Illegal Alien With a Violent History Charged With Killing 5. Now a GOP Senator Is Asking Questions.

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee is seeking further answers from the Obama administration about why an illegal immigrant charged with murdering five homeless people in a Los Angeles arson fire this summer was not previously deported.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on Wednesday wrote a letter to Sarah Saldana, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, asking follow-up questions related to the government’s response to a previous inquiry by the senator into how Johnny Josue Sanchez of Honduras, the suspect, was able to stay in the country despite having a violent history.

“Specifically, [Grassley] is asking whether Sanchez was not considered a priority under the Obama administration’s Priority Enforcement Program and whether federal authorities were blocked by local sanctuary policies that prevent cooperation with federal immigration officials,” the letter states.

Sanchez was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office on June 13 for five counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder after he allegedly set fire to a vacant building where five homeless people were squatting, including four individuals from Iowa.

Shortly after the incident, on June 27, Grassley and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Jeh Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, to learn more about Sanchez, who, according to media reports, had been arrested three times in the months before the fire.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Sanchez was arrested by border patrol agents in 2012 for illegally entering the country at the southeastern California border. Sanchez was promptly released from custody, the newspaper reported, because he had no previous immigration violations or criminal history.

Sanchez was then placed under supervision and ordered to report regularly to immigration authorities, but he stopped reporting in August 2014.

But in January of this year, the Los Angeles Police Department arrested Sanchez on suspicion of domestic violence. He was arrested again in May and June on suspicion of drug possession. His most recent arrest was less than a week before he allegedly set fire to the Los Angeles building. He was released the next day.

According to the Times, the Los Angeles Police Department does not honor immigration requests from the federal government to be notified of a person’s release from jail unless a warrant is issued or a judge has vetted the request.

In response to Grassley and Goodlatte’s original inquiry, the senator says, the Obama administration acknowledged more details about Sanchez’s history.

Grassley says he learned that Sanchez lied about his birth date to the border patrol upon entering the country illegally, which allowed him to be processed as a juvenile and sent to a youth shelter in California.

Sanchez stayed at a juvenile facility in Fullerton, California, for seven days, Grassley says, until the Honduran Consulate in Houston, Texas, verified Sanchez’s true birth date and provided a birth certificate showing he was not a juvenile.

After receiving this information, Immigration and Customs Enforcement regained custody of Sanchez and then released him after he signed a document promising to report to future court appearances related to his immigration status.

He never made it to court.

“Considering that Sanchez had intentionally misled federal authorities, it would seem inevitable that Sanchez would fail to appear before ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] as directed,” Grassley wrote in Wednesday’s letter. “Sanchez should have been detained until his removal was completed.”

But more concerning to Grassley, he says, was that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after Sanchez’s subsequent arrests this year, never requested that the Los Angeles Police Department issue a detainer on him to hold him in custody, or notify federal immigration authorities of his pending release from jail.

Grassley wants to know why those requests were never made to the local police department, and whether this decision was related to the Obama administration’s decision in 2014 to narrow the types of people it seeks to deport.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are told to first target illegal immigrants considered to be threats to national security and public safety, who have likely been convicted of a felony. Other priorities for deportation include individuals who have been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, and recent arrivals who came here illegally after Jan. 1, 2014.

Grassley also asks in the letter whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement even knew about Sanchez’s previous arrests this year, or if its knowledge was limited because of Los Angeles’ policy to limit cooperation with federal immigration requests.

“Was Sanchez not considered a priority under the administration’s Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)? Was ICE never informed of the previous arrests because of Los Angeles’ sanctuary policies?” Grassley asked. (For more from the author of “Illegal Alien With a Violent History Charged With Killing 5. Now a GOP Senator Is Asking Questions.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia’s Information Warfare Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speculation about Russian interference in the upcoming U.S. presidential election is flowing fast in the U.S. media.

Russia was widely believed to be responsible for embarrassing email hacks at the Democratic National Convention. Speculation abounds in the media that the Russian government might try to throw the U.S. election this way or that with a boldness not even seen during Soviet days.

Speculation is all we have for now, yet, the Russian propagandists may feel they have accomplished quite enough. Sowing confusion in the West and presenting Russia as an innocent victim of U.S. political infighting are key elements in Russia’s information warfare.

On the international front, Russia is no less active. Having honed disinformation skills in the conflict with Ukraine, Russian media are now focused on Syria.

In a through-the-looking-glass maneuver, Russia has accused the United States of bombing Syrian government troops and aiding the Islamic State, while Russia itself that is bombed Syrian civilian targets, including a hospital. This leaves U.S. officials, like Secretary of State John Kerry and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Powers, constantly playing defense.

There is no sign of Russia’s information campaign abating. The campaign has successfully restored Russia as a global player, muscling in where the United States and Europe have faltered.

A recent paper published by Chatham House titled “Russia’s ‘New’ Tools for Confronting the West,” describes Russia as engaging in hybrid warfare, comprised of new generations of kinetic weaponry combined with a revamped information warfare strategy.

The key to understanding Russians’ strategy, writes author Keir Giles, a research fellow at Chatham House, is the consistency of Russian strategy over time. In both its use of military force and its use of disinformation, the Kremlin reveals reliance on the past as well as the ability to adapt to new tools, like the internet. And yet for all our experience in dealing with Russian propaganda in the past, we continue to be challenged by it in the present.

Two key recommendations of the report stand out:

“Russia continues to present itself as being under approaching threat from the West, and is mobilizing to address that threat. Russia’s security initiatives, even if it views or presents them as defensive measures, are likely to have severe consequences for its neighbors. Russia’s growing confidence in pursuing its objectives will make it even harder for the West to protect itself against Russian assertiveness, without the implementation of measures to resist Russian information warfare, and without the availability of significant military force to act as an immediate and present deterrent in the front-line states.”

“For Western governments and leaders, an essential first step towards more successful management of the relationship with Moscow would be to recognize that the West’s values and strategic interests and those of Russia are fundamentally incompatible.”

The underlying gap in values and goals between the United States and Russia is far too frequently underestimated by those in power in Washington. The last to fully understand it was President Ronald Reagan, who incidentally also had the best information strategy in recent history. (For more from the author of “Russia’s Information Warfare Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Privatize Airport Screeners to Get Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Back on the Scent of Terrorists

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the wake of the New York and New Jersey bombings, and coming on the heels of the 15th anniversary of Sept. 11 last month, security measures like bomb-sniffing dogs are getting a lot of attention.

Bomb-sniffing dogs are an essential component of security, keeping Americans safe at home and especially as they travel. Yet bomb-sniffing dogs in airports across the United States are failing to pass certification tests, causing serious concern.

A recent investigation by NBC News concluded that in 10 major U.S. airports, K-9 teams failed to pass their annual certification testing more than 50 times between January 1, 2013, and June 15, 2013. At Dulles International Airport, the K-9 teams failed an alarmingly high 10 times. These K-9 teams are funded by the Transportation Security Administration.

While some failures are to be expected, bomb-sniffing dogs are an important piece of airport security, making these findings very worrisome. Once a K-9 team fails, it is banned from working until the dogs retest and meet the proper certification standards. Still, as reliance on bomb-sniffing dogs increases, so does the expectation that they will exceed the qualifications put in place by the TSA.

Security experts and government oversight organizations have pointed to K-9 unit training as critical to their success. The Government Accountability Office found that from 2011 to 2012, several K-9 teams did not comply with the TSA’s monthly training requirements on multiple occasions. Without consistent training, bomb-sniffing dogs are not capable of protecting airports properly or passing their annual certifications.

These incidents highlight a need for privatizing airport security. The Screening Partnership Program, created in 2001, replaces the TSA with private screeners in airports. With the program’s screeners in place, the TSA’s role shifts to oversight, ensuring that security regulations, such as K-9 training requirements, are being fulfilled.

In addition to providing potential security benefits, the program may also reduce airport screening costs, increase screening efficiency, and improve customer service.

More airports should recognize and join the Screening Partnership Program. It would allow the TSA to focus on assessing the state of security at airports and ensure that risks are being properly handled. If airports are not satisfied by a private security contractor, they should have the ability to fire and replace them if necessary.

Congress should also make it easier for airports to join the program. There are unnecessary regulations currently in place that severely delay and hamper the process. For instance, the TSA needs to stop hand-picking the private security contractor who replaces them. Instead, the airport should be allowed to choose from a pre-approved list of vendors, allowing airports to choose the best contractor for their needs.

Expanding participation in the Screening Partnership Program would go a long way to improving the underperforming TSA, and would create a safer airport environment. Airport security has come a long way since Sept. 11, 2001, but the failures of bomb-sniffing dogs show there are still improvements to be made. (For more from the author of “Privatize Airport Screeners to Get Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Back on the Scent of Terrorists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If the Two VP Candidates Ignore the $19 Trillion National Debt, Will It Cease to Exist?

/0 Comments/in , /by

During Tuesday’s debate, Elaine Quijano asked vice presidential nominees Tim Kaine and Mike Pence:

“According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, neither of your economic plans will reduce the growing $19 trillion gross national debt. In fact, your plans would add even more to it. Both of you were governors who balanced state budgets. Are you concerned that adding more to the debt could be disastrous for the country?”

Pence had to evade. He couldn’t address the question, because it is true: According to CRFB projections, Donald Trump’s economic plan would increase the category of publicly held debt from $14 trillion to $35.2 trillion by 2026 — well over doubling it.

So Pence merely said the fact that Hillary Clinton was part of an administration which doubled the national debt was “atrocious,” and said he was “very proud” that he is from a “state that works,” praising his efforts in Indiana for cutting taxes, leaving a surplus, and devoting resources to education and infrastructure.

Basically, he didn’t answer the question. Because the Republican vice presidential candidate can’t.

Kaine’s answer was equally inane. Like his running mate, he tried to make a canned line work: “Do you want a ‘you’re hired’ president in Hillary Clinton, or do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president in Donald Trump?” He then proceeded to argue that by making college tuition free and raising the minimum wage, Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the economy.

Much like their cohorts, Pence and Kaine avoided talking about entitlement spending, which should have been part of a candid answer to Quijano’s debt question. Our entitlement programs are the primary debt-driver and our unfunded liabilities are in the trillions.

Let’s put this into perspective: As The Daily Signal reported, mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs, in addition to interest on already-existing federal debt, will “consume all federal tax revenues by 2033.”

So unless mandatory spending is cut and serious reforms are made to our entitlement crisis, all of our federal tax payments will be swallowed up by Big Government programs in 17 years. There will be nothing left for defense. Nothing left for national security. Nothing left for anything other than New Deal and Great Society welfare programs. Oh, and Obamacare, which will have morphed into a full-fledged single-payer system by then.

Instead of trading insults, it would be great to see our presidential tickets acknowledge the debt crisis and debate how to tackle it. Republicans should easily win on this issue; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are all Democrat dealings. Traditional Republican plans aim to privatize Social Security and rein in Medicaid and Medicare. But instead of making a credible case on how all of this federal spending should be addressed, Donald Trump and Mike Pence avoid talking about entitlements and have nothing but vague platitudes about the debt.

The fact of the matter is, whether our presidential tickets want to acknowledge our out-of-control entitlement spending or not, eventually the programs will be insolvent. Then what? (For more from the author of “If the Two VP Candidates Ignore the $19 Trillion National Debt, Will It Cease to Exist?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Moore Falls Victim to Culture of Beta Males Our Founders Failed to Envision

/0 Comments/in , /by

Earth to conservative movement (what is left of it): there is a raging fire of judicial tyranny threatening to envelop the last vestiges of our Republic. Last week, an unelected tribunal in Alabama removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office — who, by the way, was duly elected by the people of the state — for the remainder of his term. His crime? Following Alabama law and not redefining marriage, the building block of all civilization. Does anyone want to talk about it? Or have conservatives now accepted all forms of judicial tyranny as a given with no desire to even put up a fight or defend one of our own?

Most of the conservative media and talk radio has been ensnared into covering every salacious detail of this presidential election, which does not feature conservatism on the ballot. Those who spend every waking hour of their political career defending every comment or act of Donald Trump contend that it is vital to win this election at all costs because we will lose our country forever if he does not win. Yet, the country is already being immutably transformed before our very eyes. When the few people who actually fight the transformation need reinforcements, most in the conservative media are too busy focusing on the acceptable-weight standard of a Miss Universe contestant.

It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand that our Founders could never have envisioned federal judges ordering states to redefine marriage and gender. However, they put a system of checks and balances in place which, in their estimation, would stave off usurpations of a much smaller magnitude they did foresee. Where they went wrong, however, was their inability to account for a culture of beta males in the states who would be obsequious to illegal, immoral, and tyrannical acts in the federal government, and worse, punish those who fight back against illegal power grabs.

But where are the patriots? Instead of defending every liberal utterance of national Republican leaders, why are they not standing with someone they can actually support with their conscience? And don’t tell me that the outcome of this case hinges on the presidential election. Marriage, religious liberty, and so many other foundational issues have already been ceded to the far-left of the judiciary, irrespective of who wins this election. The fact that Trump has said, so many times, that he will allow the foxes in the courts to decide the fate of the religious liberty hen-house demonstrates that we have already lost.

Anyone who has followed this column over the past year or has read “Stolen Sovereignty” understands that the crisis within the federal judiciary is much worse than even the languishing conservative movement makes it out to be. Yet, there appears to be no floor to the depths of post-constitutional Gomorrah to which it can stoop that would elicit a righteous and united response from even conservative states. Whether it’s criminalizing religion; redefining marriage and gender; nullifying property rights; requiring states to issue birth certificates and offer voter registration to non-citizens; or preventing states from combating voter fraud, states have been completely servile to the perverted whims of the unelected federal judges.

Where is the much-vaunted conservative media in making this an issue? It speaks volumes that we place all of our hopes, aspirations, energy, political capital, reputation, and self-respect into the severely flawed Republican leaders at the top instead of directly engaging on the issues that actually matter and for the people we can actually cleanly support. As a movement, we have acquiesced to illegal acts of usurpation from our politicians, particularly the unelected judiciary. Likewise, we have placed all our bets on winning national elections with flawed men.

As William Penn once wrote, “[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.” We don’t have good men at the top, but we have good men like Roy Moore who refuse to allow ill “laws” to stand, not that Anthony Kennedy even created a law with his absurd marriage ruling. So why won’t our movement rally behind a man that is actually standing in practice for everything we say we believe in theory? Or have we also subscribed to this nonsense that all tyranny from the federal judiciary must be fully applied in the states as “the law of the land”?

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33, even with regard to tyranny from the stronger federal legislature, that when it steps outside of the enumerated powers to crush the states, those acts are “merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such.” Twenty years ago, before transgenderism and redefinition of marriage was in vogue, Robert Bork said, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.”

Nobody imagined a state submitting to orders that were universally understood to be outside of the realm of federal control, especially when those edicts violated our history and tradition, and worse, punishing those who adhered to the most foundational state value.

Yet, now, even conservatives yawn when state officials are punished for not redefining marriage or when individuals are fined for not using their property or business to service an act contrary to their conscience. We legitimize the entire premise that such a ruling is lawfully binding on the states by promising to win elections with RINOs and appoint better judges.

Nobody explained the gravity of this judicial crisis confronting us, and the acquiescence of the people — even conservatives — to this foreign system of judicial supremacy in public policy better than Larry D. Kramer, former Dean of Stanford Law School, in his 2004 book on judicial supremacy:

Neither the Founding generation nor their children nor their children’s children, right on down to our grandparents’ generation, were so passive about their role as republican citizens. They would not have accepted-did not accept-being told that a lawyerly elite had charge of the Constitution, and they would have been incredulous if told (as we are often told today) that the main reason to worry about who becomes president is that the winner will control judicial appointments. Something would have gone terribly wrong, they believed, if an unelected judiciary were being given that kind of importance and deference. Perhaps such a country could still be called democratic, but it would no longer be the kind of democracy Americans had fought and died and struggled to create.

This statement stands as an open rebuke to those who accept the legitimacy of redefining of marriage and gender by the courts as a given, exclusively placing their hopes in new elections to “appoint better judges.”

Kramer then asks, “What changed to make this deprecated sentiment not just real, not just respectable, but apparently prevalent?”

I think we all know the answer: A culture of beta males works wonders in allowing the most debauched usurpations to prosper and those who bravely refuse to comply are condemned by polite society. (For more from the author of “Judge Moore Falls Victim to Culture of Beta Males Our Founders Failed to Envision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Useless Idiots: NFL Bows at the Altar of Black Lives Matter

/0 Comments/in , /by

The racial division ignited by President Obama is far ranging, with support for Black Lives Matter spreading like a wild fire through the country including the National Football League and AT&T.

After years of stoking racial tension between the police and the black community, Obama sparked a social environment in which police officers are bad and the Black Lives Matter agenda is good.

With emotions running high, any incident of blacks being killed by police — justified or not — are being swept into the same conclusion of widespread institutional racism and a call for racial justice.

Inexplicably, business leaders are jeopardizing their brands and contributing to racial tension by echoing the racial bias claims of Black Lives Matter, giving legitimacy to the radical organization.

The support from the business world is adding fuel to the racial fire widening the division among Americans.

The Black Lives Matter got a nationwide boost in September when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided to sit during the National Anthem. Kaepernick’s action sparked football players throughout the National Football League and college football to follow suit.

Instead of enforcing a ban on protests during the National Anthem, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell expressed support for individual protests on the football field saying, “I don’t necessarily agree with what he’s doing. I support our players when they want to see change in society, and we don’t live in a perfect world.”

At the same time, Goodell refused a request from the Dallas Cowboys to place a decal on the back of their helmets to recognize the police officers that were assassinated during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas.

Normally very protective of the NFL brand, Goodell put the league’s reputation in question by siding with Black Lives Matter. By doing so, he made it acceptable for individual expression on the football field.

Because of Goodell’s lack of leadership, discussion of National Anthem protests are part of the NFL news coverage, pitting players against players and analysts against analysts as well as alienating fans.

Fans disgusted by actions disrespecting the American flag are pushing back hard against the NFL. A Twitter hashtag #BoycottNFL was created and backed by actor James Woods.

Fan backlash, led by the Twitter boycott campaign, appears to be affecting the NFL with TV ratings down significantly this year.

Goodell is not the only Black Lives Matter sympathizer in the business world.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson promoted Black Lives Matter in a speech about racial tension at a recent employee conference in Dallas.

During his speech, Stephenson lumped recent shootings in the U.S. including Ferguson, MO, Baton Rouge, LA, the Dallas police assassinations, and the mass shooting in Orlando, FL, under one umbrella, concluding that, “We have a problem.”

He added, “communities being destroyed by racial tension but we are too polite to talk about it.”

Stephenson explained he was recently enlightened about race issues from the experiences of his black friend, a medical doctor that suffered racism during his upbringing in Louisiana.

Afflicted by a serious case of white guilt, Stephenson expressed his new understanding of “black lives matter” and realizes the inappropriateness of the “all lives matter” response used by critics.

Stephenson urged his employees to discuss race as a way to understand each other and close the racial divide.

Promoting Black Lives Matter as penance for not understanding the racial bias a friend experienced is a dangerous proposition for AT&T shareholders.

Clearly, Stephenson is ignorant or ignoring the fact that Black Lives Matter rhetoric resulted in the deaths of police officers and the destruction of millions of dollars’ worth of property in cities.

Backlash from customers, including law enforcement members and families that understand the radical nature of Black Lives Matter, could harm AT&T’s business in a competitive marketplace.

As a leader of a major corporation, Stephenson could improve the lives of blacks by tackling the economic underpinnings that’s resulted in bleak job prospects in urban areas.

Turning on AT&T’s lobbying power to push for lower taxes, regulations, and school choice would yield economic benefits, but that might alienate the progressive Democrat machine that regulates its business.

For executives like Stephenson, it’s so much easier to fall for bumper sticker statements such as Black Lives Matter without regard to the deleterious consequences of the movement than to solve the underlying economic conditions that result in poverty and crime.

Goodell and Stephenson are useful idiots in Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America by dividing Americans along racial lines. (For more from the author of “Useless Idiots: NFL Bows at the Altar of Black Lives Matter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Candidate Joe Miller Agrees With Bill Clinton: Obamacare is ‘Crazy’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller agreed on Wednesday with former President Bill Clinton’s assessment that Obamacare is “the craziest thing in the world” and called out Sen. Lisa Murkowski for merely seeking to “fix” the law.

The Hill reported on Tuesday that former President Clinton “steamrolled President Obama’s signature healthcare law” saying:

“You’ve got this crazy system where all the sudden 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people are out there busting it [at their jobs], sometimes 60 hours a week, [and] wind[ing] up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.”

“It’s the craziest thing in the world,” he added.

Miller stated, “Bill Clinton got it right. Obamacare is crazy. I have fought this legislation from its inception.”

“Following the law’s passage in the Senate in the spring of 2010–through the dubious means of budget reconciliation–I called out Sen. Murkowski for joining the Republican surrender caucus and giving up on repeal. Repealing Obamacare is the only answer,” said Miller.

Local NBC affiliate KTUU ran a story following the law’s passage in March 2010, reporting that Murkowski viewed the law as a “work in progress.”

The senator stated, “Repealing this is not the answer, in my opinion, because if you just repeal and you do nothing, we will not have addressed healthcare reform.”

During a town hall in Anchorage in August 2009, as the healthcare legislation was being considered in Congress, Murkowski said, “It’s not so much that a government run plan is in and of itself a bad thing . . . What we have to have is a government-run plan that actually works.”

Murkowski voted against the effort to defund Obamacare in 2013, and while she did vote to repeal the law in December 2015, she, along with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, introduced an amendment seeking to remove language that defunded Planned Parenthood.

Murkowski recently reiterated the view that government has a significant role to play in healthcare in an op-ed in the Alaska Dispatch News in May: “Until the Affordable Care Act is truly affordable for Alaskans and actually increases access to care, I will not ease up on my efforts to fix this unworkable law.”

“The senator’s big government mindset is entirely wrong,” said Miller. “More government involvement in the healthcare market has done exactly what I predicted: drove costs up exponentially and decreased options for Alaskans.”

Miller concluded, “I will not go to Washington with plans of ‘fixing’ Obamacare. I will fight to fully repeal Obamacare.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

CLINTON STAFF PANICS: Hospital Gurney Spotted Backstage at Campaign Event as Hillary Health Concerns Multiply

/2 Comments/in , /by

Reporter Millie Weaver was observing one of the exits at a Hillary Clinton rally when she spotted a group of EMS workers hauling a gurney to the door.

161004-hillary-gurney-010

161004-hillary-gurney-020

161004-hillary-gurney-030

Moments later, a panicked Clinton staffer (wearing the All Access pass) and began taking pictures of Weaver.

161004-hillary-gurney-050

Moments later, one EMS technician came out of the exit looking quite stressed.

161004-hillary-gurney-060

At the event, Hillary was once again able to navigate the stairs with all the agility of Peter Pan.

161004-hillary-gurney-090-1

Only one word comes to mind: comforting. (For more from the author of “CLINTON STAFF PANICS: Hospital Gurney Spotted Backstage at Campaign Event as Hillary Health Concerns Multiply” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Leaders Warn of Soros-Funded “Hijack” of Christian Left

/0 Comments/in , /by

A coalition of 630 influential Christian leaders, mostly evangelicals, spearheaded by Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Dr. Alveda King, has called on “progressive” Christians to “repent.” It asks them to atone for “work that often advances a destructive liberal political agenda.” That agenda, the appeal’s writers suggest, is allied with and partly funded by billionaire secular leftist George Soros, who uses the profits of his past currency speculation to promote radical causes around the world.

The authors note:

As recent leaked documents confirm, and as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners eventually admitted, wealthy, anti-Christian foundations, following the lead of billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, fund and “rent” Christian ministers as “mascots” serving as surprising validators for their causes. The consequent realities include injury to countless people, the Church, the family, nation and the global Church including many martyrs.

When it comes to progressive Christians who were willing to take Soros’ money, the authors are willing to name names:

At a time when many Christian ministries are struggling, a few of the Soros network “faith” and “interfaith” grantees are Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Richard Cizik’s New Evangelical Partnership, Telos, J Street to malign Israel, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Faithful America and Gamaliel. Faith in Public Life has worked to “counter” Christians and the Tea Party in the media and, with PICO, advocate for amnesty, mass Islamic migration, even seeking to influence the visit and priorities of Pope Francis himself. Billions of additional dollars to “Christian VOLAGs” for large scale “refugee” and migrant resettlement comes from the Obama administration.

Joining “faith” fronts, Soros also funds thousands of other collaborators and projects that suggest his goal is to demoralize America (and Europe). The list includes: film studios and hundreds of media outlets; attempts to control the internet; racial and gender agitation; euthanasia; drug legalization and “injection zones;” abortion and the “sex worker” industry; Al Gore’s Climate campaign; pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel projects; the rights of jihadists and Sharia advocates.

In the ironic rhetoric of compassion, Soros and friends also fund mass immigration followed by voting “rights” and redistricting schemes, while financing the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. (Soros is a major donor to the Democratic Party and co-chairman of Ready for Hillary PAC.)

The authors of the statement cited Martin Luther King, Jr. as an alternative model for Christian social engagement:

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught, “In contrast to ethical relativism, Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values.” He wrote, “We need to recapture the gospel glow of the early Christians who were non-conformists. … Their powerful gospel put an end to such barbaric evils as infanticide. … Finally, they captured the Roman Empire for Jesus Christ.”

The authors lay out a stark catalog of the consequences for America and the church of eight years of progressive-dominated government under Barack Obama:

1. A growth industry trafficking in human baby organs and body parts — funded and defended by the Democratic Party.

2. The abandonment of a biblical view of marriage that protected and liberated children and adults from centuries of pagan slavery, poverty, polygamy and non-life-giving sexuality.

3. The transgender agenda imposed by Obama-government edict, including gender re-education to be forced on our citizens, businesses, schools, military and churches.

4. Doubling of our national debt, economic stagnation and increased welfare dependency.

5. Increased minority unemployment, poverty and violent inner city lawlessness, with an accompanying loss of opportunity, self-determination and family stability.

6. Heightened racial division and tension, and the growing phenomenon of paid demonstrators being recruited and dispatched to instigate protests that often become riots.

7. Open borders and ‘sanctuary’ cities increasing drugs, disease, crime, gangs and terrorism.

8. Forced refugee resettlement in hundreds of American cities without citizen consent, mandated by the federal government in collusion with the United Nations. “Refugees” are primarily non-assimilating Muslims, while authorities reject persecuted Christians.

9. Hostility towards Judeo-Christian religious liberty in our courts, media and universities including the suppression of conservative speakers, free thought and moral education.

10. The widespread, political use of the IRS to intimidate conservative, patriotic and Christian groups that disagree with the current political establishment.

11. The statement also cites Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous 2015 speech at the Women in the World Summit, where she averred that religious beliefs “have to be changed” to accept abortion on demand. With that statement, the signers say, Clinton “was openly declaring war on Christian believers and the Church.”

The evangelical appeal urged fellow Christians “to question the true intentions of persons or organizations that receive money from Soros and other billionaire globalists,” noting that the “hostility of the Progressive political agenda to biblical faith is foreign to the Spirit of Jesus.”

Instead, the statement suggests:

Let us return to the whole counsel of Scripture, not the political abuse of Scripture. Together, we can commit to healing, wisdom and renewal of our faith and culture. Let’s stimulate humility and gratitude, not pride and entitlement. Let’s see the image of God in people and enable the virtuous cycle of creativity, opportunity, work, productivity, wealth and thus greater voluntary generosity.

Signers of the appeal include Eric Metaxas, Lt. Gen. Wm. “Jerry” Boykin, Bishop Harry R Jackson, Jr., Mat Staver, Fr. Frank Pavone (of Priests for Life), Tim Wildmon, Dr. Ted Baehr, radio host Sam Sorbo, Jason and David Benham, Archbishop Wm. Paul Mikler, Rick Scarborough, and The Stream’s Jay Richards and John Zmirak.

To read the statement in its entirety and view its list of signatories go here.

Why Such an Appeal? Why Now?

The Stream asked the lead author of the appeal, Kelly Monroe Kullberg (author of Finding God At Harvard), for the background on this letter. She said, “After a few years of failed attempts to engage Progressive ministers, we wrote the letter because we’re deeply concerned for the Church and nation. Millions are heartbroken to see what has happened to the Church and nation in the past decade or two.”

Pointing to the long list of bad spiritual and temporal results of leftist policies, Kullberg asked, “Why would religious leaders keep pushing such damaging ideas and policies on the nation? We think there are answers and we’d like them to join us all in national repentance and renewal.”

This isn’t an attempt to impose a right-wing agenda, Kullberg said. “Christians and conservatives don’t think of accruing power. We’re just trying to do our best work and be good to our families and neighbors.” She continued:

The danger is that the Christian faith, evangelical and Catholic, is being used, manipulated, weakened and redefined. It would be good to de-politicize the Church and get back to the gospel, the good news of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection that charges life with meaning, and all things with hope. The gospel is actual social renewal.

I hope citizens will dive deeper into, and speak louder of, the life-giving nature of the Bible, the U.S. Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Because other forces are endangering the American experiment and human beings.

To the Religious Left or anyone else attempting to redefine the gospel, I’d say that Biblical and Constitutional wisdom yield the highest love for human beings. Not globalist, secular social engineering forced upon people whom God loves.

For a deeper understanding of the correct relationship between Christian faith and politics, Kullberg recommended “Francis Schaeffer’s classic, A Christian Manifesto, a timely reminder of the beauty of servant-leadership, God’s wisdom, and the dangers of authoritarianism.” (For more from the author of “Christian Leaders Warn of Soros-Funded “Hijack” of Christian Left” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Opinion: Time to Address Alaska’s Corrupt Judiciary

/0 Comments/in , /by

When the Alaska Supreme Court recently overturned the law that returned to parents the right to be involved when their minor daughter was seeking an abortion, many people were deflated and irate wondering what they could do to counter such an egregious act of judicial overreach. This blatantly partial ruling thwarted the will of more than 90,000 Alaskans who had voted back in 2010, in overwhelming fashion, to make it law through a statewide initiative.

Now is your chance to do something.

When you vote November 8th, you will have a constitutional given opportunity to retain or non-retain Alaska Supreme Court Justices Joel Bolger and Peter Maassen – two members of the Court who took away the God-given authority parents have to look out for the safety and welfare of their very own children.

In the Bible, the essential role of judges was to rule according to a law external to themselves. God told Ezekiel that the priests would act as judges saying “In a dispute they shall take their stand to judge; they shall judge it according to My laws and My statutes.” Ezekiel 44:24. Judges do not act above the law. They are under the law of a Holy God.

Many will claim that Justices Bolger and Maassen are fine Alaskans with wonderful “judicial temperaments” but that is not what Alaskans are voting on. Just as U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito are far apart when it comes to judicial philosophies and most often differ in their opinions, so do Justices Bolger and Maassen differ from the 90,000 Alaskans who knew in 2010 and still know that the law should protect the right of parents to be involved when their minor children are making major medical decisions.

Your voice matters and should be counted.

In the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling in 2007 that overthrew a parental consent law, the Court had the audacity to tell to the people that a parental notice law would be constitutionally permissible. It was basically an invite to pass a parental notice law. That is what was done. When it got back into the Court’s hands, they flip flopped ruling that the parental notice law was unconstitutional.

Here are just a few of their corrupt statements from their parental consent ruling –

“And contrary to the arguments of Planned Parenthood, we determine that the constitution permits a statutory scheme which ensures that parents are notified so that they can be engaged in their daughters’ important decisions in these matters.”

“There exists a less burdensome and widely used means of actively involving parents in their minor children’s abortion decisions: parental notification. The United States Supreme Court has recognized, in a different context, that ‘notice statutes are not equivalent to consent statutes because they do not give anyone a veto power over a minor’s abortion decision.’ And many states currently employ this less restrictive approach.”

“As we have recognized in the past, the State has a special, indeed compelling, interest in the health, safety and welfare of its minor citizens and may take affirmative steps to safeguard minors from their own immaturity.”

“Currently, fifteen states have notification statutes in place. Although the precise details of these statutes vary, they all prohibit minors from terminating a pregnancy until their parents have been notified and have been afforded an appropriate period of time to actively involve themselves in their minor children’s decision-making process. Stated another way, these statutes seek to involve parents, not by giving them ‘veto power’, but by giving them notice and time to consult with and guide their daughters through this important decision. As such, although parental notification statutes undoubtedly burden the privacy rights of minors, they do not go so far as to shift a portion of those rights to parents.”

Although Justices Bolger and Maassen were not part of that 2007 ruling, their agreement to throw out the parental notice law shows that the Constitution and democratic decisions of the people mean nothing to them. This latest decision that threw out parental notice is incredibly dishonest and is the product of an intellectually and morally corrupt judiciary.

But have hope. You have the authority and opportunity to right a wrong. To, in their words, “veto” these two from ever making such a ruling again.

On November 8th, please VOTE NO on Alaska Supreme Court Justices Joel Bolger and Peter Maassen.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.