Santa Grants Final Wish to Dying Child: ‘I Cried All the Way Home’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Typically, Santa sees wide-eyed children hop into his lap to share their Christmas wishes. But this time, [Eric] Schmitt-Matzen was faced with something he had never encountered before, at least in his role as Kris Kringle: A terminally ill child dying in his arms.

Schmitt-Matzen, 60, had just gotten home from a day at work where he serves as a mechanical engineer and president of Packing Seals & Engineering in Jacksboro when his phone rang. It was a call from a nurse requesting he rush to the hospital to visit a very sick 5-year-old boy desperate to see Santa Claus . . .

Mustering the strength he could, St. Nick walked into the room, hoping to keep from breaking down in front of the small child so thrilled to see him. “Say, what’s this I hear about you’re gonna miss Christmas? There’s no way you can miss Christmas! Why, you’re my No. 1 elf,” Schmitt-Matzen told the boy, according to the paper . . .

“They say I’m gonna die,” Schmitt-Matzen said the boy told him. “How can I tell when I get to where I’m going?”

In response, Santa told the little child to “tell ’em you’re Santa’s No. 1 elf, and I know they’ll let you in.” (Read more from “Santa Grants Final Wish to Dying Child: ‘I Cried All the Way Home'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wisconsin Recount Confirms Trump Victory, Increases His Margin over Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Monday, Wisconsin’s vote recount ended any controversy surrounding President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the traditionally blue state.

The Associated Press reported that Trump’s margin of victory actually increased in the recount, whose results were certified Monday.

The Republican nominee picked up an additional 162 votes in the state, according to the report. Trump earned approximately 22,000 more votes than Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has been the driving force behind recount efforts, challenging vote totals in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. She has alleged that voting machines in those states are susceptible to fraud, with no evidence save for those states usually voting Democrat.

Stein raised enough money to initiate the recount in Wisconsin, though courts denied her efforts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

In Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said he rejected the Green Party’s lawsuit on numerous grounds. The state’s attorney general also opposed the effort.

Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election “borders on the irrational,” Diamond wrote in his review of the case, while granting the Green Party’s recount bid could “ensure that no Pennsylvania vote counts” given Tuesday’s federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College.

“Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any ‘hack’ occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised,” Diamond wrote.

He also pointed to the lawsuit’s lack of legitimate standing, calling the four-week delay in its filing “unexplained” and “highly prejudicial.”

Thus far, Wisconsin’s recount uncovered no widespread voter fraud or hacking. Stein has, however, raised almost $10 million, which is more than she was able to raise throughout her campaign.

Critics also have wondered where that money will go if not toward recount efforts. Some have even said the recount effort is equivalent to “burning money.”

Stein’s campaign doesn’t anticipate any leftover funds, though its website indicates that any extra funds will go toward “election integrity efforts.”

Usually, Federal Election Commission guidelines require campaigns to ask donors if they’re willing to have their donations transferred to another fund. Stein’s campaign may not have to do so since it initially specified that leftover funds will go toward those efforts.

Other critics said Stein’s calls for a recount were the result of a nudge from the Clinton campaign, but Stein’s website says Stein is not seeking the recounts to help Clinton. Rather, the site says, “These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.”

Her recounts, like the 27 that have preceded them since 2000, have thus far shown the opposite, as the final results changed just 0.06 percent. (For more from the author of “Wisconsin Recount Confirms Trump Victory, Increases His Margin over Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Democratic Congressman Gets 10 Years in Prison for ‘Widespread Criminal Activity’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The long-awaited sentencing of former Pennsylvania Congressman Chaka Fattah was handed down Monday in his federal corruption case.

U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, who presided over the case, sentenced Fattah to serve a 10-year prison term.

Fattah was found guilty in June of numerous charges, including bribery, racketeering, money laundering and several types of fraud.

Following his conviction, he announced his resignation from Congress.

Upon announcing Fattah’s sentence, Bartle said, “Those in high places will certainly know what happens in this courtroom today.”

He went on to say, “While you have done much good, you also engaged in grave and widespread criminal activity. You abused your trust, time and time again.”

After hearing his sentence, Fattah stood and addressed the judge, saying, “The investigation and the trial has been the most disappointing event in my now 60-year life. I’ve helped tens of millions of people and that has nothing to do with the fact that I have been found on the wrong side of these questions by a jury.”

Defense attorney Albert Dandridge turned to Fattah’s family and supporters in the courtroom and said, “That’s about as good as we could have expected.”

Prosecutors were seeking a sentence between 17 and 22 years for Fattah.

Fattah was ordered to present himself to the prison by Jan. 25, 2017.

As Fattah exited the courthouse, he briefly spoke with reporters.

He did not comment on the sentence, except to say, “We respect the court’s decision.”

Fattah also thanked his family, friends and staff for their support “through this very tough time.”

In February, Bartle sentenced Fattah’s son, Chaka Fattah Jr., to five years in prison for fraud and ordered him to pay $1.1 million in restitution to those he defrauded, including banks, clients and the Philadelphia School District.

When the younger Fattah said he didn’t know that anything he did was against the law, the judge responded, “Mr. Fattah, you had many opportunities and advantages that most young people could only dream about. You made a plethora of bad choices of your own free will.” (For more from the author of “Former Democratic Congressman Gets 10 Years in Prison for ‘Widespread Criminal Activity'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The state of Massachusetts has backed off a regulation that could have landed pastors in jail for operating church functions according to their faith.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the non-profit legal organization representing four churches who sued the state over the controversial regulations announced the victory Monday, after the churches agreed to drop the lawsuit.

“No church should fear government punishment simply for serving its community consistently with its faith,” ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a press release.

As The Stream previously reported, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released in September an updated Gender Identity Guidance that declared, “places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity.”

That meant during certain church events and activities, church leaders would have been forced to allow a biological man to use women’s restrooms or other facilities if he claimed to identify as a woman, regardless of the church’s religious beliefs regarding gender.

Specifically, the Gender Identity Guidance originally stated that “Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the public.”

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in the Washington Post at the time,

[E]ven church “secular events,” which I take it means events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by the church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means of the church modeling what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.

Punishment for violating these regulations included the possibility of a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Pastors could have even been jailed for refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

But the state backtracked after ADF initiated the legal case Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson by filing a lawsuit on behalf of four churches in early October.

Almost exactly one month later, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Division responded with a letter to ADF, saying that “your lawsuit caused us to focus on these issues and to make this revision.”

The Gender Identity Guidance has now been updated to say that the “law does not apply to a religious organization if subjecting the organization to the law would violate the organization’s First Amendment rights.” “Houses of worship” was also removed from the list of places of public accommodation from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s website.

ADF attorneys filed a notice of voluntary dismissal Monday.

“The government can’t encroach on the internal, religious practices of a church. The language revisions that our lawsuit prompted should ensure that doesn’t happen,” ADF Senior Counsel Steve O’Ban said in Monday’s press release. “The comments of commonwealth officials gave these churches reason for great concern, and so we are pleased wording changes have been made to respect the constitutionally protected freedoms these congregations and pastors have.”

ADF will be holding a press conference to discuss the state of the lawsuit on Wednesday, December 14 in Boston. (For more from the author of “Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Takes Neighboring Pregnancy Center to Court — for Thriving

/0 Comments/in , /by

An Idaho Planned Parenthood (PP) facility has filed a lawsuit against its pro-life pregnancy center neighbor, Stanton Healthcare — for providing women’s health services.

PP’s complaint hinge on the allegations that Stanton is misusing the common areas of the business subdivision they are located in and that Stanton invited people to protest outside the abortion provider’s facility. The lawsuit claims that

[Stanton Healthcare] regularly parks a van/mobile home on the parking area of the Business Center Common Area. … To the best of [PP]’s knowledge, information and belief, the van/mobile home is used for a number of purposes, including ultrasounds, consultations and other activities. The [subdivision’s] Declaration does not permit such activity in the Common Area.

Over the past several months, certain individuals, believed to be invitees of [Stanton Healthcare], have been present on Common Area, not within the limited purposes related to the operation of the Business Center, but rather to protest, harass [PP]’s staff and patients, or to promote services offered by [Stanton Healthcare]’s parked van/mobile home.

Stanton told LifeSiteNews that her lawyers “are reviewing the complaint,” though she also noted that PP has “made false accusations” of harassment. Red State reports Swindell is “confident PP does not have appropriate grounds for the law suit.”

‘A Whole New Level’

Despite the lawsuit’s claims, Stanton’s founder and director Brandi Swindell noted that the timing of PP’s most recent complaints line up remarkably with Stanton’s own plans to build a new “mega-clinic.”

Red State reports, “This — [Swindell] maintains — is the real reason PP suddenly brought suit. The abortion giant feels threatened.” Swindell told Red State, “Planned Parenthood is always fighting for access issues; they’re always accusing the pro-life community of trying to block access and here they are trying to block access!”

After the abortion giant’s many legal advances, such as fighting for taxpayer funding and pursuing lawsuits against pro-life agencies, Swindell says this lawsuit “goes to a whole other level,” saying PP is “now trying to prevent us from doing good.”

It’s a very serious lawsuit…people of faith [and] people of goodwill need to wake up to and say, “does Planned Parenthood really think they have the authority to bully us and prevent us from doing good?” It’s a despicable thing.

Replacing Planned Parenthood

The “Stanton Revolution,” a privately funded women’s healthcare system, has previously made a name for itself with it’s effort to “Replace Planned Parenthood.” Cosmopolitan even featured Swindell in a piece titled, “Meet the Woman Who Wants to Take Down Planned Parenthood.”

Swindell has previously told The Stream, “Part of our idea with Stanton Healthcare is to go where the women are that are facing an unexpected pregnancy and that are trying to determine what they should do in that situation.”

That’s why Stanton’s strategy “is to set up shop and open clinics right next door to Planned Parenthood.” As she explained to The Stream, “We’ve trialed this in Idaho, and then our other affiliate locations, and it works. We have walk-ins every week who are on their way to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion or to have a consultation from Planned Parenthood.”

Women see our signs that say, “Walk-ins Welcome,” “Unexpected Pregnancy Solutions At No Charge,” “Pregnancy Verification At No Cost To Our Clients,” they come in. Because they’re looking for hope, and they’re looking for a professional, confidential setting that will provide them true alternatives. We see walk-ins every week, of women who have said, “‘I’m so glad I found this place, I’m so glad that there’s resources, I’m so glad I’m not alone.”

“God is doing something truly amazing in and through the work of Stanton Healthcare,” Swindell says on the company’s website.

I’m in awe of His goodness and guidance, and humbled that He uses us to accomplish His purposes. His love is fierce and unstoppable, and what an honor it is to share the truth with every woman who comes through our doors: the truth that she is deeply loved…and there is hope.”

(For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Takes Neighboring Pregnancy Center to Court — for Thriving” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Many Americans Trust Donald Trump More Than the CIA

/0 Comments/in , /by

While flying home recently from an overseas trip, I watched a movie in which the CIA played a prominent role, and if the movie is anything is close to reality, the CIA knows a lot – and I mean a whole lot, from what’s on our computers to what we’re talking about on our phones.

Yet a healthy percentage of the American population seems to trust President-elect Trump more than our nation’s Central Intelligence Agency. How can this be?

I asked my Twitter followers, “When it comes to alleged Russian influence on the elections, do you believe the CIA or Trump?”

Remarkably, only 18 percent said they trusted the CIA while 44 percent said they trusted Trump and 38 percent said they were unsure – and it should be noted that while the vast majority of my Twitter followers are, to my knowledge, Christian conservatives, a good number of them did not support Trump. Why, then, are they so distrusting of the CIA?

To answer that question, we can ask this: “Do you personally trust the federal government?” As broad as that question is, I think the answer for many Americans would be, “No, I don’t.”

After all the federal government is the IRS, the Department of Justice, the FBI – and also the CIA. The federal government is the big bad “them” which is always out to get the vulnerable little “us.”

As for Trump, while he is about to become the head of that very federal government, he is perceived by many Americans to be “one of us” rather than part of the system, and the way he is conducting himself thus far as president-elect, with his Twitter account as active as ever, continues to reinforce that perception. He is the champion of “us.”

The federal government is also hardly a stranger to corruption or mismanagement, unless you believe the IRS was not guilty of unfair treatment of conservative organizations and the Department of Justice was not guilty of favored treatment of Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey acted in a completely dispassionate and professional manner. And so it’s easy to think that the information linked from unnamed CIA sources is unreliable. After all, this is President Obama’s CIA, is it not?

Confidence in Institutions
We also should bear in mind that the source for the Russian hacking claims is the liberal, mainstream media, which has also taken a big credibility hit in recent months.

Consider these striking results from a June, 2016 Gallup poll focused on Americans’ “confidence in institutions.”

The pollster said to each participant, “I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one – a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?”

At the top of the list was the military, with a high mark of 73 percent positive (41 percent responding with “a great deal” of trust and 32 percent with “quite a lot”). At the bottom of the list was Congress, with only a 6 percent positive response (those responding with “a great deal” of trust were too small to number; 6 percent said they had “quite a lot” of trust in Congress). What a staggeringly poor showing for our elected officials, and what a strong showing for our military.

Numbers two and three at the top of the list were small business (68 percent total) and the police (56 percent). Rounding out the bottom of the list were big business (18 percent total), newspapers (20 percent) and television news (21 percent). And despite the constant attacks on religion in America, the church ranked number four on the list, one slot higher than the presidency, which was then followed by the Supreme Court, the public schools, banks, and organized labor.

The offshoot of all this is that the CIA is perceived by many as being part of a larger, untrustworthy system, while those pushing the Russian hacking narrative are part of the untrustworthy media. Added to this is the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign is supportive of efforts to launch an investigation into the alleged Russian hack, and it’s easy to see why many trust Trump more than the CIA right now.

Callers to my radio show also emphasized that, whoever was behind the hack, what was revealed was only damning because it was true. Because of this, there’s very little sympathy for the Democratic complaints about the hacking and more concern with the content of the hacked material than the question of who did the hacking.

I personally have no idea whether Russia hacked us or not, and obviously, it will be important for Trump and the CIA to find a place of rapprochement and trust in the days ahead. But right now, Trump continues to represent the views of a fairly significant portion of the populace which is, after all, how he got elected. (For more from the author of “Why Many Americans Trust Donald Trump More Than the CIA” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The One Christmas Video You Have to See

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a time where videos of happy Down’s Syndrome children are banned in some places, this video of a nativity play is joyously subversive.

The mother interviewed for the video shares her story of learning to accept the gift God gave in her child with Down’s Syndrome as a parallel to Mary’s acceptance of being chosen by God to bear Christ. Don’t bother trying not to cry, but do keep your eyes on the children — and share this video with a friend who needs reminding that Jesus came as one of us to be present in the times we grieve and don’t understand.

(For more from the author of “The One Christmas Video You Have to See” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent nationwide survey revealed that “60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, saying they have been harassed and assaulted.” The “landmark” survey cites data based on the responses of 27,715 individuals, or an estimated 2 percent of the adult transgender population (which comprises only 0.6 percent of the entire U.S. population).

Reuters refers to transgender people as a “severely understudied group whose experiences and challenges from medicine to law to economics and family relations are poorly understood.” And the National Center for Transgender Equality, the group that conducted the survey, hopes the new data will serve as a basis for researchers and policymakers for years to come.

A survey like this demonstrates the power of the trans-victim class, and it should be a cause of great concern for any American who respects the rule of law.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Here is the problem with these “findings” … There is no proof that these claims are accurate. The study cites alleged encounters and experiences reported by transgender people, without a shred of documented evidence to back them up.

According to the survey, 32 percent of transgender people said they limited the amount they ate and drank at least once in the past year to avoid having to use a public restroom. Eight percent reported that they developed a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another “kidney-related problem” because they avoided restrooms.

From Reuters:

The findings by the National Center for Transgender Equality on public restrooms counter the message of mainly conservative politicians and religious leaders that transgender people are the antagonists preying on others. It found that 12 percent of transgender people were verbally harassed in public restrooms within the previous year, 1 percent were physically attacked and 1 percent were sexually assaulted. Nine percent said someone denied them access to a bathroom.

Notice the unmistakably ambiguous language used in the study; what constitutes “assault” or “harassment” in these scenarios? The law clearly defines these terms, but the survey does not. The survey doesn’t “counter” the conservative response to transgender people occupying restrooms that don’t correspond with their birth sex, because it doesn’t actually “find” anything.

Transgender people already receive the same level of protection under the law as their fellow citizens. They have the same legal options as any other victim of discrimination, harassment, or assault. But instead of filing a legal claim, they report their experience to a transgender advocacy group who will apply social pressure to advance their interests, without a shred of proof required. How convenient.

He-said, she-said

“Trans people have been in danger in the bathrooms. These numbers are just astronomically high,” Mara Keisling, director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Reuters. “This is what’s really happening in bathrooms. The nonsense of what [North Carolina] Governor [Pat] McCrory was saying is not what’s happening in bathrooms.”

Reuters notes that the survey was conducted before the passage of North Carolina’s House Bill 2, which “prohibits local governments in North Carolina from forcing places of public accommodation to allow people to use restrooms and changing facilities that do not align with their biological sex.” The bill was met with powerful backlash that launched a nationwide civil rights debate over whether transgender people should be considered a protected class.

Here’s the thing about North Carolina’s “nonsense” bathroom bill: There have been not only reports, but documented cases that prove transgender bathrooms pose real threats to public safety. But a group like the National Center for Transgender Equality is able to dismiss actual evidence with anecdotal accounts via “surveys.”

This survey is just the latest example of the Left’s “ends justify the means” approach to public policy. Whether it’s the widely disseminated “1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses” propaganda and falsehood, or the countless hate crime hoaxes and fake trends perpetuated by the agenda-driven mainstream media time and time again, unapologetic liberals are notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts. The Left has had an extremely successful track record of furthering their agenda of victimhood by convincing the public that their claims are above (bigoted) scrutiny.

Sixty percent of transgender people have been “harassed and assaulted” in public restrooms? That’s one heck of a statistic to be throwing around without a shred of proof. And seeing as how literally anything and everything can (and is) deemed an “attack” these days, the onus should be greater than ever for the accusers to provide the unassailable evidence proving such charges.

Strength in victimhood

The trans community will argue that many of these incidents of discrimination, harassment, and assault go unreported due to the fear or shame these victims feel. They have already successfully implemented this argument in the past to carve out special provisions in the workplace and, famously, in public restrooms.

In fact, the National Center for Transgender Equality was behind the LGBT report that was cited as the basis for California’s transgender affirmative action jobs program, which subsidizes restaurants who hire trans employees. These people know what they’re doing.

Consider this excerpt from the new survey’s executive summary:

The findings reveal disturbing patterns of mistreatment and discrimination and startling disparities between transgender people in the survey and the U.S. population when it comes to the most basic elements of life, such as finding a job, having a place to live, accessing medical care, and enjoying the support of family and community.

Replace the word “transgender” in the text above with “black,” “female,” or “Latino,” and you have the Left’s basic argument for identity-driven policies that forcibly “level the playing field” at the expense of true equality, justice, and safety for all. The implied claim is that the legal system doesn’t work for certain groups of people, and the only solution is to overthrow the system and create a new one. In other words, civil rights are great, but special accommodations and government handouts are not only better, but an absolute must. (A right, if you will…)

The conversation surrounding the new transgender survey is not about “equality” or “safety”; it is about subverting the rule of law and creating new policies based on feelings, not facts.

Though small, the trans-victim class is more vocal — via government allies, financial means, and political capital (with a virtual monopoly on all the greatest influencers in mainstream culture these days) — and more armed than ever. It is crucial, then, that public leaders and policymakers recognize the identity-driven agenda of the Left’s “equality” crusaders, and shut down any attempts to bulldoze over the rights of other Americans. (For more from the author of “New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Liberals and Conservatives Can’t Communicate

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a recent episode of my podcast The Renegade Republican, I lamented the fact that conservatives and liberals have a difficult time communicating with one another.

During my time in electoral politics, I often left a conversation with a liberal voter scratching my head and wondering where I went wrong. Often, it appeared as if the liberal and I weren’t even having the same conversation.

This got me thinking: Maybe we weren’t having the same conversation. As I mentally rewound many of these conversations and evaluated them, it became clear that when it came to discussing specific topics, I was talking about one thing, and the liberal was talking about something else. Here are some examples of what I experienced:

1. Health care

When discussing health care, conservatives are typically referring to the actual care of people’s health and well-being. Conservatives associate the health care debate with health care outcomes. In other words, is our country a place where people can actually choose their doctor, be seen in a timely manner, acquire needed medications, and able to make critical decisions about their health — free of government interference?
But, this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “health care.” Liberals are typically discussing “coverage,” not actual health care. And this is where the communication gap originates.

Today’s liberals aren’t as much concerned with health outcomes — access to doctors and hospitals or choice of doctor or hospital — as they are with government edicts ensuring “coverage.” In other words, as long as the law can be used to say, “You’re covered,” even if the health care coverage is more expensive, more restrictive, and more bureaucratic, liberals think the debate is over and are therefore uninterested in additional dialogue.

2. Education

When discussing education, conservatives are typically referring to educational outcomes. Conservatives associate the word “education” with the acquisition of cognitive skills. In other words, are our kids learning anything? But this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “education.”

Unfortunately, liberals often talk about government spending. And while no credible conservative doubts that money must be expended to educate children, the amount spent is not the primary determinant of the quality of the learning experience. We can’t have a sensible conversation if we conservatives are talking about the learning experience and the outcomes it provides, while liberals focus primarily on the government dollars provided.

3. Economy

Conservatives refer to policies that will grow the economy. We understand that both the value of a dollar and the likelihood that it will be used in a manner that adds to our national prosperity increase when when the earner gets to keep that dollar and chooses how to spend it .

In other words, are we growing more prosperous or not? But this isn’t what liberals are talking about when they debate about the economy. Liberals talk about who has the money — not how we multiply the value of our money through growth. Their viewpoint is evident; simply analyze their speech.

Next time you’re engaged in a debate with a liberal friend, count how many times he uses the terms “income inequality” or “income distribution” in comparison with the terms “economic freedom” or “free market.”

Conservatives avoid the term “income distribution” because income is not distributed; it is earned. And conservatives avoid the term “income inequality” because we are genuinely focused on how to make everyone more prosperous.

By the way, if you’re a liberal shaking your head while reading this, then you are proving my point. Your refusal to believe that conservatives care about everyone’s economic prosperity, educational outcomes, and health is prima facie evidence that the communications gap among liberals and conservatives is real. (For more from the author of “Why Liberals and Conservatives Can’t Communicate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Was the Media Outrage When Obama Ignored Intelligence Briefings on ISIS?

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an interview with Chris Wallace and “Fox News Sunday” over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump indicated that he does not like to receive intelligence briefings every day, because the information can become repetitive.

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don’t need that,” Trump said. “But I do say, ‘If something should change, let us know.’”

Naturally, the media and liberal opponents are apoplectic. Outgoing Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) told CNN Monday that Trump’s stance on briefings was “very concerning.” And Wired.com’s Andy Greenberg stated it is “the most troubling recent revelation of all.” Wrote Greenberg:

That dismissal and disregard of the intelligence agencies’ fact-finding represents a disturbing potential preview of the next four years, say former members of the US intelligence community who spoke with WIRED. They worry that it threatens to politicize the intelligence community’s work, pushing it toward conclusions that will please the president rather than inform him. They say the growing rift demoralizes staffers, leading to a loss of valuable talent, and that it could leave the commander-in-chief himself dangerously ignorant of crucial world events.

Now, the president-elect of the United States disregarding the value of intelligence briefings is absolutely a cause for concern. But where were the media and Harry Reid when it comes to President Obama and the briefings?

Back in 2014, the Government Accountability Institute released a report indicating that Obama only attended a little over just 40 percent of his daily intelligence briefings up to that point in his presidency:

In September 2014, the Government Accountability Institute updated an analysis of how much time President Barack Obama has spent attending his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs), as recorded on the White House official calendar and Politico’s comprehensive calendar. The updated study covered the president’s first 2,079 days in office, running from January 20, 2009 through September 29, 2014. Of those, President Obama attended a total of 875 Presidential Daily Briefs for an overall 42.09% attendance rate.

An unidentified senior Pentagon aide also confirmed to the Daily Mail that the president skipped his intel briefings.

“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” an unidentified senior Pentagon aide also stated to the Daily Mail in 2014. “He gets them in writing.”

Worse, still, is those sources in the Daily Mail report confirmed that the president knew about ISIS since before the 2012 election and ignored his intelligence reports to fulfill his campaign promise to remove American boots on the ground in Iraq. The withdrawal of American troops was accomplished in December 2011, and ISIS subsequently grew in strength to become a major threat throughout the Mideast.

The president, he said, was hearing information about ISIS ‘long before that. It goes back to the autumn of 2012.’

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, he said, had already begun to metamorphose into ISIS before Obama ran for president the first time. In 2006 the group’s Mujahideen Shura Council declared an Islamic ‘state’ in western and central Iraq, a development U.S. military intelligence was aware of since they were stationed ‘in country.’

By the late autumn of that year the nascent self-proclaimed Sunni country was organized and holding open-air military parades.

President Obama ordered America’s military to pack up and return home at the end of 2011. By that time, the would-be nation ISIS’s goals had exploded to encompass controlling land in Syria. And its tactical toolbox had grown to include the kind of genocidal preferences that ISIS has showed in 2013 and 2014.

In 2014, President Obama claimed that that U.S. intelligence had been caught off guard by the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said during a “60 Minutes” interview.

Another former Pentagon official with experience combatting the Islamic militants told The Daily Beast, “Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullsh—ing.”

So, while the media would like to excoriate Trump for his seemingly hands-off approach to national security thus far during the transition, their words hold little credibility in light of Pres. Obama’s similar intelligence-briefings stance in the past.

Trump has yet to take office, but President Obama’s disregard for intelligence reports and his commitment to ending the war in Iraq solely out of rigid ideological reasons may well have permitted ISIS to become the global threat it quickly became.

Donald Trump would do well to learn from Obama’s mistakes. (For more from the author of “Where Was the Media Outrage When Obama Ignored Intelligence Briefings on ISIS?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.