, a Pew analysis warned that 1 in 8 registrations were no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies.

Remember, non-citizen registration is the worst form of voter fraud because the requirement for photo ID doesn’t even help. Even in the states where the courts haven’t blocked photo ID (yes, that is a burden too!), there is now no way to protect against non-citizens voting. They already get their driver’s licenses and are handed voter registration forms. As long as they are dishonest and simply check the box saying they are citizens, they can walk into a polling place and show ID demonstrating they are the person they claim to be. There is no way to verify citizenship once they are registered without showing a birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Once again, we have a Republican judge writing a radical decision flipping state powers on its head and bastardizing a statute.

Repeat after me: THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS IRREMEDIABLY BROKEN and MUST BE REFORMED WHOLESALE. Otherwise, even when we have competitive candidates at a national level, states will have no power to prevent non-citizens from determining the outcome. (For more from the author of “GOP Judge Paves Road for Thousands of Potential Non-Citizens Voting in Kansas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Think the First Amendment Protects Books and Movies? Government Officials Don’t Agree

Books, movies, satellite radio shows, and streaming video about real-life politics aren’t protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, some government officials argue.

The Federal Election Commission hasn’t proposed banning books or movies, but in a 3-3 vote last month along party lines, the six-member panel left the regulatory option on the table.

It was just one of numerous ties. But FEC member Lee Goodman, a Republican, says he’s surprised cases that deal with regulating content from a book publisher or news programming would result in split votes.

The FEC hasn’t spoken in a unanimous voice about what Goodman and others say are basic matters of free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, various commission votes open the door to applying campaign finance laws to movies, books, and other media rarely ever considered before as campaign contributions.

In the past two years, the FEC, divided equally into Democrat and Republican factions, investigated books containing partisan material (among them a book by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.), a conspiratorial film disparaging President Barack Obama, and a Republican presidential debate on Fox News Channel.

While the presidentially appointed commission sanctioned neither Ryan’s publisher nor Fox News, it avoided granting the “press exemption” to either.

The exemption was designed to ensure that news organizations, which generally are corporations, cannot be accused of electioneering or making in-kind campaign contributions based on news reporting or commentary on political candidates. The law states, in part:

(B) The term ‘expenditure’ does not include—
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; …

In one case, FEC member Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, suggested the “press exemption,” provided in campaign finance law, doesn’t protect book publishers.

The commission was preparing to vote on a routine “tech modernization” proposal, regarding rules about financial contributions made electronically. Goodman proposed an amendment to clarify that the “press exemption” includes books, movies, satellite radio, and streaming services—effectively ensuring them the same First Amendment protections that newspapers, radio, and TV networks currently enjoy.

“I don’t have the confidence that four commissioners or even three commissioners will recognize the press rights, but will rather trim the sails,” Goodman told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

Goodman said he worries about a chilling effect—and that it ought to be a bipartisan concern.

“The commission’s respect for the free press shouldn’t vary based on who is on the commission or on the content of the publication,” he said.

‘Nearly Impossible’

Weintraub pointed out that Goodman proposed an amendment to a measure that had nothing to do with free speech.

In an email, Weintraub told The Daily Signal:

The matter before the commission that day was a proposal to make minor technological modernizations to the commission’s regulations, updating them to avoid specifying such outmoded technology as faxes and microfilm, for example. At the meeting, Commissioner Goodman attempted to add a nongermane amendment to the proposal.

The First Amendment contains protections that are critical to free speech, a free press, and a free country. It needs no implementing regulations from the FEC.

Weintraub then referred to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling, in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that organizations have free speech rights allowing them to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

The work we do need to do, which some of my colleagues, including Commissioner Goodman, have blocked for years, is to write rules that respond to Citizens United and the advent of super PACs. Sadly, even routine regulatory fixes have become nearly impossible to accomplish at the FEC.

This useful and almost entirely noncontroversial technological-modernization proposal has been bogged down for years. I decided to stick with the staff’s draft in the hope of getting this done without further delaying it with nongermane but substantive proposals.

Besides Goodman, FEC Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and member Caroline Hunter also are Republicans. Weintraub and Ann Ravel are Democrats, and Vice Chairman Steven Walther is an independent who caucuses with them.

‘We Are Constrained’

In the past, the FEC frequently would vote 6-0 in many cases that dealt with the First Amendment, giving the benefit of the doubt to media. Among them was a 2002 rejection of a complaint regarding two news organizations that sponsored a candidate debate. That consensus seems to have gone away, Goodman argues.

“Anyone who studies a series of cases on books and films must come to the conclusion there is a distinct difference of opinion on the definition of the press exemption,” Goodman said. “It’s not just on film, but on press in general.”

In 2014, the FEC ruled on a complaint about Ryan’s book, “The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea,” published before Ryan became House speaker in October 2015.

The three Republican commission members said they wanted the decision to clearly state that book publishers are exempt from campaign finance regulations, the same as news media. The Democrats disagreed.

Ultimately, the commission approved a more limited exemption to determine the book didn’t violate campaign finance laws. Still, this marked an occasion on which the FEC refused to rule out regulating books based on political content.

Goodman points to Weintraub’s words regarding this issue as reason for concern. During the commission meeting, the Democrat said:

Books don’t appear to be covered by the media exemption. What we call the media exemption, oddly enough, doesn’t use the word ‘media’ and doesn’t use the word ‘press.’ … I don’t know why Congress wrote the word ‘periodical publication’ in there but they did and we are constrained in interpreting that particular provision … and the words that it uses.

When a group called Highway 61 Entertainment released the film “Dreams From My Real Father,” purporting that Obama’s real father was a communist, someone filed a complaint after the filmmaker mailed millions of copies to voters in swing states during the 2012 presidential race.

Again, Republican members determined the film was covered by the media exemption and Democrats determined it was not. This led to a 3-3 tie vote in April.

‘Extremely Dangerous’

Seeking to narrowly define media protected by the First Amendment could be a means of targeting alternative conservative media, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former FEC member.

“FEC Democrats don’t want an extended media exemption to include conservative websites,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Given the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court, one FEC ruling could set up litigation to work its way through the courts, he said.

“It’s extremely dangerous. Four liberals on the court now that want to overturn Citizens United, and you have a 4-4 split,” von Spakovsky said.

Conversely, The New York Times, in an editorial last month, called the FEC an “impotent joke” and said it is “paralyzed and should be replaced by a new agency.”

Interestingly enough, the commission’s questions even surrounded whether a news organization, Fox News, could be regulated.

Mark Everson, a largely unknown candidate who ran for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, filed an FEC complaint after he was excluded from both the cable news channel’s main debate event featuring 10 candidates and the “undercard” debate featuring seven other candidates. He did not reach the polling threshold.

Everson’s complaint focused on how Fox made a change to the second debate that accommodated more candidates but still left him out. These were the opening debates of the campaign season, held Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland.

In June, the FEC considered several motions on the Fox News case, none of which gained the needed four votes, so no action was taken. But in two key motions, Democrat Ravel and independent Walther each voted that Fox had violated campaign finance law.

‘More Robust Scrutiny’

The next motion, which failed 3-3, was to find no wrongdoing by Fox in the debate format because the news operation was protected under the press exemption.

Weintraub, Ravel, and Walther voted against applying the exemption to Fox. Goodman voted with the other two Republicans, Peterson and Hunter, for applying the exemption.

Here’s how Ravel explained her vote against Fox to The Washington Post:

There have to be pre-established, objective criteria. Changing the standards in the last moment [as Fox did] was the subject of a complaint to the commission and we responded to it in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law, so my role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I’m not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I’d be happy to do so. We’re a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law.

In the FEC’s statement on the Fox News case, Goodman urged a more thorough conversation about news media protections. He wrote:

Given the [FEC] Office of General Counsel’s recommendation and our colleagues’ votes in this matter, this compromise is no longer tenable. The commission’s debate regulation cannot be used to impose government restrictions on newsroom decisions and to punish, and even censor, American press organizations. We can no longer agree to avoid addressing freedom of the press. As we have been warning in matter after matter, our colleagues’ desire to use this agency’s authority to regulate and punish the press and media warrants more robust scrutiny and a civil public debate.

(For more from the author of “Think the First Amendment Protects Books and Movies? Government Officials Don’t Agree” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Within a Generation, Our National Debt Will Cost the Typical Family $12,000

When confronted in the final presidential debate with the assertion that each of their plans would increase the national debt, the candidates denied it by saying either economic growth or higher taxes would offset this increase.

But deficit spending and unsustainable debt pose a significant threat to our economy. The House Budget Committee recognizes this threat, recently releasing a working paper highlighting the damaging economic effects of the national debt. The results are scary.

As the government runs increasing budget deficits, it must borrow more money to fund current commitments, such as entitlements, and make interest payments on the debt. This makes interest rates a larger share of the federal budget and in turn increases borrowing by the government.

Academic research shows that high national debt is associated with less economic output and less prosperity for individuals and families.

The Congressional Budget Office’s projections reflect this. Compared to a future where the government adopted reforms that stabilized debt at the current level of 75 percent of gross domestic product, the current path of growing spending and debt results in an annual income loss of about $12,000 for the average family by 2046.

We already are seeing the debt, approaching $20 trillion, drag down the economy. The recovery from the 2009 recession is the weakest in the modern era. Over the past five years, real GDP growth has averaged slightly more than 2 percent, below the historical average of 3 percent.

Even though the unemployment rate of 5 percent seems to indicate a healthy economy, a closer look at the numbers shows a different picture.

According to the House Budget Committee report, the number of individuals working part time due to poor economic conditions since the recession has jumped by 42 percent, and about 14 million Americans have left the labor force since early 2009.

Congress and the new president must begin to take our deficit spending and growing debt seriously.

Lawmakers should not raise taxes to try to solve the government’s fiscal problems. Our debt and deficits are the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Paul Winfree, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes that “revenue growth cannot keep up with spending if spending increases at a rate faster than the economy is growing in the long run.”

This is exactly the scenario we’re witnessing, given current projections.

Raising taxes would weaken the economy further and worsen the fiscal trajectory. The United States already has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world; raising taxes higher would discourage investment and job creation.

Instead, lawmakers should focus on reforming the drivers of our national debt: entitlements. Medicare, Medicaid, other health care programs, and Social Security together made up 52 percent of the budget in 2015.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance” and “Blueprint for Reform” lay out a detailed plan to reform entitlements and control spending to balance the budget and reduce the debt.

America needs presidential leadership to control spending and debt and return to a balanced budget. (For more from the author of “Within a Generation, Our National Debt Will Cost the Typical Family $12,000” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fact-Checking 7 Claims in the President’s Speech on Obamacare

In a speech before Miami Dade College students in Miami, Florida, on Thursday, President Barack Obama spoke about some of the successes of the Affordable Care Act, as well as what he would like to see for the future of his signature health care law.

The president’s address came just weeks before the 2017 open enrollment period, which starts Nov. 1, and at a time when much of the news surrounding the health care law has focused on increasing premiums and decreasing options for consumers buying coverage on Obamacare’s exchanges.

During his speech, the president touted the uninsured rate, which is at its lowest in history, but also conceded that improvements can be made to the law.

The president called for the creation of a public option, or government-run plan that competes with private insurers, which he mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association in June.

“The Affordable Care Act has done what it was designed to do,” Obama said. “It gave us affordable health care.”

In the years since Obamacare’s implementation, GOP lawmakers have voted to repeal the health care law more than 60 times. Obama, referencing those attempts, called on Republicans to abandon those efforts and instead work with the next president to fix the law.

“Repeal is not the answer,” he said.

While the president outlined many of Obamacare’s accomplishments, The Daily Signal provided more context for some of Obama’s claims about the health care law.

1.) “Because of this law, because of Obamacare, another 20 million Americans know the financial security of health insurance.”

Though the uninsured rate has reached a historic low and 20 million Americans now have health insurance, the majority of those who enrolled in coverage under Obamacare qualified for Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act loosened the guidelines for Medicaid eligibility, and since the law was passed in 2009, 31 states and the District of Columbia have expanded the program.

In 2014, for example, 9.25 million consumers enrolled in coverage on the federal and state-run exchanges. However, 97 percent of those new enrollees, or 8.99 million people, enrolled in Medicaid.

Under Medicaid expansion, people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, or about $16,390 for an individual, qualified for Medicaid.

2.) “States like Louisiana that just expanded Medicaid—you had a Republican governor replaced by a Democratic governor. He said, ‘I want that money.’ [He] expanded Medicaid and found not only does it insure more people, but it’s actually saved the state big money and makes people less dependent on expensive emergency room care.”

Despite the president’s claim, recent findings from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that expanding Medicaid won’t stop patients from using emergency rooms for primary care.

The study, published Wednesday, examined patients in Oregon who were enrolled in Medicaid in 2008. Oregon expanded its Medicaid system that year for enrollees selected through a lottery system.

According to the study, visits to the emergency room remained high two years after those selected for the lottery were enrolled in Medicaid.

The study was first published in 2014, and that year, researchers found that those who enrolled in Medicaid through the state’s lottery increased emergency room visits by 40 percent over the first 15 months of enrollment.

With two more years of data between the 2014 and 2016 studies, researchers said Wednesday there was no sign of emergency room use dropping.

3.) “For most Americans, the Affordable Care Act, [Obamacare], has not affected your coverage except to make it stronger.”

Though the majority of Americans receive their health insurance coverage through their employers, consumers purchasing plans both on and off the exchange have seen their narrower networks, canceled policies, and increased deductibles and premiums.

Insurance companies have pointed to enrollees who are sicker and more expensive as one of the primary reasons for increased premiums. Additionally, health policy experts have said that insurers have been forced to narrow networks as a way to control premium increases.

4.) “Because the federal government pays for almost all of [Medicaid] expansion, you can’t use as an excuse that well, the state can’t afford it. Because the federal government is paying it.”

The federal government covered the cost of Medicaid expansion to states for its first three years, 2014 to 2017. During his speech, the president said the health care law provided states with an incentive to expand Medicaid at no cost to its taxpayers.

However, an August report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary found that the cost of Medicaid expansion for 2015 was $6,366 per person—49 percent higher than past estimates.

In its report, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it expected the costs of expansion per person to decrease, but instead, costs increased.

Additionally, a 2015 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based think tank, found that Medicaid expansion in Ohio ran $1.5 billion over budget during the program’s first 18 months. Budget officials in Kentucky estimated Medicaid expansion there would cost $1.8 billion more than expected during 2014 and 2015.

5.) “Most people today can find a plan for less than $75 a month at the HealthCare.gov marketplace when you include the tax credits that the government is giving you.”

Earlier this month, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said that consumers who purchase plans on the exchange and receive a subsidy may see monthly premiums of less than $75. The president echoed Burwell’s statement Thursday.

However, of the 17.3 million people who purchase plans sold in the individual market in 2015, 7.3 million received subsidies that lowered the cost of their health insurance. Another 10 million consumers did not qualify for financial assistance.

Those consumers, experts say, are going to be hit the hardest by premium increases. In Missouri, for example, one Kansas City resident will see his monthly premiums rise to $716 each month.

Additionally, an analysis from Standard & Poor’s found that enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges is likely to decrease next year as consumers who don’t qualify for subsidies leave them. Roughly 85 percent of consumers on the exchange are eligible for financial assistance, but the rest won’t be shielded from premium increases.

6.) “The second issue has to do with the marketplaces. Although the marketplaces are working well in most of the states, there are some states where there’s still not enough competition between insurers.”

After Obamacare was passed in 2009, states were encouraged to build their own exchanges. Those that did not would be permitted to use the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov.

As of 2016, 13 states had their own marketplaces, while another 27 used the federal exchange. Another seven had state-partnership marketplaces, and four had federally supported marketplaces, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Earlier this month, the federal government approved Kentucky’s request to switch from its own exchange, Kynect, to the federal exchange for the 2017 open enrollment period.

Last year, Oregon officials dissolved its state-run exchange, Cover Oregon.

Technical issues haven’t been the only problems with the exchanges, as insurers large and small have decided to pull out of them after losing money.

In five states, consumers who purchase coverage on the exchanges will have just one insurer to choose from. And in Tennessee, Insurance Commissioner Julie Mix McPeak warned in August, its exchange was “very near collapse.”

McPeak said she had to approve significant rate increases in the state in order to ensure consumers in Tennessee had options when purchasing coverage on the exchange.

Choice and competition among insurers has decreased not only as insurers have left the exchanges, but as the nonprofit consumer operated and oriented plans, or co-ops, have failed.

The health care law approved the creation of 23 co-ops, which were designed to provide consumers with more choice. However, in three years, 17 co-ops have collapsed.

7.) “In some states, the premium increases are manageable, 2 percent or 8 percent, some 20 percent. But we know there’s some states that may see premiums go up by 50 percent or more.”

Insurance commissioners have been mulling over insurers’ proposals for rates in 2017 over the last few months, with approved rates beginning to trickle out.

In at least eight states—Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee—premiums will rise by an average of 30 percent.

Additionally, the cost of premiums for plans sold on the individual market will increase by an average of 25 percent.

Consumers in just one state so far, Vermont, will see premium increases below 10 percent. There, insurance rates will rise by an average of 5.5 percent. (For more from the author of “Fact-Checking 7 Claims in the President’s Speech on Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.