Let’s Help Military Families by Adopting a ‘GI Bill’ for Their Children

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump made helping the “forgotten man” a key theme of his presidency from the get-go.

The challenge for Trump is how to aid the forgotten man by shrinking the programs and institutions that left him behind to begin with while moving toward policies that will help him thrive in the 21st century.

One of the forefronts of that important shift is in expanding education choice, which Trump has announced as one of the priorities of his administration.

In Trump’s first speech to a joint session of Congress he said, “I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth.”

But how can Trump bring school choice to parents across the country without violating the principles of federalism and interfering with state-level innovators who are at the forefront of reform?

The answer is to create school choice within existing federal education programs that actually have a constitutional warrant, not the least of which is a program designed to serve our armed forces.

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke and Anne Ryland propose just that in their paper, “A GI Bill for Children of Military Families: Transforming Impact Aid into Education Savings Accounts,” which was recently profiled by The Washington Post.

In a clear reference to the famous GI Bill of the 1940s, which provided education benefits to soldiers upon their return home from World War II, Burke and Ryland’s proposal would bring better education options to over 600,000 children of military families.

The proposal is an innovative way to further the school choice revolution that will hopefully transform America’s K-12 education system, while specifically helping our heroes’ most precious commodities: their children.

Our Constitution is explicit in the necessity to provide for national defense. This plan will help ensure that we provide for those who stand as its bulwark.

Failing Those Who Serve

The paper highlighted how a survey conducted by the Military Times found that a staggering 35 percent of military personnel surveyed said that unhappiness with their child’s education was a critical factor in their decision to remain or leave the armed services.

Many of these families live in states and localities with failing public schools, so if they wish to continue serving their country, they may have to do so amid concerns about the schooling options available to their children.

This is unacceptable, and should be concerning to Americans who believe in taking care of the people who dedicate their lives to defending this country.

Military families already bear the strain of long deployments, constant travel, and stress of deploying into harm’s way.

Additional pressures on our troops, such as concern about their children receiving the education that is right for them, is one Congress can and should attempt to resolve.

However, over half of active-duty military families in the U.S. dwell in states that have no school choice options for them to escape to if their local public schools do not align with their needs.

High-population states like California and Texas, which have the highest number of military families, have no private school choice options whatsoever.

This problem can be alleviated by having Congress redirect roughly $1.3 billion in funds from the Impact Aid program, created to bring federal tax dollars to school districts with military and federally-connected populations, directly to military families through education savings accounts specifically created for them.

Importantly, it would require no additional taxpayer money and would simply be using funds that already exist.

But like with other school choice programs, interest groups have come out to attack any proposal that breaks up the government school monopoly.

Breaking the Status Quo

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools’ director charged that the military kids school choice plan was “misguided” in a recent interview with Politico, and claimed that it would “dismantle a program based on fairness to taxpayers.”

This echoes arguments that teacher unions in particular have made about school choice in general.

Changing funding mechanisms from districts to individuals threatens the exclusive control over how the money is used, but empowers parents and individuals to decide for themselves what services work best for them.

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools also released a statement saying that “changing Impact Aid into an [education savings account] would burden local taxpayers with higher taxes and require students to go without.”

The charge that the plan would raise taxes for districts is incorrect. There is simply no reason to increase local taxes to pay for students who are no longer in the public system.

Even the Obama administration recognized the need for reforming Impact Aid.

In recent budget requests, both the Trump and Obama administrations suggested eliminating Impact Aid for federal property, arguing that districts have had plenty of time to adjust their tax rolls to federal acquisitions made decades ago, and that Impact Aid dollars should be directed to federally connected children.

The Obama fiscal year budget request said:

It is the administration’s policy to use available Impact Aid funds to help pay for the education on federally connected children and fund programs that serve federally connected children. Payments for federal property compensates LEAs [districts] for lost property tax revenue due to the presence of federal lands without regard to whether those districts educate any federally connected children as a result of federal presence.

Implicit in that argument is that if the kids aren’t there, the dollars should follow them to where they are: their chosen schools. If the kids leave a district school, the dollars should follow the child.

The Next Generation

Adopting school choice to better serve those who serve us would be a major boon to these families who have carried an enormous weight for the rest of us.

It would also help ensure that the next generation of military personnel—who in very high numbers come from military families—receive a first-rate education that will help them through life.

It will ease the minds and burdens of these families if Congress and Trump can give them the tools they need to thrive. We have a duty not to forget or neglect these people to whom we owe so much.

The forgotten child of the forgotten man will be given the opportunity to succeed and pursue the American dream. (For more from the author of “Let’s Help Military Families by Adopting a ‘GI Bill’ for Their Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Today, we have unveiled a real scandal in the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with James Comey.

While much of the conservative media is consumed with Comey and Russia, they are missing the irony of defending an administration without even securing some key policy outcomes. The latest betrayal to the Right is the confirmation that Trump’s DHS has issued almost 125,000 “DACA” cards (per Obama’s unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order) to illegal aliens through the second quarter of this fiscal year (January through March).

According to newly published data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration has issued 17,275 initial amnesty cards and over 107,500 renewals of existing status.

This surpasses the 122,000 level of amnesty cards issued during the final quarter of Obama’s presidency (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2016), which means the Trump administration is not even slowing down the pace! And although the first 20 days of this quarter were still under Obama’s tenure, the Trump amnesty is likely close to 200,000 by now, when extrapolating in the number of presumed cards issued during April and May.

Thus, while Trump’s own lawful immigration order lies in ruins from tyrannical courts – with no effort to fight back through Congress – Obama’s patently unconstitutional DACA order remains in full force even after his presidency.

The jarring thing here is that Trump could fulfill a core campaign promise simply by refusing to renew existing DACA cards. We are not talking about a balanced budget or entitlement reform — just a simple display of inaction. Even Marco Rubio said the president should only decline to retroactively strip DACA, but should follow through with the promise not to renew the amnesty.

Granting work permits and Social Security cards to people who are here illegally is something even King George couldn’t do without British Parliament. A mere inaction could rectify this problem, yet Trump’s own DHS, led by Sec. John Kelly, is taking active steps to violate the Constitution. At this point, it has become Trump’s amnesty.

Keep in mind that the betrayal on Obama’s amnesty is in addition to the border wall being downright defunded and refugee resettlement being funded. Conservatives would be wise to raise Cain over this issue and stop making excuses.

At a committee hearing Wednesday, Sec. Kelly wouldn’t stop talking about “Dreamers” as if they are covered by a legitimate statute. He promised Democrats on Wednesday that he would not deport any “Dreamer” without a criminal record. This is lawless and, as I’ve noted before, very problematic for a number of reasons.

1. Welfare for illegals

Trump officials, and perhaps the president himself, don’t seem to understand what DACA is (much like some don’t understand what Obamacare actually is). That is why they are confused about repealing it.

Obama’s executive amnesty was not merely the suspension of deportations of certain classes of illegal aliens; it offered them benefits and affirmative legal status, with Social Security cards, work permits, and thousands of dollars in refundable tax credit welfare payments. In fact, well over 500,000 illegals had received Social Security cards by 2014 (more likely to be 800,000 by now).

According to a Congressional Research Service memo, illegal families could receive as much as $35,000 in retroactive EITC benefits the first year after being approved for Obama’s executive amnesty. This was all done without an act of Congress. Thus, to say we are not going to focus on deporting DACA recipients is a non-sequitur to the main problem of granting them affirmative benefits.

Even if we don’t deport large numbers of them, we should certainly not give them American benefits. Moreover, these funds could be used to build the wall.

2. Discretion vs. amnesty

There is one thing to use discretion to prioritize some enforcement actions over others; that is what every federal and state law enforcement agency does on a daily basis. It is quite another dynamic to actually publicly make a policy of de facto amnesty and legitimize and codify the supposed right of illegal immigrants to remain in the country contrary to our sovereignty laws.

Saying we are only focusing on criminal aliens is essentially Obama’s stated (albeit false) messaging.

3. “Dream” amnesty serves as a magnet

Agreeing to the false notion that children of illegal aliens have a right to demand legal status and that poor decisions of their parents and host countries are the fault of American taxpayers and workers runs contrary to everything Trump said during the campaign.

Furthermore, it encourages future waves of immigration at a time when Central Americans understand that once they come here with children, they are essentially here to stay. Trump promised to get rid of unqualified birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal immigrant parents. How could he then grant amnesty to those born in foreign countries?

And while Trump’s campaign rhetoric is still scaring off illegal aliens, thus resulting in an encouraging slowdown of border crossings, how long will that last once word gets out that he’s a paper tiger?

4. A king or a president?

Irrespective of one’s policy views on immigration, maintaining Obama’s illegal amnesty shreds our sovereignty and Constitution, and sets a terrible precedent. The executive amnesty was perhaps Obama’s most egregious act of imperialism, because it undermined the very foundation of our sovereignty.

In fact, giving rights to aliens is the quintessential example Alexander Hamilton used to contrast a president from a king. “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 69.

There is no greater act of imperialism than for a president to unilaterally nullify our sovereignty and violate immigration statutes.

5. Trump hurting Arizona and states that want the rule of law

As we noted in February, the same courts that are engaging in civil disobedience and nullifying Trump’s common sense lawful immigration guidance are also demanding that Arizona offer driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s amnesty. They are treating Obama’s amnesty as a legitimate statute through which to force states to grant benefits to illegals.

During Trump’s hallmark Phoenix speech on immigration, he said the Grand Canyon State had a “very special place” in his heart. With the courts destroying state and national sovereignty, doesn’t he want to do his part to help Arizona — and certainly not burden them legally and politically with amnesty?

“Obama immigration order alive, Trump order dead” is not exactly the slogan we want Democrats chanting in 2018, but that is the end game unless the president acts immediately.

To quote candidate Trump, “we either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

The coming days will be very telling for many fervent Trump supporters whether this was about a cause or about flesh and blood. (For more from the author of “The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study shows Google was biased toward Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Which came first, the bias or the search results? That’s a question worth asking after reading a (PDF) by a group of researchers looking at how search results could have affected the 2016 election.

In a short paper presenting their preliminary work, the social scientists showed that search results from Google, in particular, showed bias toward Hillary Clinton in the month leading up to the election. The same scientists, in 2015 (PDF), that biased search results may sway the results of elections. A further question in this case is, “Were the results skewed, or was the media reporting from which they sprang?”

Late last month Robert Epstein, of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), Ronald E. Robertson, of Northeastern University, with Samantha Shepherd and Shu Zhang of AIBRT presented a paper that showed there was systemic bias in favor of Hillary Clinton in search results about the 2016 election. Here are some of the findings of the study:

1) Issue: Were search results provided by search engines in the U.S. biased toward one candidate or the other? Yes. Based on a sample of 4,045 election-related searches conducted during a 25-day period from October 15 to November 8 (Election Day) using the Google and Yahoo search engines through the Firefox browser, we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.

The authors answer another question regarding the bias: Were the native Google and Yahoo results, on their respective websites, equally biased in favor of Clinton? According to the research, the level of bias toward Clinton on Google, “was more than twice as high as the level of pro-Clinton bias we found on Yahoo.” This data seemingly proves what those in conservative circles have been saying about Google —that it overwhelmingly shows pro-leftist results in search. These criticisms predate the 2016 election.

The authors go on to show that the level of bias was dependent on a number of demographic factors, including gender; whether the search was in a blue, red, or swing state; age; and voting preference. While there were changes in the level of bias, all groups saw a pro-Clinton bias in their search results.

The researchers didn’t go into what could have caused the biased search results. That, of course, is the central question. Once bias is established, the next step is trying to figure out how that bias came about. There are a number of ways the bias could have come about. Here are a couple:

Algorithm programming … Search engine algorithms are ultimately programmed by people. Those algorithms could have filters which weigh non-mainstream news sources with a lower degree of importance. When Donald Trump accused Google of bias in their auto-complete in June of 2016, Google said they do not program bias into that feature. However, giving left-leaning or mainstream sources preference over conservative outlets would account for the bias.

Underlying bias of the media … Another, more probable, cause is the underlying bias of the mainstream media. Leading up to the election, the media reported that it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would win. There have been numerous self-reflections on the election by the media, including this in The New York Times. Many of those reflections talk about group-think and confirmation bias. Based on how the media have treated now-President Donald Trump, however, it is doubtful they learned their own lessons.

In the upcoming months, the group of scientists will be expanding upon their findings. It will be interesting to watch what they report. The important thing they have shown is that there is a problem. The next step is watching to see if Google and Yahoo will admit they have a problem in order to correct it and identify the underlying source.

The mainstream media, and technology companies, have great power to shape the national narrative. As Epstein et al. have shown, that power can sway elections as much as anything the candidates themselves do. It is important to hold those who wield such power accountable. Bravo to the authors for attempting to do so. (For more from the author of “Study Shows Google Was Biased Toward Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Toobin: Trump Under Criminal Investigation, Provides No Evidence

/0 Comments/in , /by

Shortly after James Comey’s public testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee ended, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin casually let out a blockbuster that nobody else had reported. Toobin told Anderson Cooper that Trump was “under criminal investigation.” Toobin provided no evidence to back up his statement.

Here’s what Toobin said:

Toobin: … he said three times you told me that I was not under investigation and that was in May. Well, here we know in June Donald Trump is under criminal investigation, and that’s a big deal, and that’s important.

The only thing that was explicitly revealed in today’s testimony is the fact that before Comey was fired, Donald Trump was not under investigation. Comey was asked multiple times about this fact; each time, he answered no.

The only other mainstream news source with Toobin’s take is Newsweek. But the author doesn’t report that definitively. What is reported is a statement made by Comey that the Newsweek author, and presumably Toobin, interpret as meaning that Trump is under investigation. Here’s what Newsweek reports Comey as saying:

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” he said in response to a question from Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning. But that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work toward, to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that’s an offense.” [Emphasis added]

That’s not Comey saying Trump is under “criminal investigation.” That statement is more like Comey saying he hopes Trump’s conversations with him will be investigated. This is a large leap by both Toobin and Newsweek.

Toobin owes it to CNN’s viewers to provide evidence to back up his assertion. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, has been quick to use the phrase “without evidence” when describing Trump’s statements. But CNN’s record has been less than stellar when it comes to this Comey business.

Just this week CNN said sources said Comey would testify that “he never told Trump he was not under investigation.” Which has now been proven false.

The media want the American people to trust them. Well, trust needs to be earned. Toobin, and by extension CNN, should share how he knows Trump is under investigation. (For more from the author of “Toobin: Trump Under Criminal Investigation, Provides No Evidence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Deaf Singer Wows Crowd, Judges on America’s Got Talent

/0 Comments/in , /by

A deaf singer is moving on to the semifinals of America’s Got Talent after delivering a performance judge Simon Cowell calls “one of the most amazing things” he’s ever seen or heard.

Mandy Harvey told the judges on the NBC reality competition that she suffers from a connective tissue disorder and she lost her hearing when she was 18. Now 29, the St. Cloud, Florida, resident says she taught herself to sing again using muscle memory and visual tuners.

(Read more from “Deaf Singer Wows Crowd, Judges on America’s Got Talent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Nominates Fmr Assist. Attorney General Christopher Wray to Head FBI

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday that DOJ veteran Christopher Wray will direct the FBI.

Wray served as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Criminal Division from 2003-2005. Former President George W. Bush appointed him.

Recently Wray represented New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during the “Bridgegate” scandal. Two of Christie’s appointees were convicted in November. They conspired to cause traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge in 2013. Christie did not receive any charges.

Trump’s announcement comes nearly one month after he fired former FBI Director James Comey. Comey is set to testify regarding his firing and other matters beginning Thursday. He will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey’s former deputy director Andrew McCabe has been acting FBI Director.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer later tweeted an official announcement of Trump’s intent to nominate Wray.

In the press release, Trump described Wray as a “fierce guardian of the law.” He cited his previous work at the DOJ, including leading fraud investigations and counter-terrorism efforts after 9/11.

Bipartisan praise of Wray followed the president’s announcement.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons called Wray “a respected and serious attorney.” While Coons is “encouraged” by Trump’s choice, he also promised to “thoroughly review Wray’s record.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions congratulated Trump on “choosing a leader of proven skill, independence, and integrity, a man in whom all Americans can have confidence.” In his statement Wednesday, Sessions cited Wray’s record of service. He has “all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI,” Sessions said.

In his early morning tweet, Trump called Wray “a man of impeccable credentials.” (For more from the author of “Trump Nominates Fmr Assist. Attorney General Christopher Wray to Head FBI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie Sanders Just Applied a Religious Test to a Christian Nominee for Public Office

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the use of a “religious test” for any office or public trust. But Bernie Sanders got very close to doing just on Wednesday. It was during the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

During Russell Vought’s confirmation hearing, Sanders took issue with an article Vought wrote for conservative website The Resurgent in January 2016, reported The Atlantic. In his article, Vought defended a Christian school that had fired a professor for expressing solidarity with Muslims. Sanders objected to Vought’s statement in the article: “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Sanders objected. “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders told the committee at the hearing. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”

Later Sanders asked Vought, “Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?” “Absolutely not, Senator,” said Vought. “I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.”

Sanders continued to berate and interrupt Vought. “I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?” Vought replied that he was a Christian, but Sanders quickly cut him off. “I understand you are a Christian. But this country is made up of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”

Vought tried to explain the concept of imago dei to Sanders. “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals … .” Sanders cut him off again and asked Vought if his comments were respectful of other religions. Vought reminded Sanders that the article he wrote was as a Christian about a Christian university, which “has a statement of faith that speaks clearly with regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.”

In response, Sanders told the committee: “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no.”

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention responded to Sanders’ religious test in the hearing.

Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant — both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

(For more from the author of “Bernie Sanders Just Applied a Religious Test to a Christian Nominee for Public Office” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UK Election: Conservatives May Fall Short of Majority

/0 Comments/in , /by

An exit poll suggested Thursday that British Prime Minister Theresa May’s gamble in calling an early election has backfired spectacularly, with her Conservative Party in danger of losing its majority in Parliament.

An opposition Labour Party that had been written off by many pollsters surged in the final weeks of a campaign that was marred by deadly attacks in Manchester and London. If accurate, the result will confound those who said Labour’s left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was electorally toxic.

The survey predicted the Conservatives will get 314 seats and the Labour Party 266. It projected 34 for the Scottish National Party and 14 for the Liberal Democrats. (Read more from “UK Election: Conservatives May Fall Short of Majority” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The James Comey Show: Hijinks and High Drama

/0 Comments/in , /by

Nothing against Broadway, but when it comes to good theater not much can beat The James Comey Show.

James Comey’s performance this morning in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee played to rapt audiences nationwide and packed bars in D.C. The spectacle shut down the Nation’s Capital like a blizzard. (Though what was being shoveled wasn’t snow.)

The Comey Show rolled out in three acts.

Act One: Trashing Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey did not come to praise Donald Trump but to bury him.

Comey said Trump administration comments about him were “lies plain and simple.” He typed up detailed memos of their chat because he was “honestly concerned (Trump) might lie about the nature of our meeting.” Comey felt important to get them written down because he had sensed he would someday need to defend the FBI.

Indeed ( the orchestra swells), Trump’s comments were an assault on the FBI itself.

Comey expressed befuddlement at the reasons behind his firing. Clearly Trump was out to”defame” him and the bureau. Still, of the many reasons offered by Trump and the White House, Comey has now settled on one: He was fired because of his role in heading the Russia investigation.

In his words, “The endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.” He claims this had a “chilling” effect on the investigation.

However, under further questioning, Comey acknowledged the investigations haven’t been affected at all.

So, did Donald Trump obstruct justice? Comey declared it wasn’t for him to say. (Considering he said under oath in May he wasn’t obstructed, he could hardly say otherwise now.) However, he did reveal Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating possible obstruction of justice. And why is there a special counsel? You’ll have to wait until the shocking third act.

Meanwhile, Senator Jim Risch seemed to have slammed shut the book on the case for obstruction. Comey says Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting … Flynn go.” Even in Comey’s version of events it was not a direction. It was an expression of hope. Said Sen. Risch, “You don’t know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?

As the curtain falls on Act One, the obstruction charge against Trump seemed to go “poof.” But the curtain soon rises and the spotlight hits Loretta Lynch.

Act Two: Trashing Others

The Scene: Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is no longer sitting on a government plane with Bill Clinton. She’s being squashed under James Comey’s bus.

Comey revealed under oath that Lynch had directed him to avoid calling the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email antics an “investigation.” Lynch directed him to call it a “matter.” Not, “I hope you call it,” mind you. This gave Hillary Clinton cover during the campaign to falsely deny she was under investigation. The order made Comey “queasy.”

(Comey’s symptom of feeling queasy or uneasy around those more powerful would recur over and over again. Hardly becoming for a guy tasked with helping stop terrorists. But we digress.)

Also, Comey felt Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was so improper it motivated him to go public with the FBI’s findings in the Hillary investigation.

Lynch wasn’t the only character to bite it in the second act. The media were taken down as well.

Comey declared that news reports on the Russia investigation based on leaks were trash. “There have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong.” The New York Times in particular was cited for a story claiming that the Trump campaign and other associates had “repeated contact with senior Russian officials in the year before the election.” Comey agreed with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) the story was “almost entirely wrong.”

The New York Times must not have been too happy. The liberal giant soon tweeted out a rather unfriendly reader comment.

Which leads us to our third act, whereby the hero who speaks of independence, honesty, and the shining city on the hill, unveils his true, dark, colors.

Act Three: James Comey Trashing Himself

In a stunning admission, Comey confessed that he used a “close friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his Trump meeting memos to the media. “Make sure this gets out,” he told friends. (Almost word-for-word what former State Department official Evelyn Farkas told MSNBC she had hoped to do with classified intel on Russia and Trump.)

His mission: To force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

Let’s put aside the twisted irony that the man responsible for finding leakers was himself a leaker. Let’s also put aside, for now, the question of what else the FBI director may have leaked about Trump over the past year.

James Comey confessed to leaking the details of privileged conversations with the President of the United States. “One of which he testified was classified,” observed Trump’s personal lawyer.

George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley says this admission could put Comey in legal jeopardy. “Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.” Further, “those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.”

Didn’t see that one coming.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted he sensed Comey had prepared for the hearing by studying the works of West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin.

Little did Gutfield know that by show’s end Comey is Col. Jessup in Sorkin’s A Few Good Men.

Col. Jessup spends the first two hours presenting himself as the epitome of strength and American virtue. Then after bellowing the immortal line “You can’t handle the truth!” Col. Jessup implicates himself in a serious crime. As Jessup is being read his rights, he shouts, “What’s going on here?!? I did what I had to do!”

Whether what Comey”had to do” was criminal is to be determined. Whether he’s been acting out of justice or vengeance awaits the verdict of the American people.

However, as pure theater, The Comey Show deserves a round of applause.

And what was your review? (For more from the author of “The James Comey Show: Hijinks and High Drama” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michigan Doctor Mutilated the Genitals of as Many as 100 Girls, Says US Attorney

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Michigan-based doctor and her associates mutilated the genitals of as many as 100 girls before being caught, a prosecutor told a federal court Wednesday.

The startling allegation occurred during court proceedings involving a case against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who is facing charges for mutilating the genitals of two Minnesota girls.

“Due to the secretive nature of this procedure, we are unlikely to ever know how many children were cut by Dr. (Jumana) Nagarwala,” said U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward, according to the Detroit Free Press. “The Minnesota victims were not the first victims.”

Nagarwala is alleged to have cut the genitals of the girls as part of a religious rite of passage. The two girls are believed to have been told to keep the practice a secret.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman granted bond to Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife, Farida Attar. Dr. Attar is accused of allowing Nagarwala to use his clinic, located just outside Detroit, to engage in the mutilations, while his wife allegedly held the girls’ hands down during the procedure. (Read more from “Michigan Doctor Mutilated the Genitals of as Many as 100 Girls, Says US Attorney” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.