Big Three Networks’ Bias Conceals Facts About the NSA Leaker

/0 Comments/in , /by

The establishment media’s reporting on NSA leaker Reality Winner has been skewed at best, and egregiously biased at worst.

NBC, CBS and ABC’s newscasts largely ignored the myriad tweets from Winner — highlighting her radical left-wing beliefs — with the intention of making her seem apolitical, bolstering the validity of the Trump-Russian meddling narrative.

Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor working at the National Security Agency, allegedly leaked top secret documents to The Intercept. Just over an hour after it was published, Winner was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act.

When news broke, so did the evidence of her resentment for President Donald Trump, surfacing in past social media posts, with her going so far as to say that “being white is terrorism.” If you thought it stopped there, hold on to your hats.

Winner was more than explicit about her distaste for President Donald Trump in recent tweets, referring to him as an “orange fascist” and a “c**t.” She also tweeted that Trump’s appointment of “Confederate General” Jeff Sessions to the Attorney General post is “racism.” (Read more from “Big Three Networks’ Bias Conceals Facts About the NSA Leaker” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Bill Finally Frees Main Street From the Grip of Washington

/0 Comments/in , /by

America’s current financial regulatory system, begotten by some of the most liberal minds in this country, has consistently limited the ability of banks to serve their customers.

It has forced community banks to bend to the will of an ever-expanding bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., for nearly a decade.

What was this financial regulatory system that has been so destructive?

The Dodd-Frank Act—a bill passed by Democrats in 2010 that radically increased Washington’s grip on local financial institutions.

In order to encourage the jumpstart of our economy, it is absolutely critical that capital is available to small and medium-sized businesses, something that is not currently possible under Dodd-Frank.

Through outrageous and ill-thought regulations, Democrats created a financial framework that promoted “too big too fail” instead of banishing it to the pages of history forever.

The CHOICE Act that the House of Representatives will take under consideration this week combats this very problem. For the first time in years, small community banks will be able to serve their communities as they once did—without excessive burdens from regulators that stifle growth and restrict the access to capital.

Finally, the American people can take a deep breath knowing that the right legislation has been introduced at the right time.

The CHOICE Act will hold Washington accountable.

For too long, faceless and unelected bureaucrats have maintained a sense of privilege and arrogance that stems from their belief that they know not only what is best for themselves, but what is best for the American people.

In Washington, part of the obligation for those of us who are sent here to represent our communities is to protect economic liberty for those back home.

The American dream is still alive and yet, it has not thrived as it should due to the environment created by the disaster that is Dodd-Frank.

Because a strong and stable financial marketplace is the backbone of our economy, it is necessary that small businesses getting started in a garage and even those businesses expanding to new locations have access to resources, capital, and support that helps turn these dreams into reality.

At some level, legislation like the Financial CHOICE Act is the very reason why hardworking Americans sent their representatives to Washington.

Now, we have a responsibility and an obligation to uphold that trust and work tirelessly to ensure that Americans remain in control of their financial future, not bureaucrats hundreds of miles away. (For more from the author of “This Bill Finally Frees Main Street From the Grip of Washington” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Crimes Special Counsel Might Pursue in Trump-Russia Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

What ousted FBI Director James Comey tells Congress could set the tone for what his predecessor, now the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, looks into.

But, barring any new bombshells when Comey testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, legal experts identify a few directions the case could go under Robert Mueller’s direction if evidence emerges of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Mueller’s probe could lead to “obstruction of justice charges and possibly form the basis for impeachment,” said Nick Akerman, who served on the teams of two special prosecutors, Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, during the Watergate investigation.

But Ron Hosko, a former assistant director for the FBI assigned to its Criminal Investigative Division, said he doubts it will go quite that far.

“I don’t see today individual transactions forming a broader criminal conspiracy, which is what Democrats want to see, evidence of knowing agreement,” Hosko, who served under both Mueller and Comey, told The Daily Signal.

“Comparisons to Watergate are way over the top,” Hosko added.

However, Akerman and Hosko agree that certain evidence, if uncovered, could lead to charges against people who work or worked for President Donald Trump, either during the campaign or in the administration.

One chief criticism of the congressional investigations before the Justice Department tapped Mueller is the lack of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to weaken Hillary Clinton politically or put Trump in the White House.

Commentators on both the right and the left also question what the underlying crime would be. Even some Democrats have said there is no evidence so far of a crime.

The landscape covered by Mueller’s probe includes the actions of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the emails connected with Clinton’s campaign, and any communication between Trump campaign or transition officials and the Russians.

Here are six laws and potential charges that legal experts say could be brought:

1.) Logan Act

The “heart of the investigation” would be whether Flynn or anyone else violated the Logan Act, said Robert Ray, the independent counsel who completed an investigation of President Bill Clinton.

The law, dating to 1798, prevents unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments that are at odds with the United States.

“Between the election and inauguration, if someone was making promises about foreign policy, whether it’s the president himself or someone working for the president, it could be a crime,” said Ray, now in private practice.

This would require evidence of actual promises, deals, or negotiations.

2.) Cyber Intrusion

According to federal officials, Russia apparently hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, correspondence that ended up on the WikiLeaks site.

If evidence emerges that Trump campaign workers were involved in assisting the Russians, it could tie them to a violation of a statute called Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers, legal experts said.

“This could be a cyber intrusion violation,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “There are laws against aiding and abetting hacking.”

3.) Espionage Act

The Espionage Act may apply on two fronts: anonymous government employees’ leaking classified information to damage Trump, or Trump’s talking to Russian officials during a much-publicized Oval Office meeting.

The FBI recently arrested 25-year-old National Security Agency contractor Reality Winner and charged her with illegally mailing intelligence information about Russian interference with the election to a news organization.

Considering other aspects of the probe seem to lack actual evidence, leaks by government employees might be the most direct route to prosecution, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“Leaks of classified material is a federal crime,” von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Daily Signal, adding:

But so far in the so-called collusion investigation, there is no evidence of any violation of any federal law that I know of. Similarly, the big to-do over Kushner talking to the Russian ambassador—that is perfectly legitimate and not any violation of federal law. Mueller can certainly investigate leaks.

The Heritage legal expert was referring to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and one of his top White House aides.

In May, the Trump administration fended off press reports about Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which sources claimed Trump disclosed intelligence about the Islamic State and aviation safety issues.

A procedure exists for presidents to declassify information, Akerman said, and this action could be prosecutable.

“It could have been a plot beforehand, [such as] ‘I’ll tell you in the light of day and then no one will think I’m in cahoots with you guys,’” said Akerman, now in private practice.

Others point out that the president has the power to decide what is and isn’t classified.

4.) Obstruction of Justice

Comey, during his testimony on Capitol Hill, reportedly will not accuse Trump of trying to obstruct the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

A Comey memo reportedly noted that after dinner at the White House, Trump told him in a February meeting: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

It would be tough to make Trump’s stating this in a meeting with Comey the basis of an obstruction charge, Hosko said. But it could give Mueller reason to seek all records of communications or behind-the-scenes actions by Trump regarding the FBI’s Flynn probe.

“The president could have been expressing his wishful thinking to Comey,” Hosko said. “If his true intent was to decapitate an investigation, it would be a more troubling issue.”

Under a “unitary executive” view of the law, it would be difficult to charge a president for seeking to shut down an investigation within the executive branch, Ray said.

“It might be constitutional grounds for impeachment, but it’s not obstruction of justice,” he told The Daily Signal.

5.) Foreign Agent Registration Act

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, has argued that Flynn, a retired Army general, lied on his national security disclosure forms about past work with Russia.

Flynn allegedly worked for entities with ties to Russian and Turkish governments without disclosing the information, as required under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

Trump ousted Flynn, a campaign adviser, as his national security adviser after three weeks because Flynn had one or more interactions with the Russian ambassador before Trump’s inauguration and then misinformed Vice President Mike Pence about it.

This could be a serious offense, Ray said.

“There could be a charge of making false statements with regard to vetting and financial disclosure forms,” Ray said.

Akerman agreed.

“When you get a security clearance, they instill the fear of God in you to be honest and provide information about contacts; that’s not something you just forget,” Akerman told The Daily Signal.

6.) Campaign Finance Law

The investigation could uncover a campaign finance scandal, wrote Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama.

“The law prohibits foreign nationals from providing ‘anything of value … in connection with’ an election,” Bauer wrote. “The hacking of the Podesta emails, which were then transmitted to WikiLeaks for posting, clearly had value, and its connection to the election is not disputed.”

Such an in-kind contribution case is “theoretically possible, but would be difficult to prove,” Ray said.

Hosko agreed.

“There is no hint of any Russian money being involved. Trump’s campaign was largely self-funded,” the former assistant FBI director said. “You did have peripheral players such as Michael Flynn, [former Trump campaign manager] Paul Manafort, and [informal Trump adviser] Roger Stone, who supposedly made money from Russians. But you would have to prove that money ended up in the campaign.” (For more from the author of “6 Crimes Special Counsel Might Pursue in Trump-Russia Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EPA Delays One of the Agency’s Most Expensive Regulations Ever

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Trump administration announced Tuesday evening it would delay the implementation of a smog rule that’s been called one of the costliest clean air regulations ever.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt sent a letter to governors saying there’s “insufficient information” to fully implement the 2015 rule on its current timeline. The rule lowers the national ground-level ozone, or smog, standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion.

Pruitt said states would have an extra year to meet the tightened ozone standard, and the EPA would address concerns over outstanding issues, like background ozone and smog coming in from China and other East Asian countries.

“We share the goal of clean air, a robust economy and stronger, healthier communities,” Pruitt said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with states and local officials to effectively implement the ozone standard in a manner that is supportive of air quality improvement efforts without interfering with local decisions or impeding economic growth,” he said. (For more from the author of “EPA Delays One of the Agency’s Most Expensive Regulations Ever” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Well-Intentioned Bill Could Turn Local Accidents Into Federal Crimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senators on Capitol Hill recently introduced the Back the Blue Act of 2017 with the laudable objective of supporting public safety officers.

While that intention is noble, the bill unfortunately omits something crucial: the ancient element of crime known as “mens rea” (Latin for “guilty mind”).

Mens rea distinguishes between tragic accidents, or innocent mistakes, and malicious crimes. It ensures that people are criminally punished only for conscious violations of law or intentional, morally culpable conduct.

The Back the Blue Act of 2017 would make it a federal crime to “kill, or attempt or conspire to kill” any federally funded public safety officer “while that officer is engaged in official duties, or on account of the performance of official duties.”

The bill carries criminal fines and 10 years to life in prison for injuring these officers, and 30 years to life—or the death penalty—if an officer dies.

Thus, the bill criminalizes three separate types of conduct:

1) Killing an officer.

2) Attempting to kill an officer.

3) Conspiring to kill an officer.

The attempt and conspiracy offenses proscribed in the bill are specific intent crimes, meaning that before the government can obtain a conviction, it must prove that a defendant intended to commit the proscribed conduct.

The problem is that the term “to kill” has no intent component. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “kill” as “to cause the death of.”

That stands in sharp contrast to “murder,” which is defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.”

Because the bill does not require that a defendant intend to kill or even know his “victim” was a “federally funded public safety officer,” its severe penalties would apply if someone accidentally crashed into an officer with a bicycle, motorcycle, or car, or unknowingly served him contaminated food, and the officer died.

In short, any tragic accident that resulted in the death of a federally funded public safety officer could trigger severe federal criminal liability up to and including the death penalty.

According to The Economist, accidents are a leading cause of death in the United States, and many officers die each year in traffic-related fatalities (although there is no breakdown as to how many of these were accidental).

We all want to support our brave men and women in blue and other public safety officers, but this bill stretches federal criminal liability just a bit too far.

For comparison, the Blue Lives Matter Act of 2016 failed to pass through the House last year, but would have made it a federal crime “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempt to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a police officer” (emphasis added).

Setting aside the issue of whether such a bill is necessary (intentionally killing a police officer is already a crime that is vigorously enforced in every state), at least the 2016 version did not criminalize accidental conduct.

Perhaps the difference between the two versions was simply an oversight, in which case it should be corrected. While it is likely that federal authorities would not prosecute an individual who accidentally killed a police officer, such things should not be left to chance.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Staples v. United States (1994), “the requirement of some mens rea for a crime is firmly embedded” in historic common law rules, and “[t]he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo–American criminal jurisprudence.”

That general rule was perhaps best expressed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously observed that “even a dog knows the difference between ‘being stumbled over and being kicked.’”

This Congress should heed the long-held wisdom, expressed by Harvard Law School professor Francis B. Sayre, “that subjecting defendants ‘entirely free from moral blameworthiness to the possibility of prison sentences is revolting to the community sense of justice,’” and “no law which violates this fundamental instinct can long endure.” (For more from the author of “This Well-Intentioned Bill Could Turn Local Accidents Into Federal Crimes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN Creates Fake News Story, Stages Pro-Muslim Demonstration After London Terrorist Attack

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday, a Londoner by the Twitter name @markantro filmed a CNN crew telling a group of Muslim women wearing head coverings on where to stand for a photoshoot. In the tweet, he claimed CNN was “Staging the event.”

Other critics have also accused them of staging the event. CNN called the claim “nonsense.” They said, “Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so.” The CNN report can be seen below.

The Protest

The “mum’s” group holds signs with messages like “ISIS will lose” and “ISIS = Enemies of Islam.” The crew has the women huddle into a tightly packed group to fit them all into camera coverage. At one point, someone steps forward to offer assistance to one or more of the women.

Next, white police officers securing the area are seen leaving as dark-skinned officers take their place. When everything is set, CNN’s Abu Dhabi Managing Editor Becky Anderson begins filming a report. She gushes over them, describing it as “a wonderful scene” and “poignant.” She raves, “Look at all the people around me here, behind me here, sad about last night but hopeful for tomorrow.”

The Inquisitr reports, “Fox News, BBC, CNN, and The Guardian have all allegedly used either images or video footage of these same Muslims carrying the same signs in various parts of London.”

An AP photo appears to capture the same group standing somewhere else. A man from the first group with green around his neck is also in the AP photo.

The Daily Mail‘s Katie Hopkins tweeted out more photos of the group posing in other locations. She observes that a woman wearing pink pants can be seen in multiple photos.

CNN’s actual report.

(For more from the author of “CNN Creates Fake News Story, Stages Pro-Muslim Demonstration After London Terrorist Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child

/0 Comments/in , , /by

We have not been crying wolf. We have not been exaggerating the danger. The unthinkable is now reality in Canada. And it could be coming to America next.

We Were Warned

In 2012, headlines announced, “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class, says Alberta government.”

As the article explained, “Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.”

So, in the privacy of your own home, as you teach and instruct your own children, you would be forbidden by law to teach them what the Bible said about homosexual practice. And how, pray tell, was the government planning to monitor this?

In 2015, Dawn Stefanowicz, herself the child of a gay father who died of AIDS, raised her voice as well. The headline to her article read, “A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.”

She wrote:

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Canadians Could Lose Their Children

She was not exaggerating. In fact, she may have understated her case. The latest headlines from Canada announce something even more Orwellian: “Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity.”

What exactly does this mean?

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

This is beyond mind-boggling. It might even be beyond Orwellian. Really now, would even Orwell have predicted that the government could seize your 8-year-old boy if you wouldn’t let him dress like a girl or if you refused to affirm his perceived female identity?

For good reason, Jack Fonseca, a political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, slammed the new bill in no uncertain terms: “With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history. Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And it is not just an era of totalitarian power. It is an era of misguided totalitarian power.

Not only is it saying that the government, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that the child, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that it is impossible that little Johnny is confused and that one day, he will outgrow his belief that he is really a girl.

No. If he’s convinced he’s a girl and his parents don’t affirm this, he could presumably tell his teachers at school, who would then report this to the government.

Soon enough, there’s a knock at your door, and government agents are taking your son — yes, your very own child — and putting him in a new environment where he can live as Jane.

As nightmarish as this scenario sounds, it is now the law. And it was passed with ease by a vote of 63 to 23.

Soon enough, Johnny will be taking hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, and before you know it, he’ll be a lovely young lady, sex-change surgery and all. And there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.

Don’t Hit Snooze

There’s a reason that so many of us have been raising our voices so loudly for so many years. It’s not because we hate gays or transgenders. It’s because we foresaw the disastrous consequences of LGBT activism and have been standing as watchmen on the wall, sounding the alarm. I urge you from the bottom of my heart: Please don’t hit the snooze button again.

And please don’t console yourself by saying, “Well, that’s Canada, not America.”

First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”

Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.

Third, already in America, “A federal district court judge just dismissed a mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ‘emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”

In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America!) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.

Recently, the flagship gay publication The Advocate, celebrated an 8-year-old drag queen — meaning, a boy who identifies as a boy but who likes to dress up as a girl. (Interestingly, the boy lives in Canada.)

Yes, “Montreal’s newest drag superstar has the poise of someone four times his age.

“A new girl on the Montreal drag scene is making the city’s other queens look geriatric by comparison. That would be Lactatia — a.k.a. Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, an 8-year-old who started getting into drag at the ripe old age of 7.”

In this case, the boy’s parents are highly supportive of him (that’s bad enough). But if they weren’t supportive of him, since this is part of his gender expression, the government could remove him from his home.

This madness must be stopped. (For more from the author of “In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s not terrorism if Trump says so … Last night, NBC Nightly News reminded the American people – during an attack against our strongest ally – that Donald Trump is the real enemy. Trump tweeted about the jihadi attack in London, highlighting “fears of a new terror attack” before NBC could “independently confirm.” Note, the president didn’t say it WAS a terror attack – he said there were “fears of a new terror attack.” Instead of just not using Trump’s tweet in their coverage, they went out of their way to attack the president, saying, “Pres. Trump has used Twitter to share news report on London incident. We aren’t relaying president’s retweet, as the info is unconfirmed.” VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

A host on the Boston NBC station … A host (whose program I have been on) stood up for the network, saying it’s because they can’t trust, under their ethics, unconfirmed information from Donald Trump. Which is odd, because at last check, Brian Williams still worked for NBC News.

Media hate Trump’s solution … Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States, under the process outlined in the Constitution. As such, he is responsible for national security. Unsurprisingly, after yet another jihadi attack, Trump shared his solution for preventing them in the U.S.: the travel ban. That the two are related seems to be too much for Ben Jacobs, who covers U.S. politics for U.K.-based Guardian. Even more so for Jon Passantino, the deputy news director for BuzzFeed, who tweeted, “Trump immediately uses London tragedy for political purposes.” Or, you know, maybe just to outline his plan to combat radical Islamic jihad in the United States.

ALL ABOUT THE TRUMP

Main story is Trump, not jihad … Instead of focusing on the media’s blatant bias in the wake of the London jihad attack, CNN media “critic” Brian Stelter had Carl Bernstein on to discuss how they don’t like President Trump’s travel ban. Here watch.

MSNBC scared of overreaction … CRTV’s Steven Crowder highlighted some of the absurdity of the leftist media. Crowder shared video of MSNBC saying that we shouldn’t overreact to terror. Note on the chyron it also says a “van plowed into pedestrians.” Just like with guns, it’s the van that’s the real actor, not the person controlling the van.

WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN?

It’s impossible for one person to highlight all of the media insanity when there’s a story like this. That’s why I rely on you to help me out. Let me know what you’ve seen by emailing me at [email protected].

(For more from the author of “REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Illinois Man Jumps Into Moving Car to Save a Stranger’s Life: See the Video

/0 Comments/in , , /by

An Illinois man risked his own safety to help a complete stranger suffering a seizure, and it’s all caught on dash cam.

Video from the Dixon Police department shows a car running a red light at low speed, heading into oncoming traffic.

The driver was suffering a seizure. That’s when Randy Tompkins jumpedout of his pickup truck and dove through the passenger window. Tompkins stopped the car in its tracks.

(Read more from “Illinois Man Jumps Into Moving Car to Save a Stranger’s Life: See the Video” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memo to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar’s screeching about birth control and rights, Christians and the Taliban has sunk to depths of hysterical dopiness previously uncharted.

Once again, they gathered around their table of gab last week to smear those who don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s contraception. They sounded the alarm over the impending calamity about to fall on American women who would be deprived of their God-given right to all manner of contraception at no cost to them. The sky is falling! Women are simply doomed! And it’s all because of mean-spirited, uptight, religious fanatics — such as the Little Sisters of the Poor — who want to impose their beliefs on everyone and force every woman to live by their religious rules.

“How are these people any different than the Taliban?” they asked, for the umpteenth time, with total exasperation.

Well, Whoopi and Joy, let me help you with a few, obvious distinctions.

First, let’s start with your beloved birth control. It’s not medicine, because fertility is not a disease. Fertility isn’t a malfunction of any bodily system, but in fact a healthy and proper function. Medicine treats disease.

I wasn’t aware that diabetics received their insulin free of charge, or that people with heart disease received their medication free of charge, or that cancer patients received their life-saving treatments free of charge. If actual medicine that treats actual diseases and actually keeps people alive is not given out for free, why in the world should the Pill, the patch, or the IUD be thrown at women like confetti? Women do not deserve free contraception just because some want it.

Let’s also remember that the Pill is widely available for about $10 bucks a month, and has been for at least a decade now. Yeah, it’s an outrageous expense! (And if even ten dollars is just too much, I can tell you how to avoid pregnancy for free.)

No one is taking away women’s contraception, or telling any woman she can’t use it if she wants to. The folks doing the imposing here are you. You want to impose the demand of free contraception on every individual and employer, and those who dare to object to your unreasonable demand are branded misogynist, religious fanatics who want to keep women down. (Oh, yawn.)

Now, onto this crazy obsession you have with conflating Christians with the Taliban. I’m Catholic, so I’ll speak for my own Church — especially since I know you have a special contempt for the Catholic Church. Let’s do an easy comparison to start with.

The Catholic Church has been educating girls all over the world for many, many, many centuries now.

When girls and women were condemned to a life of illiteracy and ignorance by the authorities of the time, the Church came in and upheld their dignity and worth and educated them. The Church is still doing that all over the world today.

In contrast, the Taliban forbids girls to be educated. Girls who desire an education risk execution if caught. Perhaps you remember Malala Yousafzai?

The Catholic Church not only does not sanction, but expressly forbids, child marriage, and any manner of forced marriage. No marriage exists unless the man and woman both enter into it with total, free assent.

In contrast, the Taliban has no such concern for age or freedom. Young girls are often forced into marriage.

Women under the Taliban cannot be out in public without a blood relative. They cannot have contact with any males other than their husband or blood relatives. They are covered from head to toe in the burqa.

They cannot speak loudly in public. They must not be visible from the streets, so the windows of their houses must be painted or covered.

There is no Catholic sanction for girls to be mutilated, tortured, shot, burned with acid, sold into slavery, raped under the guise of marriage, held captive in their homes, or regarded as property.

In contrast, a young girl named Bibi Aisha tried to flee a forced marriage, and when she was caught, the Taliban cut off her nose and ears to make an example out of her, lest other young girls get any ideas.

With all of these facts as foundation, you still want to insist that not wanting to be forced to pay for someone else’s birth control is the equivalent of the Taliban? If so, no one should take anything you say seriously.

You preach “tolerance” while practicing intolerance. You chat up rights while wanting to violate the rights of others. You claim, “Just let me do what I need to do and leave me alone” even as you demand that Catholic nuns who spend their lives caring for the poor and outcast fork over the money for your abortion and birth control pills. Worst of all, you loathe any suggestion that one’s sexual activities really are one’s own responsibility.

But here’s the truth: No one owes you or anyone else free contraception. Buy your own Pills and devices if you can’t live without them. (For more from the author of “Memo to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.