Yahoo Secretly Scanned Customer Emails for U.S. Intelligence – Sources

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers’ incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

The company complied with a classified U.S. government demand, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said three former employees and a fourth person apprised of the events.

Some surveillance experts said this represents the first case to surface of a U.S. Internet company agreeing to an intelligence agency’s request by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to examining stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time.

It is not known what information intelligence officials were looking for, only that they wanted Yahoo to search for a set of characters. That could mean a phrase in an email or an attachment, said the sources, who did not want to be identified.

Reuters was unable to determine what data Yahoo may have handed over, if any, and if intelligence officials had approached other email providers besides Yahoo with this kind of request. (Read more from “Yahoo Secretly Scanned Customer Emails for U.S. Intelligence – Sources” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Steal 100 Million Acres of Alaska During Summer of 2016

/0 Comments/in , /by

Every US state has a motto. Some are interesting, like “Live Free of Die,” in New Hampshire, and some are sadly truthful, like, “Our Government is Vampiric” in Massachusetts. Just kidding. It’s more along the lines of “We’ll Tax You to Death,” or something like that. Anyway, some, like the motto for the 49th state, Alaska, are very upbeat and offer a sense of adventure. In Alaska, politicians tell us to look, “North, to The Future.”

But, a shocking move by the federal government might inspire Alaskans to change their motto to, “Our Land Is Being Stolen By The Feds!”

The excellent writers at the Tenth Amendment Center have recently reported a huge story that is getting very little pop media coverage: the federal government has just seized 100 million acres of Alaskan land, a tract equal in size to the state of New Mexico.

And, supposedly-conservative Alaskan Governor Bill Walker isn’t doing a thing about it.

The federal takeover has come in three phases, the most recent being a robbery by US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureaucrats on August 3 of 77 million acres of Alaskan land from Alaskan government control. (Read more from “Feds Steal 100 Million Acres of Alaska During Summer of 2016” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s good to see that a superstar athlete like LeBron James cares about the presidential elections, but I take strong exception to his reason for endorsing Hillary Clinton, namely, his claim that she “has always been a champion for children and their futures.”

Come again?

James would have been far more accurate if he had said, “I believe that she’s a champion for children and their futures, unless those children are still in the womb, in which case she’s quite happy if they have no futures at all. In fact, she’s quite happy if they never even reach the status of children, let alone have a future. After all, it’s the mother’s choice!”

To be clear, I appreciate all that James is doing for children in his community, establishing the LeBron James Family Foundation and taking a genuine interest in improving the lives of those kids.

And you can hear his heart when he says, “I’m so proud of the more than 1,100 students in my Wheels for Education and Akron I PROMISE Network programs. We’re working on year six now, and my kids have big plans for their futures,” also claiming that, “We even have a future astrophysicist. I can’t wait to see how far these kids can go.”

Yes, “future” is the operative word, and again, my hat’s off to James for his initiatives in these areas.

And it is in this context that he endorsed Hillary: “Like my foundation, Hillary has always been a champion for children and their futures. For over 40 years, she’s been working to improve public schools, expand access to health care, support children’s hospitals, and so much more.”

Unfortunately, when you are a radical pro-abortion advocate like Hillary, when you are the best friend Planned Parenthood ever had running for president, when your policies support rather than diminish what some black leaders rightly call the “Black Genocide,” then in no way are you a champion of these children and their futures. (It could also be argued that Democratic policies are hurting inner-cities kids more than helping them, but that’s another subject entirely.)

That’s why pro-abortion advocates normally speak of a “woman’s right to choose” rather than “the mother’s right to choose.”

Once you call her the mother, the fetus is now her child, and how many would argue that the mother has the right to terminate the life of her own child?

How militant is Hillary on this?

She is so committed to the pro-abortion cause that she stated during a 2015 speech at the Women in the World Summit that, when it comes to a woman’s “right” to choose abortion, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed” — read those words carefully: “have to be changed.”

What, then, would it mean if Hillary became president?

Not only could we expect her continued, passionate advocacy for LGBT “rights” — at the expense of religious rights and freedoms — but we could also expect her passionate advocacy for so-called “reproductive rights,” once again, at the expense of religious rights and freedoms. (Isn’t it ironic that one aspect of so-called “reproductive rights” is the right to terminate the result of reproduction?)

Make no mistake about it. A vote for Hillary is a vote to wipe out a generation of children yet to be conceived and born — to wipe out their futures — and a vote to support the idea that “the unborn person does not have constitutional rights.” (How can the unborn baby be a “person” and yet have no constitutional rights?)

A vote for Hillary is also a virtual declaration of war on deeply-held, biblically-based, long-cherished, pro-life and pro-family positions. Indeed, it is a vote to declare war on conservative believers themselves, since it is our beliefs that, according to Hillary, “have to be changed.”

With all respect, then, to LeBron James, if he really cares for the lives of the poor and the underprivileged, for the lives of the inner-city kids, in particular of underprivileged black Americans kids — and I believe he really does care — he would do well to reflect on the ongoing attack on black babies in the womb.

Those babies deserve a hopeful future, and their very existence in the womb entitles them to the right to leave that womb alive rather than to leave the womb sliced up, mutilated, torn apart, poisoned, or burned (by salt). Surely a vote for a radical pro-abortion candidate is vote against, not for, those children, a vote against their futures.

And so, I pray that God would help LeBron James to see.

As a man who seems to care deeply, he could be a marvelous advocate for these precious little ones, the most vulnerable members of our society.

May he become a champion of life, beginning in the womb. (For more from the author of “LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Does the Presidential Race Stand?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A week out from their first debate, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is considered the winner in her initial encounter with Republican opponent Donald Trump. As reported by Politico, Clinton’s poll-confirmed victory — such as those by Fox News and The Washington Post and ABC News — has helped increase her lead over Trump in a slew of state and national polls.

But Politico also noted that while Clinton appeared to trounce Trump in the debate, her election advantage remains “a low-to-mid-single-digit” nationally and in most battleground states.

The Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of polls shows a similar story, with Clinton’s lead being just 2.5 points. Huffington Post’s trend tracker, meanwhile, shows Clinton with a 5.2-point lead, even as a Los Angeles Times poll shows Trump with a five-point lead.

While the RCP and Huffington Post methods have their strengths and drawbacks, the race as a whole has been much tighter than predicted by many political insiders.

An example of the reaction by many of those same insiders is a Monday piece by Politico’s Glenn Thrush. He is critical and mocking of Trump — describing the race as one where “the unloved candidate trumps the hated one, the polls say.” He also described Trump as “the most outrageous and detested presidential nominee in recent memory” who “still gets his 38 to 43 percent in virtually every national poll.”

But while Trump may not be liked by most of America, wrote Thrush, Clinton doesn’t fare much better:

Meantime, a vast swath of the United States still can’t stomach Clinton. In the course of one mid-September day in deep-blue Maryland, I had a doctor pull his stethoscope off my chest to declare, “I’m a life-long Democrat and I don’t know what the h*** I’m going to do” and an African-American cabbie, who idolizes Barack Obama, muse about sitting this one out.

Nate Silver’s analysis currently gives Clinton a 70 percent chance of victory right now, and while things could change, the post-debate polls make it clear that each candidate would have to do a great deal to swing the race one way or the other. Here are a couple of things that could quickly change the dynamics of the race:

Trustworthiness

Neither candidate is trusted, with Trump facing attacks on his business practices throughout his career. Clinton, meanwhile, has been hammered with scandals surrounding her family’s charitable foundation and her activities as Secretary of State, to say nothing of the baggage she carries from past Clinton scandals.

A major scandal about either candidate could swing things as the race closes. Monday’s announcement, for example, that Trump’s Foundation has been issued an order to stop fundraising because it didn’t file proper paperwork probably doesn’t rise to the occasion, and who knows what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will be revealing about Clinton in a video announcement now set for Tuesday.

While the top groups investigating Trump’s background have liberal bents — such as The New York Times with its non-story on Trump’s taxes on Saturday, or the New York state Attorney General who issued the fundraising order against Trump — a federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation is being done by Preet Bharara. Bharara is a Democrat who worked for Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in Washington but has shown no qualms about targeting high-ranking state Democrats and Republicans alike.

If he was to find something of significance in his Clinton Foundation investigation, it would be hard for Clinton to claim Bharara is a partisan hack, something Trump’s campaign is claiming about the Times’ editors and the New York Attorney General.

Health

Clinton’s health has been questioned even by some Democrats, especially in light of secrecy surrounding a recent bout of what the campaign said was pneumonia and dehydration.

Clinton performed very well during the debate, appearing energetic and on point, while a sniffling Trump looked nonplussed during much of their 90 minutes onstage.

Debates

Two solid debate performances by Trump probably won’t change the equation on their own, but the echo chambers of the media could sway voters who after last week’s debate performance and subsequent attacks on a former Miss Universe winner (including a 3:00 a.m. Twitter outburst) may be hesitant to trust Trump’s decision-making capabilities.

A physical collapse by Clinton during any debate could be devastating.

The Ever-Lurking October Surprise

A Muslim terrorist attack could help Trump, as could another Dallas-style revenge attack against police. Conversely, Clinton could politically benefit from an unjust police shooting, or a racist “lone wolf” attack like the one in 2014 in Charleston.

If the economy improves, the headlines could benefit Clinton. Conversely, given the slow growth of the U.S. economy in recent years, a perceived or actual downturn could harm Clinton.

Even the weather could play a role, as Mitt Romney found out in 2012 with Hurricane Sandy. At this hour, Hurricane Matthew is set to strike Haiti, which could draw attention to the Clintons’ post-earthquake antics in that impoverished nation. Also, during Louisiana’s recent floods, Donald Trump gained much needed credibility with his visit, while Clinton stayed home. If Hurricane Matthew affects the U.S., Clinton won’t make the same mistake again. And her steadiness and experience might contrast well with the political novice.

Tracking the storm should serve as a good reminder that while statistics and historical precedent can point to the way things are likely to go, no one knows what’s going to happen until landfall — or election day. (For more from the author of “Where Does the Presidential Race Stand?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Ask a Question at the Next Presidential Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an effort to foster widespread participation for the upcoming presidential debate Sunday, one organization has created a website where any interested individual can submit questions.

PresidentialOpenQuestions.com, created by the Open Debate Coalition, is a site where anyone can submit a question for the presidential town hall debate hosted by CNN and ABC.

Created during the 2008 presidential election season, the Open Debate Coalition’s sole purpose, according to its website, is “to make debates more representative of the will of the people.”

PresidentialOpenQuestions.com is open to all who wish to submit a question to the candidates. The only requirement is that the candidates must not be named in the question and both candidates must be able to address the question.

“The whole genesis of the open debate format came from a group of bloggers and the realization that the media has a monopoly over the debate process,” Lilia Tamm Dixon, program director for the Open Debate Coalition, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

Further inspiration for this initiative came when Facebook and YouTube began collecting questions online from viewers leading up to the debates as well as during the debate.

Dixon said that it was the group’s goal to build off what Facebook and YouTube had already started.

What sets the Open Debate Coalition apart from other sites or organizations that collect questions for presidential debates is the format in which the questions are presented.

“Instead of questions being submitted online via social media and then given to the moderator’s team to sort through, we collect all the questions and then give the raw data to the moderators,” Dixon said.

Dixon believes this format to be the most effective way for questions to actually make it to the moderator’s desk come debate night, as the Open Debate Coalition presents entirely nonpartisan, pure data to the news networks hosting the debate.

To submit a question, one must first choose from one of 10 categories—ranging from civil rights to foreign policy and military, to health and infrastructure and technology—and then write the question.

After the question is written, users are given an option to include any supporting text or a link to additional material. Questions can be up to 80 characters and supporting text up to 200.

Dixon told The Daily Signal that her organization purposely collects little demographic information in order to encourage as much involvement as possible.

“We try to keep demographic information low because the more feilds people have to fill out the less likely they are to participate in asking a question,” Dixon said. “The only thing we are tracking is geographic location.”

Users of the website can also vote for other questions so that common themes and policy issues can be easily identified and given a rank of importance, allowing the site’s viewers as well as the hosting networks to see the popularity of various themes and questions.

The state of health care is one popular topic, with some questions currently receiving over 16,000 votes.

“As many as 11 of the top 50 questions had to do with something health related, such as single-payer insurance and Obamacare,” Dixon said.

While the Open Debate Coalition won’t be hosting the debate on Sunday, ABC and CNN have agreed to receive the most popular 30 questions from the organization for consideration in the town hall segment of the debate. (For more from the author of “How to Ask a Question at the Next Presidential Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Is Willing to Break the Law to Save Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama’s signature health care law is failing and his administration will go to seemingly any length to prop it up.

You know the famous quote from “Animal Farm” that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?” This was George Orwell’s attempt to point out the hypocrisy that many politicians preach equality, but then give favors to only a few.

Well, for the Obama administration, it turns out that the health insurance companies participating in Obamacare happen to be “more equal” than taxpayers—even to the point where the administration is willing to break the law to help them stay in Obamacare.

To see what I mean, consider the Transitional Reinsurance Program. Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to collect payments from health insurance companies and group health plans to stabilize health insurance markets during the transition to Obamacare’s exchange-based coverage.

The transitional period is set, by law, to cover the plan years 2014 through 2016. However, section 1341 also requires HHS to collect payments from those companies to cover specified amounts and to deposit that money in the general fund of the United States Department of the Treasury.

The requirement to deposit a portion of the collections essentially earmarks that money for deficit reduction. The statute explicitly says that the collections for Treasury cannot be expended on the program. In other words, it cannot go back to the insurers unless Congress provides another appropriation redirecting those funds.

However, HHS has decided to ignore this requirement altogether by allocating all of the collections toward covering the losses of insurance companies. The administration’s decision to redirect all of the collections to the insurers and none to Treasury came only after Obamacare was up and running and the administration found out that it wasn’t collecting as much as expected from the unprofitable insurers.

Not only is favoring a select few over the taxpayers unethical, but according to a recent legal opinion issued by the Government Accountability Office, it’s also illegal. The GAO’s legal opinion is important given its statutory authority to issue legal decisions on the availability of appropriated funds by federal agencies under the Budget and Appropriations Act of 1921 (P.L. 67-13).

According to the GAO:

The fact that HHS’s collections ultimately fell short of the projected amounts does not alter the meaning of the statue. Addressing similar circumstances, courts have held that an agency has an obligation to ‘effectuate the original statutory scheme as much as possible.’ … In such cases, courts have held that a pro rata distribution of funds would most closely adhere to Congress’s original allocation … We do not see any flexibility under section 1341(b)(4) to all HHS to expend the pro rata share of collections attributable to the Treasury … Instead, these collections must be deposited in the Treasury.

Furthermore, that GAO concluded that HHS’ selective reading of the law is “driven solely by the factual circumstances present here, namely, lower than expected collections.” But this unfortunate outcome is not reason to ignore statutory requirements:

… HHS’s position selectively ignores one of the statute’s purposes—which is collecting funds for the Treasury—giving effect to only one of the statute’s purposes—stabilization of health insurance premiums … We agree that a purpose of section 1314 is to provide premium stabilization in the initial years of PPACA’s health insurance reforms. However, this is not the sole purpose of section 1341. Congress clearly intended that the program established under section 1341 would generate collections for the Treasury.

This goes to show that this administration is willing to do just about anything, even breaking the law, to prop up the failing Obamacare. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Is Willing to Break the Law to Save Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Virginia Hasn’t Stopped Noncitizens From Voting, Watchdog Finds

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than 1,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Virginia and cast nearly 200 ballots in elections before being purged from voter rolls, according to a government watchdog group.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation released its findings Tuesday from only eight of Virginia’s 133 voting jurisdictions. So, the group suggested, the problem of noncitizen voting could be more widespread.

Virginia is making no effort to prosecute offenders, said J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

“Virginia election officials don’t seem to care that thousands of ineligible aliens have corrupted their voter rolls by illegally registering to vote,” Adams said in a written statement. “Even worse than doing nothing about it, they are trying to cover it up.”

A total of 31 of the 1,046 registered voters who were noncitizens voted between 2005 and 2015, casting 186 ballots, the organization found.

Virginia has been a battleground state in recent elections. Two races for state attorney general—in 2005 and 2013—were determined by fewer than 1,000 votes statewide. So, voter fraud opponents argue, even a few illegal votes can carry a lot of weight.

It is a federal crime and a violation of Virginia law for noncitizens to vote. The federal penalty for an ineligible voter found to have cast a vote could be a fine or imprisonment for no more than one year. Under Virginia law, it is a Class 6 felony for an ineligible voter to vote, punishable by not less than one year of imprisonment and not more than five years.

The foundation’s report says:

In our small sample of just eight Virginia counties who responded to our public inspection requests, we found 1,046 aliens who registered to vote illegally.

The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities. Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.

The report asserts that the Virginia State Board of Elections, the panel that oversees the state’s Department of Elections, directed local election officials not to provide information to the legal foundation.

The Department of Elections did not respond to phone messages and email inquiries Tuesday from The Daily Signal.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation sought information from 19 cities and counties in the state, but got the data from only eight.

Prince William County had the largest number, 433, of noncitizens purged from the rolls by election officials. Loudoun County was next at 310, followed by Stafford County with 128, the city of Alexandria with 70, Bedford County with 35, Hanover County with 28, the city of Roanoke with 22, and the city of Fairfax with 20.

The report says:

In the eight jurisdictions that provided us with lists of aliens recently removed from their voter rolls, we discovered that 31 noncitizens had cast a total of 186 votes between 2005 and 2015. The most alien votes were cast in 2012 followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term.

The report goes on to criticize the state’s lack of verification for citizenship in voter registration:

There is plenty of blame to go around. One culprit, however, is glaringly obvious—federal and state voter registration forms, which ask registrants to affirm their citizenship with nothing more than the check of a box. No documentary proof of citizenship must be shown. It is nothing more than an honor system, one that is unquestionably failing to keep noncitizens from voting.

Alexandria General Registrar Anna Leider, who is in charge of elections and voter registration in the city, previously told The Daily Signal that the city provided the Public Interest Legal Foundation with all the information required by law.

After it cleans the voter rolls, Leider said, a jurisdiction is not required to check for past voting activity—whether the name removed is a noncitizen, someone who died, or someone who moved outside the jurisdiction. (For more from the author of “Virginia Hasn’t Stopped Noncitizens From Voting, Watchdog Finds” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Levin Blasts ‘Know-It-All’ Obama and His Leftist ‘Racial Obsession’

/0 Comments/in , /by

“This racial obsession … bordering on hatred … runs deep in the veins of Barack Obama,” said Mark Levin during his radio show Tuesday night.

His remarks came in response to a recently surfaced documentary of Barack Obama visiting Kenya in the 1990’s. The video shows know-it-all Obama assessing racial tension in the country and complaining about white privilege.

“This has nothing to do with blacks, and everything to do with left-wing Americans,” Levin said. “And there [Obama] is, ‘I just wish blacks in Kenya had more confidence’ … well how does he know blacks in Kenya don’t have confidence? I mean, seriously, who the hell is he?!”

Listen below to hear the full clip:

“Here’s another place that [Barack Obama] wanted to fundamentally transform,” Levin quipped.

It seems everywhere Leftists go all they see is societal tension and racial disharmony that ONLY they can fix. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin Blasts ‘Know-It-All’ Obama and His Leftist ‘Racial Obsession'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, Vice Presidential Picks Do Matter

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is often said that the vice president matters chiefly because he is “a heartbeat away from the presidency.” It is, of course, true. Historically, the VP has replaced a sitting president nine times (eight because of the death of the president, and one because of the resignation of the president). So around 20% — one out of five — of our 44 presidents came to hold that office because of succession. Therefore, it is important that a presidential candidate choose his running mate wisely.

But there is another, overlooked aspect of the importance of the vice president. It must not be forgotten that, as Aaron Mannes — scholar of the vice presidency — writes on his blog, many VPs “do have political ambitions and that their actions can be shaped with an eye to their own future candidacies.” (Remember Al Gore?)

Reviewing the 2000 book “Wreath Layer or Policy Player?: The Vice President’s Role in Foreign Affairs”, the published dissertation of bestselling Reagan biographer and Conservative Review commentator Paul Kengor, Mannes recounts an example used by Kengor:

[I]n 1983 VP Bush traveled to Europe to push for the deployment of Pershing missiles, which was running into domestic opposition in the potential host countries. By all accounts – both in the general press and from administration figures – Bush did a fine job, bolstering deployment supporters and responding to critics. On the other hand in 1986, Bush went to Saudi Arabia to encourage the Saudis to keep oil prices low, which was devastating the Soviet economy. Instead Bush told them the US needed price stability, the opposite message the Saudis had been getting from Reagan and his senior cabinet officers. Kengor hypothesizes that low oil prices were hurting the oil industry and the states where it is based and that Bush wanted their support for his own upcoming Presidential run.

Kengor came to the conclusion, Mannes writes, that

VPs at the end of their career may be better able to serve the President objectively and not seek to protect their future political careers. Since the publication of Kengor’s book the United States has seen two VPs who saw that position as the apex of their career – Cheney and Biden. In some respects Kengor’s observation seems correct – Cheney and Biden’s service (for better or worse) appears to be entirely focused on serving their President.

There is an even more dramatic example. During the Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was extremely ill. For most of the war, his VP was Henry Wallace — a diehard Soviet sympathizer. He thought Stalin was the champion and savior of the masses. At one point, in fact, he visited a Soviet work center and found it to be Heaven on earth (blissfully unaware that he was actually visiting one of Stalin’s Gulags). He would sneak all kinds of military secrets to Soviet intelligence. FDR removed him from his 1944 ticket and replaced him with Harry Truman — who would become President when FDR died in 1945. In 1948, Wallace would run for President as head of the Communist-controlled Progressive Party – specifically to derail Truman’s resistance to Soviet aggression.

Ann Coulter wrote about this in her 2003 book Treason:

Incredibly, if Roosevelt had died one year earlier, Stalin might have immediately gained control of the United States presidency, Treasury Department, and State Department. Soviet dupe Henry Wallace would have become president, and it is very possible that he would have made Soviet spy Harry Dexter White his Treasury secretary and Soviet spy Alger Hiss his secretary of state.

(Nowadays, of course, Ann doesn’t seem to mind Russian dupes and their Kremlin-stooge entourage — she even worked in the primaries to clear the field of conservatives who oppose the Evil Empire.)

Even without these counterfactuals, the death of FDR did change the way the vice presidency works. As Aaron Mannes writes in his review of Kengor’s “Wreath Layer or Policy Player?: The Vice President’s Role in Foreign Affairs”:

Kengor notes that one important factor in the increased foreign policy role of the vice president was the rocky succession by Truman after FDR died. Not only did Truman not know about the atom bomb project, he was also unfamiliar with FDR’s negotiations with Stalin about post-war Europe and had not even met the Secretary of State. Because of that instance, there have been many recommendations for expanding the vice president’s role in foreign policy.

Sometimes we are lucky to have great vice presidents. It is how the presidencies of Calvin Coolidge and Harry Truman came to be; men who would not have otherwise become president.

So yes, Americans should pay close attention to the VP debates. Despite the impression we often get, the VP does matter. (For more from the author of “Yes, Vice Presidential Picks Do Matter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Even Bill Clinton Knows Obamacare Is a ‘Crazy System’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Bill Clinton seemingly broke from the script Monday while campaigning for his wife in Michigan. Speaking to a group of supporters, the former president said he thinks Obamacare is a bad idea, characterizing President Obama’s signature act of legislation as “the craziest thing in the world,” The Washington Times reports.

Tell us something we don’t know. But wait a minute — doesn’t Hillary Clinton support the Affordable Care Act?

Here’s but one excerpt from a speech the former secretary of state delivered in July 2015:

“I’ve fought for quality, affordable health care my entire career. As president, I’ll defend the Affordable Care Act, build on its successes, and go even further to reduce costs. My plan will crack down on drug companies charging excessive prices, slow the growth of out-of-pocket costs, and provide a new credit to those facing high health expenses.”

Under the “Health Care” section of Clinton’s campaign website, the Democratic nominee promises to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act.” It would appear as though Bill did not get the “defend the Affordable Care Act” memo.

Here is a clip of Clinton bashing Obamacare as a policy that kills small businesses:

There’s also this clip, in which he refers to the health care legislation as “a crazy system” that punishes the middle class.

“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Bill Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”

The millions of Americans whom Obamacare has hurt agree with you. The question is, does your wife?

As Byron York and the Washington Examiner recently noted, though the progressive health care bill is something Hillary has “worked for all her adult life,” she’s kept eerily quiet on the subject as Election Day draws near:

“A look at transcripts of Clinton stump speeches since she kicked off the general election campaign on Labor Day finds the Democratic candidate almost never talks about Obamacare. She doesn’t promise to expand it. She doesn’t promise to protect it. She doesn’t extol its benefits. She just doesn’t mention it.”

Instead, York notes, Hillary Clinton has tailored her speeches to communicate goals of general health care reform and creating “a health care system that works.”

A smart move, given the troubles and bipartisan backlash Obamacare has received across America. Perhaps Bill and Hillary are on the same page after all. (For more from the author of “Even Bill Clinton Knows Obamacare Is a ‘Crazy System'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.