Hillary Supports Abortion ‘at 9 Months’: Trump Doubles Down in New Interview

In a new interview, Donald Trump doubled down on his criticism of Hillary Clinton for supporting late-term abortion.

“According to the rules of Hillary, you can take the baby at nine months and you can imagine what you have to do to that baby to get it out,” he told CBN. “And you can take that baby at nine months and you can abort. And a day prior to birth you can take the baby. And I said it’s unacceptable.”

During the first few minutes of last week’s third and final presidential debate, Trump went on the offense against Clinton for supporting abortion on demand and voting in favor of partial-birth abortion.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby,” he said. “Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me because based on what she’s saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day, and that’s not acceptable.” (Read more from “Hillary Supports Abortion ‘at 9 Months’: Trump Doubles Down in New Interview” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Colin Powell Makes His Presidential Choice Official

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Tuesday that he will be supporting Hillary Clinton in November’s presidential election.

The retired four-star Army general and a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, made the announcement during a luncheon on New York’s Long Island.

According to Newsday reporter Robert Brodsky, Powell said Republican nominee Donald Trump “insults us every day” and is “selling people a bill of goods.”

Past correspondences reveal that Powell seemed to dislike Trump from the outset. In a leaked email, Powell referred to the Republican nominee as a “national disgrace” and “international pariah.” In a separate email, he claimed the birther movement was a “racist” conspiracy theory which Trump had no business propping up.

Clinton, too, has also given Powell a fair share of problems, particularly when it came to her comments that suggested Powell was the one who suggested she use of a private email server to conduct government business.

“I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home, connected to the Clinton Foundation, two contractors, took away 60,000 emails, had her own domain,” Powell said in the emails leaked last month.

“I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect,” Powell wrote in another leaked email. “A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d—ing bimbos at home (according to the [New York Post]).”

“Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris,” he added.

Powell also referred to the investigations into Benghazi, Libya, as a “stupid witch hunt”

“Benghazi is a stupid witch hunt,” he wrote in an email. “Basic fault falls on a courageous ambassador who thoughts Libyans now love me and I am ok in this very vulnerable place.”

Other Bush administration veterans have crossed party lines to endorse Clinton, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Chairman Brent Scowcroft, former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

During his endorsement, Powell claimed that Clinton will serve with distinction and cited her experience and stamina. (For more from the author of “Colin Powell Makes His Presidential Choice Official” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Phones Rush Limbaugh, Alleges Massive Cover-Up in Obamacare

On Tuesday, [Republican] presidential nominee Donald Trump phoned conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and claimed a massive cover-up in regards to The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Limbaugh cited the trending statistic that the average premium has increased by 25 percent under Obamacare, but Trump asserted that the increase, in truth, is much higher.

“You know, the 25 percent [increase], Rush, is less than half of what the real number is,” Trump said. “The real number in some of these places is 80 percent to 90 percent increases. It’s catastrophic, actually.”

Trump said that he’d predicted the downfall of Obamacare from the beginning, saying it was “no good” from the start.

“And you remember, I called that from before it was approved. I said, ‘This can’t work, because it’s just… The plan is no good. The concept is no good,’ and it turned out to be much worse,” Trump said.

He later added, “They put out the phony number of 25 percent because 25 percent sounds better than 60 or 70 percent.”

Trump pointed to his own experience in small business, and he said that many in that realm are complaining that Obamacare is putting them out of business. He also pointed to Obamacare’s seeming monopoly on the insurance market, due to “over-regulation.”

“I think Obamacare has now taken over almost from regulation, which is ridiculous what’s happening with over-regulation, as the biggest single problem for opening and keeping businesses going,” Trump said.

The recent decision of Aetna and other insurance companies to pull out of Obamacare seems to support Trump’s allegations. In states like California, premiums are expected to rise significantly in 2017, and many argue that the program is a disaster on the verge of collapse.

While Democrats have painted former president George W. Bush as the culprit for many of the country’s current issues, saying that Obamacare will help alleviate problems caused by the Bush administration, Limbaugh countered that sentiment by saying Obamacare is working as designed.

“Well, the problem is, it is working. It is working, by design. The whole point of [Obamacare] was to have it fail like this so that they can then have people panic and ask the government to fix it, and the government will fix it by going single payer with the government totally running the health care system, which gives them so much power over people and their behavior and the way they live their lives, you don’t even want to think about it,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh’s opinion is one shared by many conservative pundits, including Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro, who said Obamacare was created with “designed obsolescence” and drew a comparison between Obamacare and Samsung’s Galaxy Note phone.

“It’s as though Samsung had designed their phones to melt down so that they could then market the Samsung Galaxy Note 8, Government Edition,” Shapiro said.

Limbaugh defended Trump, pointing out that the Republican nominee has been under siege by the Democratic party. Yet, he said, Trump is still “a winner.”

“It’s frustrating, Mr. Trump, because their fingerprints, as I say, are all over this,” Limbaugh said. “If anybody, in my estimation, is disqualified from having anything further to do with this nation’s economy or healthcare or immigration, it’s the Democrat Party.” (For more from the author of “Trump Phones Rush Limbaugh, Alleges Massive Cover-Up in Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Ancient Rabbi Brings an Urgent Warning to Christian Leaders Today

In the year 123 A.D., the Roman government launched a severe crackdown against the Jews, culminating in 134 A.D., when all Jewish practices were forbidden, including circumcision, Torah study, and Sabbath observance.

How did the rabbis respond? One of the noted leaders of that day, Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon, conducted public Torah classes, paying for it with his life.

But this was no emotional, spur of the moment decision. There was a rationale behind his actions, traceable to Rabbi Akiva, the greatest rabbinic sage of that era, also martyred for his allegiance to Torah.

The Talmud relates:

Once the wicked Roman government issued a decree forbidding the Jews to study and practice the Torah. Pappus ben Judah came by and, upon finding Rabbi Akiva publicly holding sessions in which he occupied himself with Torah, Pappus asked him: “Akiva, are you not afraid of the government?”

Rabbi Akiva replied: “You, Pappus, who are said to be wise, are in fact a fool. I can explain what I am doing by means of a parable: A fox was walking on a river bank and, seeing fishes hastening here and there, asked them, ‘From whom are you fleeing?’ They replied, ‘From the nets and traps set for us by men.’ So the fox said to them, ‘How would you like to come up on dry land, so that you and I may live together the way my ancestors lived with yours?’ They replied, ‘You — the one they call the cleverest of animals — are in fact a fool. If we are fearful in the place where we can stay alive, how much more fearful should we be in a place where we are sure to die!’

“So it is with us. If we are fearful when we sit and study Torah, of which it is written, ‘For that is thy life and the length of thy days’ (Deut. 30:20), how much more fearful ought we to be should we cease the study of words of Torah!” (see b. Berakhot 61b with Eyn Yaakov)

There is a lesson here for us today, especially those of us in Christian leadership. I pray that we will take heed!

You see, for years we have made careful calculations, not wanting to rock the boat, not wanting to offend our constituents, not wanting to stir up controversy, not wanting to provoke the ire of our ideological enemies. And outwardly, it appeared that our “tiptoe through the culture wars” strategy was succeeding, as our church buildings were full and our bank accounts overflowing.

But all the while, we were selling our souls, losing our lives to save our lives, denying the calling of the Lord to preserve our reputations. And now we are paying the price, with our religious freedoms being threatened and with some dangerous, uncharted waters ahead should Hillary Clinton be elected.

A Christian leader might protest and say, “You have it all wrong. If things get really rough, then we’ll take a stand. When we’re truly threatened with the loss of our freedoms, then we’ll be courageous.”

That, my friend, is a self-deceived mindset, like a morbidly obese man who says, “It’s true that I can’t get up the stairs without losing my breath, but if I need to run up those stairs, I’ll be ready.”

Not a chance.

As the Lord said to Jeremiah the prophet when he was complaining about the tough times he was experiencing in his hometown of Anathoth, “If you race with the foot-runners and they exhaust you, how then can you compete with horses? If you are secure only in a tranquil land, how will you fare in the jungle of the Jordan?” (Jer. 12:5, New Jewish Publication Society Version)

To apply this to us in America now, if we’re afraid to speak up today because someone will unfriend us on Facebook, what will we do tomorrow when someone puts a gun to our heads? (That gun could be metaphorical or real.)

If we won’t take a stand today for fear of losing some wealthy congregants, what will we do tomorrow when obedience to God will cost us our tax exemption?

If, in our Christian schools today, we won’t address cultural controversies for fear of offending some board members (or drawing the attention of the local accrediting association), what will we do tomorrow when refusing to compromise could mean the complete shutting down of our schools, along with a possible prison sentence?

People of God, it’s time for us to wake up. Do you sense the Lord stirring your heart?

If Donald Trump is our next president, he might well stand up for our religious liberties, helping to push back against the anti-Christian spirit rising in our land. But if we don’t seize the moment and come out of our self-imposed closets, speaking the truth with boldness and love, a far worse fate will come upon us.

And if Hillary Clinton is our next president, you can be sure that you will be in her crosshairs.

What will we do then?

Will we cave in and capitulate, claiming in our pseudo-spiritual language that, “The culture wars are over and God just wants to love others”? Or will we demonstrate real love for God and our neighbor by declaring with Paul, “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death”? (See Phil. 1:20, NIV) Note that he wrote this from prison, facing potential martyrdom.

Now is the time to read the stories of men and women of God from past generations (and to this day) who refused to bow down to the gods of this age, laying down their lives rather than denying their Lord.

Now is the time for us to take a determined, uncompromising stand — while it is still light and while the door is still open — before we hang our heads in shame when our kids and grandkids ask us, “What were you afraid of? Why were you so silent? Why did you let this happen to us?”

I’m not counseling anyone to do anything foolish — to provoke some kind of religious conflict or to engage in self-righteous, obnoxious behavior or to respond in a fleshly, emotional way. Instead, I’m urging each of us (in particular those of us in leadership), to do what is right today, to stand for what is true regardless of cost or consequences, walking in the footsteps of Jesus our Lord.

As He warned us repeatedly, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (see, for example, Mark 8:35, ESV). It’s time we find out exactly what He meant, before the spirit of the world entices us out of our element (like that fox enticing the fish), thereby leading us to our spiritual graves.

In short, to compromise is to shrivel up and die; to obey the Lord at any cost is to flourish and thrive. What will we do? Let us heed the wisdom of an ancient rabbi, and let us shout our message from the rooftops, without shame and without fear. And let us remember again the words of Jesus, who said, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38, ESV)

It’s time that the whole world know that we are not ashamed. (For more from the author of “An Ancient Rabbi Brings an Urgent Warning to Christian Leaders Today” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Painter Does Something Unusually Patriotic While Singing the National Anthem

In our culture war even a sports arena is a battlefield.

Whether it’s NFL’s Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling for the National Anthem or singer Denasia Lawrence’s kneeling while she sang the National Anthem, sporting events are increasingly becoming places where fans endure player protests at what should be a fun-filled occasion.

One artist did quite the opposite recently, Breitbart reports. Not only did Joe Everson sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at an East Coast Hockey League game, he did so while creating a painting based on the famous World War II photograph “Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.”

The original was taken in 1945 to commemorate several Marines hoisting Old Glory after a battle in the Pacific. This painting was rendered before a hockey match between the Toledo Walleye and the Brampton Beast.

Watch the amazing and patriotic video of Joe Everson painting the iconic image while singing our National Anthem.

(For more from the author of “Painter Does Something Unusually Patriotic While Singing the National Anthem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Does It Mean to Be Republican Anymore?

There is not much that’s clear about this election cycle. The extreme rhetoric and the circus-like atmosphere, surrounded by a shadow of general disbelief that this is actually real life, have called much into question about our two major parties — and, for some, democracy itself.

But after November 8, one thing will be very clear: The Republican Party will need to change.

There are two major platform issues that the Republican Party used to whole heartedly defend — the principle of lower spending, and the protection of life.

If one considers those as litmus tests for the GOP writ large, it’s evident that the GOP of now reflects very little of the conservative ideology that once defined Republicans. To put it simply, this is a party that has become unmoored.

K Street priorities

When it comes to government spending, consider what GOP majorities in the House and Senate have given us. I’ve written about it here time and time again — instead of defending lower spending, fiscal conservatism, and sound economic principles, Republican majorities have supported agendas that increase spending across the board. In fact, not once has this Republican Congress abided by the Budget Control Act — the most significant spending reduction statute in modern history. Rather, this Congress has allowed it to be weakened to the point of insignificance. The same goes for any sort of meaningful attempts at reforming the main drivers of our debt — particularly Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the fiscal monstrosity that is Obamacare.

Instead, the House and Senate leadership have made excuses. The Democratic president will veto our bills, they say. We need to focus on what’s “achievable,” often uttered from the lips of Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%). We need to put “points on the board,” (whatever that means).

None of these excuses, however, answer this very basic question: How do you know what you can accomplish if you’re not even willing to try?

Rather than fighting for sound conservative — or even Republican — policy, this Congress has limped along to enthusiastic applause from K Street lobbyists, thankful that they can still get their pork-laden tax extenders, infrastructure spending, pipelines and export-import handouts from a Republican majority — even one that’s been effectively out-maneuvered by Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%). Indeed, even as Congress plans its agenda for the upcoming lame-duck session, press reports suggest that Senator McConnell plans to consider a health care research bill, nutrition standards bill, and maybe a trade bill — all priorities of K street — instead of using what may be the waning days of a GOP Senate majority to push forward conservative policy.

Sanctity of Life

However, the death knell for the GOP tolls the loudest for the total and complete surrender of the party’s decades-old charge to defend the sanctity of life.

The GOP has long stood for the belief that all life, be it in the womb, or disabled, or disfigured with age or disease, is worthy of dignity and protection. And for a long time, they’ve had credibility on this point. Because of that willingness to fight, the GOP served the larger role of keeping the moral compass of the nation intact — or, at the very least, on the front lines of the national debate.

But that credibility was destroyed last month, when the same GOP that has made pro-life policies a core mission for years put up little more than a whimper before allowing Democrats to send more money to Planned Parenthood — the abortion provider that, since its founding, has facilitated the termination of over seven million infant lives.

The Continuing Resolution (CR) — that “must pass” spending bill that Congress rushed through so they could return to the campaign trail — lacked a critical provision that would have blocked Planned Parenthood from accessing funds to treat the Zika virus. Zika, as you may recall, is a disease that causes birth defects in unborn children. Now that Planned Parenthood — which already receives over $500 million in federal funding each year — has access to new funds, we can easily imagine how they’ll treat the disease.

Republicans cared so little about this issue that they allowed the CR to sail through the House on a 342 to 85 vote, and in the Senate by a vote of 72 to 26. But in an even more craven move, they bragged about passing it, with Republican members congratulating themselves for keeping the government open and providing funding for Zika, Flint, and flooding in Louisiana.

The so-called “pro-life” groups were no better. Their silence on the issue resonated the loudest, as Family Research Council, National Right to Life, and even the Susan B Anthony list remained “neutral” on the CR. I guess some things just aren’t worth fighting for, even when 68% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions.

The sanctity of life used to be a motivating, centralizing issue for the GOP. Given their actions in September, it’s now no higher on their priority list than managing the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The GOP is a shadow of the party it used to be; perhaps no other issue is more anecdotal that the party has lost its way. Republican members could squabble over many issues, but life was always a hard fought ideal within the Republican Party — especially when it came to federal funding. And while the nomination of Donald Trump has led to much angst-ridden searching and questioning of the state of the party, there is deeper soul searching that must be done. If the GOP no longer stands for fiscal conservatism, small government, and the sanctity of life, what does it stand for?

Without question, November will bring big changes to the national political scene. But if the GOP will survive in any form, it must seek changes that will resonate far past November. A new direction is a necessity, but beyond that, the party must seek to again moor itself to a set of principles it will reliably defend. Absent that, the GOP will be nothing but a blaring voice in the wilderness — and no one will answer back. (For more from the author of “What Does It Mean to Be Republican Anymore?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill

In his weekend editorial, Chris Lane of The Washington Post outlined how the once truly unthinkable has now become reality: The mentally ill are now being regularly euthanized in the developed countries of Belgium and the Netherlands in Europe.

Writes Lane, on a recent report from Belgium’s Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia:

In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a “mental and behavioral disorder,” four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgium’s population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States.

The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases — and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.

Belgium, of course, became the first country in the world to do away with age restrictions for euthanasia and passed the so-called “right to die” for patients suffering “unbearably” from “untreatable” conditions, regardless of whether or not the condition is terminal. In 2014, there were a reported 1,800 cases of euthanasia in Belgium.

This includes mental conditions like autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, and even depression. Meanwhile, The Netherlands (the first country to legalize euthanasia) are trying to further relax its euthanasia policies.

Of course, similar trends are already starting in the United States, upending the popular narrative of assisted suicide that Brittany Maynard tried to craft in 2014, when she became the new face of America’s “right to die” and “death with dignity” movement.

In 2008, Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old cancer patient in Oregon, was denied coverage of her lung cancer medication by her insurance company. Rather, Oregon Health Plan (the state’s Medicaid program) offered to pay for the $50 drugs necessary in a doctor-prescribed death.

More recently, Stephanie Packer, a 33-year-old terminally-ill mother of four in California received similar news. Rather than cover the inconvenient expenses of chemotherapy treatment, her insurance company determined that she was more cost-effective to them dead. So, instead, they offered to provide drugs that would end her life, as the End of Life Option Act made it a legal option in the Golden State in June .

The effect on support groups has been particularly notable. “[P]eople constantly are talking about, ‘We should be doing this [dying],’” Packer stated, via the New York Post.

It was only after threatening to go public with the story that Packer — a devout Roman Catholic who “wanted no part of” physician-assisted suicide — had her treatment approved.

And while many in the culture of death like to dismiss protests to the contrary, dismissing all “slippery slope” warnings as wholly irrational and unfound fears, the trajectory of history’s “necessary evils” show that they often become positive goods with far worse unintended consequences.

We in America are more familiar with this kind of slippery slope at the beginning of life, rather than the end. It’s the kind of slope that transforms the taking of unborn life from an illegal, hushed affair to a necessary evil, to something that public figures can now openly joke about applying post-birth as well.

Over the weekend, Newsbusters’ Jack Coleman reported that at Vanity Fair’s third annual “New Establishment Summit,” the publication’s contributing editor Fran Lebowitz brazenly called for “retroactive abortions” against pro-life advocates like Mike Pence, referring to the VP nominee and other pro-lifers as “perfect advertisements” for having a child murdered.

Lebowitz may very well be joking about having her political enemies murdered in utero, such a joke could only exist in a truly despairing social climate. Despite the fact that the percentage of pro-choice Americans is on the rise, the arguments of many in the pro-abortion crowd have long since left the realm of “necessary evil” in their efforts to make the grisly mundane. After all, in the era of “shouting your abortion,” abortion parties, and celebrating the procedure with tacos and beer, the appearance of a joke like Lebowitz’s in a national outlet is just par for the course.

The problem with permitting “necessary evils” in a society on utilitarian grounds is that they rarely seem to stay that way. Such was the case with slavery in our early republic, and such is proving to be the case with utilitarian euthanasia in Europe and some jurisdictions in the U.S.

We currently have before us the whole pattern of events from across the Atlantic, and what is now occurring in our very own courthouses and hospitals. They show us that when the “right to die” becomes a duty to die (it always does), the implications fall hardest on the most vulnerable — the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and yes, the mentally ill.

The fact that this is even occurring ought to give voters in both the District of Columbia and the State of Colorado (both of which are currently considering assisted suicide bills) pause regarding the frightening euphemisms/promises of “death with dignity.”

Perhaps describing these trends as “slippery slopes” is insufficient to their nature, as they more closely resemble a grim and merciless riptide. (For more from the author of “Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This New Regulation Could Deprive the Elderly of Access to Private Courts

A new regulation from the Obama administrating is taking on the freedom to contract for nursing homes, and the operators are not happy. The dispute is over whether or not these facilities can include clauses in their contracts requiring that residents resolve disputes via private arbitrators as opposed to government courts. An arbitration service functions similarly to a court, but with the principal difference being that it is run by the private sector. Regulators claim that seniors are being taken advantage of, since such clauses are generally in the fine print. As a result, bureaucrats say, seniors should have the right to sue in a government court. Nursing home operators dispute this, and claim that the government is exceeding its authority in specifying what can and cannot be included in a contract.

Both sides have a point, but we should always be skeptical of government intervention in private markets.

Let me begin by saying that I have great sympathy for the residents of these facilities, and I don’t doubt that many of them are mistreated, abused, and taken advantage of. According to The Hill, the fine print of nursing home contracts regularly contains clauses forcing residents to use private dispute resolution firms in the case of a grievance, rather than appealing to government courts. It’s likely that many residents don’t know or understand what they are agreeing to, and in that sense, I agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, it’s important to avoid falling into the trap of lumping all arbitration firms into the category of hucksters trying to separate old people from their money. Indeed, private dispute resolution has a long and respectable history in this country, and provides a valuable alternative to the government’s monopoly on justice. A contract works both ways, and it may be the case that some residents want to use arbitration firms rather than relying on the state. Disallowing these clauses in the contract could have the side effect of forcing people into arrangements they are not comfortable with, especially when private arbitrators have so many advantages over the courts.

Anyone who has dealt with the legal system knows that bringing suit can be a tremendously lengthy and expensive process. The cost of hiring an attorney alone can be ruinous. Even if you can afford it, you may have to wait months or years to have your case heard and to receive a verdict. The residents of nursing homes do not often have the luxury of time required by the courts.

Private arbitration, on the other hand, can be cheaper and faster.

Although it is not well known, private arbitration is responsible for resolving three times as many disputes as public courts. In addition to the advantage of not clogging up the public system, this method of dispute resolution is more flexible in that it is not restricted to statutory law. Indeed, where the written law fails to account for difficulties that arise in various areas, arbitration can resolve problems in ways that the courts never could. International disputes, for example, often rely on arbitration, due to the mutual incompatibility of various countries’ legal systems. Historically, the merchant class developed their own internal method of dispute resolution, being unable to rely on the state to handle the intricacies of their trade. A modern example involves credit card companies who have agreed to resolve disputes with banks outside of the public legal system, a system that has proved remarkably nimble and efficient.

The American Arbitration Association contains a network of hundreds of independent mediators and arbitrators, and the allied International Centre for Dispute Resolution operates in over 80 countries. One of the main advantages of using such a service is the array of options that customers are given. With a public court, the individuals has little to no control over choosing the judge who will ultimately decide the case. With private dispute resolution, both parties are able to find a mutually acceptable arbitrator to minimize the presence of bias or prejudice. And when both parties agree on how a dispute is to be resolved, they are each more likely to accept the ultimate ruling and view it as legitimate.

With all this in mind, I am reluctant to view the Obama administration’s ruling on nursing homes as being legitimately in the interest of residents. It’s undeniable that the rights of the elderly, who are often the targets of con men and other crooks, need to be protected, and that they should have recourse to pursue justice when they are wronged. But the freedom to contract is as important for residents as it is for business owners. Congress should have no authority to dictate the terms of these arrangements, even when nursing homes are accepting federal dollars in the form of Medicare. Additionally, I can’t help but feel that part of the motivation for this rule is the threat of competition to government courts. Private arbitration has been a steadily growing business for some years now, and there may well come a point where people realize they need not rely so heavily on the government to ensure that justice is carried out. Regulating whether or not businesses can contract to use arbitration could be the first step in reclaiming the dispute resolution from the private sector. (For more from the author of “This New Regulation Could Deprive the Elderly of Access to Private Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How This Red State Is Grappling With Influx of Refugees

Greg Haney is able to capture the change happening in the largest city of this small state better than most.

Haney shoots school photographs for his father’s 39-year-old local company, chronicling increasingly diverse student bodies that span Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, twin cities in bordering states separated only by the Red River.

Haney is a Republican-leaning, Breitbart-reading veteran of the Navy, born and raised in Moorhead, but residing since 2003 in a house he owns in Fargo.

He came to appreciate cultural differences during his tours in the Navy, and he can just as easily translate “how are you” into Arabic as he can exclaim the uniquely folksy word “jeepers” in everyday conversation.

“This area seems to act together as cities and states first, and that goes to both sides of the river,” Haney, 43, tells The Daily Signal in a recent phone interview, adding:

We don’t concern ourselves as much with what the rest of the country is doing. So when I see refugees and immigrants coming to this area, I don’t get caught up in the rhetoric. I think of them as equals because they have the same freedoms I do. You have to live, you have to work, you bear children, and your child will have the same rights as mine.

Haney’s pictures serve as a lens through which to see the diversification happening over time here—and accelerating since the oil boom—in a place that is far from the nation’s borders, but intimately a part of the nationwide debate occurring over immigration—both legal and illegal—and refugees.

From 2010 to 2014, North Dakota’s population of immigrants, including legal and illegal, increased at a larger percentage rate—45 percent—than any other state in the country.

Over the fiscal years 2014 and 2015, no other state took in more refugees per capita than North Dakota, with about 80 percent of those making their home in the state’s largest county, Cass, which includes the state’s most populous city, Fargo.

While the absolute number of immigrants and refugees moving to North Dakota—a state with less than 1 million residents—is far less than bigger, more traditionally diverse states such as California and Texas, the change occurring is significant. And, according to local officials, not by accident.

Though North Dakota has a long history of resettling refugees, the pace of that effort, and of immigration through other means, promises to increase in the coming years, especially in a city like Fargo that’s starving for workers to serve its booming job market.

“In order for our economy to survive in the 21st century, we have to become a multidimensional city,” Fargo Mayor Tim Mahoney says in an interview with The Daily Signal, ticking off job opportunities in health care, hospitality, and technology—including at Fargo’s Microsoft campus, the company’s second-largest hub in the country.

“Millennials who are increasingly working in these jobs like to have a multicultural area that has differences in people,” Mahoney says. “We really need a diverse population to be more like a normal American city.”

Tensions Rise

During its transition to “normal,” Fargo has experienced tensions that have defined the national conversation, especially surrounding the issue of refugee resettlement.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, is one of more than half of the nation’s governors who have called for the Obama administration to halt the resettlement of refugees from war-torn Syria until the government improves vetting procedures to their liking.

The state’s at-large member of the House of Representatives, Republican Kevin Cramer, co-sponsored legislation that would give Congress final approval over the number of refugees the executive branch decides to resettle each year.

“To me, this is about good old Midwestern common sense,” Cramer tells The Daily Signal in an interview. “There are two main things we ought to be concerned about. One is the cost, and the fact that regardless of how compassionate states and local communities may be, the local residents don’t get a say in that. And the other concern is public safety.”

The congressman adds:

I am not advocating Fargo, and North Dakota, stop taking refugees. By and large refugee resettlement has been a real success story here. But as the demand grows, we should be more diligent, and someone in government ought to have something to say about the numbers.

Meanwhile, more than 3,000 people have signed on to a Change.org petition asking for a moratorium on refugee resettlement to Fargo. And a Fargo city councilman, Dave Piepkorn, has demanded the city’s leaders reveal the financial cost of resettling refugees.

Piepkorn, in an interview with The Daily Signal, declares himself a supporter of robust immigration and a product of immigrant grandparents from Norway. But he says he’s worried that terrorists will try to infiltrate the nation’s refugee resettlement system.

Piepkorn notes that a 20-year-old Somali man suspected in a September stabbing attack at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, originally settled in Fargo with his family in the mid-1990s before they moved to Minnesota.

He says elected officials—and local taxpayers—like himself should have a say in determining the city’s commitment to resettling refugees.

“We have a shortage of workers, and from that side we love having immigrants come here,” Piepkorn says, adding:

The majority are very productive and help out the city. But as a fiscally conservative commissioner, my job is to make sure the city is spending its money carefully. We want to know how much [refugee resettlement] costs us, and it should be up to us, as elected officials, to determine who is coming. To have us not know what is going on here is unacceptable.

‘Being There for Your Neighbor’

A nonprofit faith group, Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota, is the driver of the state’s rich legacy of helping refugees.

Assisting foreign-born individuals escaping persecution is only a part of the mission of this “social ministry,” which also helps locals find affordable housing and assists in providing services from disaster recovery to therapy.

Yet the refugee component of its work has drawn the most attention, especially because Lutheran Social Services is the only resettlement agency in North Dakota. Working with national volunteer agencies, the ministry determines the capacity of North Dakota and its cities to absorb refugees.

Jessica Thomasson, the CEO of Lutheran Social Services, says her organization’s outreach to refugees is born from generosity, and an understanding that North Dakota, especially Fargo, has the infrastructure—jobs, family ties, and a diverse Muslim population—to accommodate immigrants and be a place where they can thrive.

“Certainty we live in a complicated time, and there’s a lot of information to take in nationally and around the world that is causing a lot of people to self-examine and ask questions,” Thomasson tells The Daily Signal in an interview. “But I really believe helping people in need, and being there for your neighbor, are American values and part of who we are as a country.”

Thomasson says North Dakota’s dedication to assisting refugees is nothing new, and its success in integrating them into wider society is relatively seamless.

She says her nonprofit aims to resettle about 450 refugees annually, but that number has neared 500 in recent years. Since January 2002, a total of 3,677 refugees have come to live in Fargo as of Oct. 6, most of them from Bhutan, a small Buddhist kingdom in South Asia.

Fargo also has resettled large numbers of refugees from Somalia and Iraq, two countries plagued by terrorism. Thomasson says only one Syrian family has found refuge in North Dakota, but she expects more to come from that Middle East country as the war there continues.

About 90 percent of refugees arriving in North Dakota already have family living in the state, Thomasson says, providing a support structure that helps fulfill the ultimate goal of her agency—to facilitate self-sufficiency.

Lutheran Social Services distributes two forms of grant money from the federal government to refugees in North Dakota. Each individual refugee gets a one-time startup grant of $1,125 to fund initial needs such as a deposit for housing, clothing, kitchen supplies, and furniture.

The refugees, for a maximum of eight months, also receive monthly cash assistance—$335 for an individual or $685 per four-person family. Once a refugee finds work and can cover expenses, the monthly payments stop, even if that occurs in less than eight months. Thomasson says most refugees in North Dakota can support themselves after three to four months.

Refugees emigrate to the U.S. with varying skill sets, and North Dakota’s economy caters to both the low- and high-skilled ends of the spectrum. Thomasson says refugees tend to work in the hospitality, restaurant, retail, and manufacturing industries.

A June 2015 study conducted by TIP Strategies and cited by city staff found that the number of new jobs in the Fargo-Moorhead region increased by 24 percent from 2004 to 2014. The region has more than 5,000 job openings, and is projected to have more than 30,000 in the next five years.

Opportunities exist for whoever wants to work hard, city officials say, no matter if they are native- or foreign-born. In fact, international migration to Fargo—and wider North Dakota—pales in comparison to domestic immigration. The trend accelerated in 2008 as part of the oil boom, when people from other states arrived to work in that industry and in supporting jobs in hospitality, homebuilding, and food services.

Kevin Iverson, manager of North Dakota’s Census Office, says 1 in 6 jobs in 2014 were held by people from other states—or countries.

“The reality is people come to North Dakota for work,” Iverson says in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The motivating factors to be here are the right ones.”

A Refugee’s Story

Maryam Mohammed, a recent arrival in Fargo-Moorhead from Iraqi Kurdistan, is eager for her piece of the American dream.

In February, Mohammed, 23, was the first in her immediate family to arrive as a refugee, leaving behind her parents and four younger brothers, who are awaiting action on their own applications.

Though Mohammed was not directly threatened by terrorists of the Islamic State, or ISIS, in the city of Zakho where she lived, she says their destruction wasn’t far away, and she personally knew some of their victims. Home also offered few job opportunities for a young woman like herself.

So Mohammed lives in the Fargo-Moorhead area with an aunt. Her father’s sister moved there with her husband and children as refugees from Iraqi Kurdistan 18 years ago.

Mohammed speaks with The Daily Signal in her native Kurdish language through a translator, her 22-year-old first cousin Fatima Amedi.

Amedi is an American citizen and has known Fargo-Moorhead to be her home since she was 3 years old. She is trying to assist Mohammed in navigating all that is new—helping her cousin to purchase a winter coat for the first time, to appreciate the pop music of Adele, and to apply for jobs.

Mohammed, who graduated high school before leaving Iraq, aspires to be a teacher. For now, while she takes English classes, she figures she can work at Wal-Mart, stocking shelves in the back until she has the skills to interact with customers. She has applied to work there but has not heard back.

“I don’t think refugees should be seen as different than anybody else,” Mohammed says. “They come here to make a better life for themselves. They don’t cheat. They just try to make an honest living like anybody else.”

If Mohammed got the Wal-Mart job, or one similar to it, she would be following the path of Amedi, who worked her way up to become a manager of a grocery store and no longer endures curious comments about the hijab she wears over her hair.

‘We Have the Same Problems’

To adjust to a new culture and city—Mohammed had never heard of Moorhead before she arrived there—she relies on things that make her comfortable, like her Muslim faith.

Mohammed, staying with her aunt, and Amedi, married and residing with her husband, live in Moorhead but spend much of their time across the Minnesota border in Fargo.

There they find the familiar in the region’s only mosque, the Islamic Center of Fargo-Moorhead.

Mohammed is teaching Sunday school there, among many worshipers who came to the region as refugees from different parts of the world.

“It’s nice to know I am not alone,” Mohammed says.

Dr. Mohammed Sanaullah is one of the mosque’s trustees. A physician and American citizen living in Fargo who emigrated to America from India 13 years ago, Sanaullah seeks to help refugees like Mohammed reconcile their dedication to faith with their new culture.

Sanaullah, in an interview with The Daily Signal, says of the 4,000 to 5,000 Muslims who attend his mosque, the majority arrived in the region as refugees. He acknowledges some of the local skepticism about new arrivals from overseas, and says the mosque is hosting more interfaith events, so people of other religions can learn about Islam and interact with refugees.

“We have the same problems like any other church or community would have,” Sanaullah says. “The same problems affect our children, like them getting too much into video games, and we worry about maintaining our family values.” He adds:

What we are telling people who attend the mosque is, city leadership is on our side, the police is on our side, and if you work harder, and do what you are doing better, that will reflect on you and your boss will say, ‘Thank God we took in a refugee.’ People will see you for your value and your work and appreciate you for that. You can live the American dream—even in a small town like Fargo, North Dakota.

(For more from the author of “How This Red State Is Grappling With Influx of Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Recent Hacking Attack Reveals About Election Security

A hacking attack last Friday that disrupted major U.S. websites is an example of a new era of cybersecurity vulnerability in today’s interconnected world.

The Oct. 21 cyberattack also furthered anxiety about the integrity of next month’s election, which has already been fraught with controversy over voting rights, and foreign interference.

While the attack alarmed—but did not surprise—cybersecurity observers who have been sounding alarms about the potential for the internet’s infrastructure to be harmed, these experts say the election system is largely secure from the threat of hacking.

“I have heard a few people worry that this is a practice run for Election Day or around Election Day to gum up networks and mess it up, but as far as election equipment being vulnerable, I don’t see that being too big of a deal,” said Joseph Lorenzo Hall of the Center for Democracy & Technology. “Luckily, we do not attach that stuff to the public internet.”

Hall, in an interview with The Daily Signal, said the U.S. election system is unique in a few ways.

The system is decentralized, meaning state, county, and local governments all manage their own voting—so everything isn’t connected.

Many precincts use traditional voting machines, but they are not connected to the internet or with each other.

“An attack against election systems would have to individually target many different systems, which limits the ability to mount large-scale damage,” said Susan Hennessey, a cybersecurity expert at the Brookings Institution, in response to emailed questions from The Daily Signal.

Though hackers will struggle to manipulate actual voting results, Hall warns that bad actors could disrupt Election Day—and throw off voters—by hacking into websites listing the locations and hours of polling places, and changing the listed information.

Many registration databases—serving as a way for voters to register or check their status—are also connected to the internet.

The government has reported that hackers have targeted the voting registration systems of more than 20 states in recent months, including in Arizona and Illinois, but those systems have nothing to do with vote casting or counting.

“If anything, I would worry about disruption or chaos rather than something that actually is affecting votes or attacking the election infrastructure,” Hall said.

Still, during an election season in which the Obama administration has accused Russia of hacking U.S. political organizations, the government is taking extra precautions to secure the voting process.

The Department of Homeland Security has assigned more than 100 specialists around the country to help state and local election officials maintain their voting systems.

According to Bloomberg Politics, 42 states and 29 county or local election agencies have sought cybersecurity assistance from the federal government.

Despite the confidence from the government and cybersecurity experts that Election Day will go on unscathed, observers acknowledge the broader danger of cyberattacks—specifically targeting the internet—is increasingly urgent.

The Oct. 21 attack involved the hacking of a company, Dyn, whose servers monitor and reroute internet traffic.

Companies like Dyn host the core parts of the internet’s infrastructure, so websites that connect to it like Twitter, Netflix, Airbnb, and Reddit were affected by the attack, and saw their websites slowed or inaccessible for periods of time in certain areas.

Because more and more devices, such as security cameras, are connected to the internet, experts say the chance of this type of centralized hacking—known as a distributed denial of service attack—is especially great.

“We’ve known about the possibility of DDoS attacks for a long time, so the episode this weekend was more a question of scale than a new threat,” Hennessey said. “The attack was targeted against a single entity on which many different websites rely, so the centralization amplified the consequences of the threat.”

Hall and Hennessey say it’s important to reassure citizens of the integrity of the U.S. election system.

“My biggest concern is any activity which could cause citizens to doubt the outcome of an election,” Hennessey said. “We know it is highly unlikely that any kind of hacking or attack could alter vote counts or the outcome of an election. But the mere fact of confirmed nation state intrusions have caused a level of anxiety regarding trust in the outcome. That is deeply troubling in a democracy.”

But they say the new threat of internet attacks is real, and will carry impact beyond Election Day.

“This is a brave new world and it’s kind of scary,” Hall said. (For more from the author of “What Recent Hacking Attack Reveals About Election Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.