Disney Is Holding a Pride Parade at One of Its Theme Parks

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Walt Disney Company is embracing LGBT pride month for the first time ever and hosting a gay pride parade in its Disneyland Paris park in France.

The massive corporation has been moving toward a more liberal approach to sexual identity over the last decade, but the “Magical Pride” parade, set to take place on June 1, 2019, is the first time the Disney Parks have openly embraced and endorsed the shift.

The event will take place right at the beginning of global pride month — June — and will feature a “Magical March of Diversity Parade,” reportedly involving DJs, live music performances, and themed photo opportunities for visitors to the Disneyland Paris park, according to Queerty.

Gay pride events in Disney Parks are not new. The “Magical Pride” celebration has been an “unofficial” event at Disneyland Paris since 2014. Disney parks located in the United States — Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, and Disneyland in Anaheim, California — have both hosted unofficial LGBT events including “Gay Days,” an unofficial weekend celebration for gay couples and same sex parents. The first Gay Days celebration took place in the mid-to-late 2000s. . .

Disney has been inching closer to a cultural shift over the last decade, slowly incorporating openly LGBT characters into its television shows and animated features (including an LGBT background character in Frozen). The upcoming Disney live action film, Jungle Cruise, based on the Disney parks attraction of the same name, will feature the first openly gay character in a Disney live action feature — though the character in question will be played by a straight actor will embrace some unsavory stereotypes of gay culture. (Read more from “Disney Is Holding a Pride Parade at One of Its Theme Parks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Jared Kushner Is Undermining President Trump’s Campaign Promises

/0 Comments/in , /by

If Trump wants to anger all sides, give the impression of nepotism, and lose his base headed into re-election, his continued empowerment of Jared Kushner, his liberal policy novice son-in-law, to serve as a super chief of staff is the surest way to accomplish that goal.

Imagine if a Democrat president had a conservative political novice as a son-in-law and empowered him to strategize his policy promises. Now imagine if that individual then worked with anti-illegal immigration groups, such as the Federation for Immigration Reform and Numbers USA, to craft a negotiating plan on immigration with Republicans.

You just have to imagine it, because it would never happen, and even if it did, the Democrat base would obliterate this alliance in three seconds.

Yet that is exactly what is happening as Kushner works with Koch groups and associates who are as rabidly pro-open borders as any of the Democrat presidential candidates to craft our policies on immigration. Where is the outrage from conservatives who claim to wield influence?

Axios is reporting that Kushner “ran a white board planning session last week at the White House with the Koch network and other people who worked with him on criminal justice reform.” As I warned at the time of the prison reform bill, apparently due to Kushner’s influence, Trump flipped on his promise to get tougher on drug traffickers, many of whom are illegal aliens or working for the cartels. Kushner will try to recreate this success on amnesty. Axios states that the purpose of these meetings is “to see if the administration can replicate the approach they took to pass criminal justice reform to overhaul America’s immigration system.”

First, the sad irony and twisted Orwellian thinking behind this approach. On Tuesday, the sheriff of Cochise County appeared on my podcast and explained that his county is the only border region that is not experiencing more illegal immigration because of his 100 percent conviction rate on drug runners, including juveniles. That Kushner, the man who got Trump to go weak on these very people with essentially an amnesty bill for illegals through our criminal justice system, would now serve as the lead on the broader immigration issue is mind-boggling.

But let’s take this a step further. The Koch brothers have just declared war on Trump. They ran ads in support of the very Democrat senators we needed to defeat in the election. Trump himself has called them out.

Yet, thanks to Kushner, they now have a stronger voice than any conservative both inside and outside the administration. According to the Axios report, two former Koch staffers, Brook Rollins and Josh Trevino, were at the meeting as well. Why in the world would Trump accept this?

The other problem is that there are almost no good guys in the room during these negotiations. I’ve intensely studied every aspect of the border and immigration problem with all its policy and political angles for years. Likewise, I know many people who have worked on this even longer. Why is the room full of complete novices like Kushner or people who have long supported amnesty, such as Mike Pence and Mick Mulvaney, rather than people who know the issue and support the president’s promises?

The entire strategy of pushing amnesty is not only wrong, it misses the point. At this point, not only does Trump have more leverage with the military declaration route, it speaks more to the actual problem at our border. The problem is much bigger than the few billion in funding for “strategic fencing.” The cartels need to be dealt with, and Trump needs a massive military buildup at our border. There are now counties getting overrun by diseases, tens of thousands of migrants, criminals, drugs, and cartels, and they only have a few sheriff’s deputies to deal with the problem. This is an invasion, and it calls for the military, regardless of whether we build more fencing.

Either way, once the military is deployed, Trump can build infrastructure to support it without new appropriations unless Congress writes a new statute or budget bill explicitly baring the president from doing so. But that would require his signature.

So why is Kushner negotiating down, against us, on amnesty, all for some pennies for the wall, when this is a policy problem and a military problem, not a funding issue?

Moreover, as I noted last week, the way to leverage DACA is by threatening to end it, which the president can do by April if he follows the Administrative Procedure Act. With Kushner praising DACA, he has no leverage to get anything from Democrats unless he massively expands the amnesty.

Axios reports, from an unnamed “senior official,” “Right now [Kushner is] just trying to understand the Republican position [on immigration] so that we can take all those views to the president and he can make an informed decision.”

Shouldn’t the top policy guy in the White House be someone who A) understands the issue and B) is taking the president’s view to the wayward Republicans, not vice versa?

Kushner was roundly mocked by all sides last week when he thought “moderate” Democrats would support his amnesty deal and that focusing on amnesty rather than more aggressively pushing votes on enforcement would pressure Democrats. It’s fine that Kushner doesn’t understand Congress and the political intricacies, but that is why such positions are usually left to the most seasoned politicos on either side. Under no conceivable political strategy can Kushner’s prominence in the White House be a net positive with any group of voters or any insiders, either, in the establishment or grassroots. It is pure self-destruction for Trump to continue allowing the Kushner-Koch show to be run out of his own White House.

It’s quite laudable that the president has such a close relationship with his children, including his son-in-law. But never mix family and politics; often, not even family and business. Trump would be wise to send Jared and Ivanka back to New York, lest the whole family be forced back to Trump Tower in 2020. (For more from the author of “Jared Kushner Is Undermining President Trump’s Campaign Promises” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dems’ New Voter ‘Rights’ Bill Is Great for Felons and Fraudsters, but Bad for the Constitution

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on H.R. 1, otherwise known as the “For the People Act,” turned into a heated sparring match between Democrats, Republicans, and witnesses.

House Democrats are trying to sell the election overhaul legislation as an update on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and Democratic leadership clearly thinks a lot of it, giving it symbolic status as the first bill of the 116th Congress. But it looks more like a “greatest hits” collection of Democrats’ biggest election gripes.

“The only common motivation running through the whole proposal seems to be this — Democrats searching for ways to give Washington politicians more control over what Americans say about them and how they get people elected,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said of the bill on the Senate floor Tuesday.

Given that the bill is probably dead on arrival in the Senate, the most it can achieve this session is to spark conversations about the voting system. Here’s what Democrats want to do.

One of the central features of the bill is restoring voting rights to felons (who tend to vote Democrat, by the way). Democratic politicians have pushed for measures like this in various states, and now House Democrats want to make it a reality in federal legislation.

“Not only is ex-offender disenfranchisement wrong and anti-democratic in and of itself, many of these laws were deliberately designed to entrench white supremacy,” read an opening statement from Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grilled one witness on specific instances of felons, including two convicted of voter intimidation, who would be put back on the voting rolls under the proposed bill. He also asked about the future voting of violent felons like a man who committed sex acts on a minor at knifepoint.

“I think that, like, there are some things you can do that are so bad — the degradation of people’s right to vote, intimidating people from voting, raping children,” Gaetz told the witness, “that probably surrenders your right to participate in those decisions in the future.”

And while the bill seeks to increase the voice of convicted felons in our electoral process, it seeks to restrict the speech of others through campaign finance regulations.

According to a memo from the Conservative Action Project, the legislation “would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations.”

In turn, the memo continues, this would “subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, far broader than what was done in the IRS targeting scandal in 2013.”

The legislation also takes aim at the states’ constitutional power to run their own elections by reviving a process known as “preclearance,” which was immobilized by the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The preclearance process requires states to get the federal government’s permission for almost any change they make to election process, whether it’s moving a polling place or implementing a voter ID law.

Furthermore, the bill also eliminates political “gerrymandering” by forcing states to draw future congressional districts via independent redistricting commissions. Redistricting done by state elected officials has long been one of the Left’s biggest scapegoats in the election process.

As unpopular as partisan redistricting can be, there are still good reasons to keep the question in the political arena rather than put it into the realm of the unelected and unaccountable. CR’s Daniel Horowitz explains it this way:

“After every decennial redrawing of the maps, a number of states run by either party tend to get carried away with their power to draw the boundaries and create districts that fail to respect the geographical, demographic, or cultural integrity of the region. The reality is that both parties engage in gerrymandering. Yes, it is unfair. But what should be the remedy? Using the electoral process to punish these troublemakers or having the unelected judges redraw even worse maps?”

Critics also say that the act would make it easier to commit voter fraud nationwide. In his prepared testimony, Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams warns that the bill’s vague language surrounding voter registration “could jeopardize very important voter registration safeguards.” Furthermore, key provisions of the bill would force states to expand automatic voter registration (aka “motor voter”) and same-day registration, which make things easier for potential fraudsters and even allows non-citizens to vote in our elections.

Given provisions like these, it’s no wonder why Republicans are speaking out so vociferously against the bill.

“This bill works like the Chicago-style Democrat machine,” House Freedom Caucus Member Ken Buck, R-Colo., said of the proposed legislation.

“If you’re earnestly for the people, if you want everyday citizens to have the power that only comes through their ability to hold officials accountable at the ballot box, you’d have to send this bill back to the drafting table,” reads a statement from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., because H.R. 1 “throws a strong left hook at the Constitution and expects voters to take it on the chin.” (For more from the author of “Dems’ New Voter ‘Rights’ Bill Is Great for Felons and Fraudsters, but Bad for the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

It Takes Rep. Chip Roy Less Than 2 Minutes to Shame Congress for Failing on Border Security

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, took to the House floor Wednesday and unloaded on his fellow lawmakers for planning to leave town without securing the border.

His speech is not even two minutes long, and yet he makes a comprehensive case that Congress is derelict in its duty to protect America.

(For more from the author of “It Takes Rep. Chip Roy Less Than 2 Minutes to Shame Congress for Failing on Border Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What President Trump Should Say in His State of the Union Address

/0 Comments/in , /by

Below is what I believe President Donald Trump should say in his State of the Union Address. Given the gravity of the current internal threat to freedom and to everything America has stood for, the address should be short; and without the usual lists of proposals and accomplishments most presidents use for applause lines.

The Constitution requires that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” However, given the disreputable dishonesty of most of the media, it is appropriate that I use these remarks to talk directly to the American people. This is the best chance a president has to reach them, without his words being twisted beyond recognition by most who call themselves journalists.

I have done my best during the last two years to Make America Great Again. But I accept Alexander Hamilton’s wisdom: It is “my duty to [portray] things as they are ….” Today, our Union is more divided than at any time since before and during the Civil War. While a significant number of Americans enthusiastically support my efforts, a true account of the state of the union must recognize the existence of extremist resistance to American greatness.

Because of the current internal war against American history, traditions and values, and especially against the United States Constitution, it would be inappropriate for me to deliver a standard State of the Union address providing a laundry list of proposals and boasting of my accomplishments, which can be found at whitehouse.gov. Instead, this will be short, in order to focus a spotlight on the threats from within facing all decent, freedom-loving Americans.

Much bitter opposition is the result of deception. The presence of the woman in the seat behind me is proof positive of how many in front of me obtained their seats by fooling voters. Remember, this woman objects to my denouncing brutal murderers as “animals” instead of “humans.” After vowing not to vote for her to be Speaker, they broke their promises on the very first roll call vote of this Congress. Despite “dozens who originally pledged to oppose her return to power,” only 15 kept their word, probably only because their votes were not needed for their party to break faith with their voters. During the next two years, I urge all Americans to scrutinize the performance of these people and ask: “Is this what I voted for?”

As president, in the face of bitter resistance, I have worked very hard to keep my promises. The refusal of professional politicians to keep their word is now a major threat to representative self-government. Were today’s politicians in business, they would be sent to jail for violation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. When citizens cannot know what those for whom they vote are going to do once elected, the right to vote is meaningless. (Incidentally, the punishment of private citizens but not politicians, for false advertising and labeling, is just one of countless scandalous examples of how hypocritical out-of-touch legislators exempt themselves from the very laws, rules and regulations they impose upon ordinary Americans.)

Returning to the ferocious and hateful opposition to me for keeping my promises, my staff has found no prior examples of major media outlets having suggesting the assassination of a president. Yet major TV networks, such as CBS and CNN, repeatedly (p. 205) have suggested that about me. So too has the New York Times, which used to be considered the most influential newspaper in the country; and still has influence among many people. Also, most regrettably, officials of a prior administration have advocated a coup d’etat.

I was not a professional politician and had a good life before I sought the presidency. I ran for president because I was appalled by the utter contempt the Washington establishment has for both the American people and the Constitution they cherish. This establishment consists of most in the media, many members of the Congress, including most Democrats, as well as holdover Deep State bureaucrats who daily violate the law and their oaths of office. Their war is not just against me but against the people and their constitutionally prescribed right to choose who governs them.

Regrettably, the establishment, with utter contempt self-government, also includes unelected federal judges who arrogantly abuse their authority by issuing orders against the entire country rather than confining them to their own local districts and to the parties in the cases before them. These judges have caused great harm. Their abuses have resulted in barbaric murders of American citizens by foreign criminals who have no right to be here; and are a continuing threat to public safety.

Once rare, federal judge-shopping is now rampant. What authority to make nationwide immigration policy does an unelected local judge have in Hawaii, which is nowhere close to the southern border where an organized massive invasion by illegal immigrants is a major problem? Why is a judge in the Northern District of California asked to decide an immigration case rather than a judge in the Southern District, which is right on the border?

Make no mistake. Although we are not in a shooting war, we are in a war nevertheless — a war against American values, a war against American culture, a war against the American way of life and, above all, a war against constitutionally-protected freedoms, the rule of law and representative self-government. For short-term political gain, many current members of Congress would abolish the basic hard-won rights of freedom of speech and due process of law.

For elections to mean anything, voters need information upon which to base their choices. But not many Americans know what the fake news media has refused to report: Four years ago, every single Democrat senator voted to abolish First Amendment free speech protection, ceding to Deep State Swamp officials the power to prohibit speech they considered “unreasonable.” Tellingly, the anti-freedom Democrats made an exception for their allies, the fake news media. (The official roll call vote and official Democrat amendment to mutilate the sacred First Amendment are now posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website.)

My obligation as president is to do the best I can. I have lived most of my life and I do not fear assassination regularly advocated by leftist fanatics. However, I do fear the prospect of what would happen if citizens conclude that they have been cheated out of what they voted for in a constitutionally legitimate election. This is made all the more ominous when the leaders of a major political party no longer accept the results of elections they lose.

Just recently, a defeated Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, declared that there is no reason to be civil when Democrats lose. This is in stark contrast to Richard M. Nixon, another president whose legitimacy leftist Democrats refused to accept, despite his having won re-election by a landslide in 1972. Just 12 years earlier, in 1960, Nixon lost a very close election. But he rejected pleas by his supporters to contest disputed vote counts in Illinois and Texas. Instead, in his constitutional role as Vice President presiding over a joint session of Congress, he delivered one of the most eloquent forgotten brief statements in American history. For the benefit of today’s impatient sore losers who never have accepted the constitutional results of the 2016 election and are unable to wait until next year to vote me out of office, it is worth quoting Nixon’s eloquence 58 years ago:

This is the first time in 100 years that a candidate for the Presidency announced the result of an election in which he was defeated and announced the victory of his opponent. I do not think we could have a more striking and eloquent example of the stability of our constitutional system and of the proud tradition of the American people of developing, respecting, and honoring the institutions of self-government.

In our campaigns, no matter how hard-fought they may be, no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict, and support those who win … [I]t is indeed a very great honor … to extend to John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson … my heartfelt best wishes [as they] work in a cause … bigger than any man’s ambition, greater than any party. It is the cause of freedom, of justice and peace for all mankind.

Tragically, many now seated here scornfully reject Nixon’s gracious wisdom. They and their corrupt, dishonorable and disloyal Deep State cronies pose a monumental threat to the United States Constitution. I urge all Americans who love our country and the great Constitution bequeathed to us over 200 years ago to resist the resistance to constitutional self-government. Only the American people can stop them from getting away with their tactics of stealing elections, vote fraud, speech suppression, intimidation and seeking to overturn elections they lose.

One of the most deplorable tactics of the Deep State and FNM resistance is to accuse their opponents of the very sins of which they are guilty. A group called Antifa regularly smear proponents of freedom as fascists. In truth, it is the left that today is fascist as witnessed by repeated actual and attempted suppression of free expression of any opposing views.

Many decent American citizens are rightly concerned about the radical left Democrat assault on the Second Amendment. But we must not forget that that amendment is second for a reason. Without freedom of speech and the right to petition for redress of grievances secured by the First Amendment, there will be no right to defend and safeguard the Second Amendment. The right to petition already has been seriously undermined. As noted, just four and one-half years ago, every Democrat Senator voted to abolish First Amendment protection for their political opponents. These U.S. senators – all Democrats – supported government regulation of speech critical of the government, or, as they put it, the power to “reasonably limit” money spent to “influence elections.” Do you want the deep state swamp to decide if what you say is “reasonable”?

The 54 anti-free speech Democrats included 35 still in the senate. They should be exposed for the freedom they seek to suppress: Baldwin (WI), Bennet (CO), Blumenthal (CT), Booker (NJ), Brown (OH), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Coons (DE), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Heinrich (NM), Hirono (HI), Kaine (VA), King (ME), Klobuchar (MN), Leahy (VT), Manchin (WV) Markey (MA), Menendez (NJ), Merkley (OR), Murphy (CT), Murray (WA), Reed (RI), Sanders (VT), Schumer (NY), Shaheen (NH), Stabenow (MI), Tester (MT), Udall (NM), Warner (VA), Warren (MA), Whitehouse (RI), Wyden (OR).

Leftist contempt for the freedoms provided by the Constitution does not end with the First and Second Amendments. This contempt extends to elimination of due process for their opponents. For Senators such as Feinstein, self-proclaimed “Spartacus” Booker, Harris, Hirono, Gillibrand, Klobochar, to name just a few of the worst, the mere making of a charge against one of their political opponents is proof of its truth. This is the stuff of the Inquisition of the middle ages, where torture extracted false confessions or the old English Star Chamber, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were intended to protect against. And if false charges does not work, harassment and intimidation of Storm Trooper days are advocated by the likes of Senator Spartacus Booker, Represenative Maxine Waters and hate-filled Hillary Clinton.

These are perilous times. After Jan. 20, 2025, I will no longer be president. Therefore, it is ultimately up to the American people to decide whether to fight for their freedom or to allow it to be destroyed by the very fascists who smear as fascists all decent Americans who oppose their march toward tyranny. As demonstrated by many examples of book-burning throughout history, one of the keys to totalitarianism is the elimination of any and all persuasive opposing ideas. President Ronald Reagan often pointed out that “[f]reedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Reagan echoed another famous warning: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Finally, it is long overdue for people who have never discriminated against anyone because of race, religion or sex and do not believe in such discrimination to fight back against the libels against them by those fanatically devoted to these practices. In particular, for many years, leftist Democrats have been libeling and defaming as racist and sexist anyone who disagrees with them or opposes them in any way.

And yet, it is the Democrat Party that has a long history of defending slavery, racial discrimination and even lynching. It was the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who ended slavery. Just a year ago and six weeks after smearing me as a racist, the Democrat Leader of the Senate explicitly voted against a judicial nominee solely based on the nominee’s race and sex. And just a year ago, shamelessly and publicly, Democrats refused to applaud low minority and female unemployment; and they showed complete disrespect for the grieving parents of black rape and murder victims. Right now leftists are warning the Democrat Party not to nominate a presidential candidate next year who is of the “wrong” race or sex.

Long ago, the Democrat Party and its leftist allies abandoned the late Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” They are almost exclusively fixated on racial and sexual identity rather than on actual qualifications and the policies the candidates represent. They don’t care what’s best for the country but, instead, focus on the race and sex of those who hold office. They don’t care if minority unemployment is high rather than low if the president is of a politically correct race or sex. They don’t care if innocent people are raped and murdered as long as officeholders are in lockstep with preferred identity politics.

In closing, I sincerely hope that God grants all liberty-loving Americans the will and the strength to resist a resistance fanatically devoted to denying all that has made America great: its history, traditions, values and Constitution. God bless America.

_________________________________________

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital punishment, the Supreme Court, and American politics. His recent book is Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment. Reviews are here, here, here. Copyright © 2019 by Lester Jackson, Ph.D. The foregoing has been updated and revised; originally at westernjournal.com and enterstageright.com.

President Trump Is Right: The Intelligence Community Botched Iran Threat

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump fired off a series of tweets Wednesday expressing his dissatisfaction with how Iran is presented in the latest Worldwide Threats Assessment produced under the direction of Dan Coats, who is responsible for the annual report as the director of national intelligence.

Anti-Trump pundits and television networks predictably attacked the president for refusing to blindly accept the totality of the report, claiming that this was more evidence of a president who must at once be removed from office and/or is unfit as commander in chief.

However, this is largely the same Intelligence Community (IC) that became hyper-politicized and weaponized during the Obama administration and relied on questionable information, such as the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, to substantiate Russia’s supposed impact on the 2016 election. Given that reality, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that this IC product appears at times to passive-aggressively take issue with President Trump’s foreign policy decisions.

The annual report sends confusing signals about the Iran nuclear deal, which the president withdrew from last year, citing the deal’s weakness and its severe lack of benefits to U.S. strategic interests.

For one, it reads as a politicized endorsement of the nuclear deal, falsely contending that the Iran deal, or JCPOA, somehow has enforceable limits in place that restrict Iran from advancing its nuclear program.

The Iran deal fundamentally empowered the terrorist regime in Tehran. Far from stopping the regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon, it provided a road map to a sophisticated nuclear weapons program. Moreover, the Iran deal was one agreement that was part of a comprehensive Obama administration strategy to realign the Middle East in Tehran’s favor.

The IC assessment incorrectly and bizarrely labels Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a “centrist,” when he is anything but moderate. Rouhani is a Holocaust denier who has openly encouraged Iran-backed terrorist groups to export Iran’s ideology through force throughout the region. Additionally, in labeling Rouhani a centrist, the IC product contends that there is a strong ideological divide within the Islamic supremacist regime.

In an effort to sell the deal with the Tehran regime, the legacy media and Obama administration officials took pains to separate so-called regime “reformists” from “hardliners.” The 2019 IC assessment claims on three separate occasions that the influence of “hardliners,” and not the fundamental nature of the Tehran regime, is the driving force for anti-U.S. and anti-West hostilities. This is a serious misread.

This hardliners-versus-moderates or centrists distinction is deliberately deceptive. Any individual running for president or a seat in parliament in Iran goes through a substantial vetting process by trusted elements of the regime. Many who want to run for elected office are ruled out by those vetting authorities and immediately forbidden to run for office, if it is determined that they present a threat to the future of the regime. All “elected” officials in Iran are committed to the regime’s expansionist ideology. Only their tactical approach to pursuing that endgame is different.

Additionally, while the Worldwide Threat Assessment does in fact mention Iran’s strongest proxy terrorist organization in “Lebanese Hizballah,” the assessment fails to point out that the Lebanon-based Shiite jihadi group is entirely subservient to Tehran.

The threat assessment of Iran isn’t entirely inaccurate. It does take note of Iran’s growing and aggressive cyber warfare campaigns, its support for the Houthis and Hezbollah, the IRGC’s intrusion into multiple foreign countries, and Iran’s unjust detention of U.S. citizens. However, that doesn’t discount the Intelligence Community’s failure to understand that it is the regime’s radical ideology, which all of its officials are fully committed to, that is its driving force.

The IC’s high-profile annual report of course touches on many other issues, such as the growing threat from China and Russia, in addition to non-state actors such as international terrorist organizations. It also draws substantial attention to the increasing cyber warfare capabilities of our major adversaries. You can read it here. (For more from the author of “President Trump Is Right: The Intelligence Community Botched Iran Threat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Nailed It: GOP Rep. Shows How to Expose the Left’s Radicalism

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grilled a panelist at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on a Democratic bill that would restore voting rights to felons, showing how conservatives can expose the Left.

Gaetz brought up multiple specific cases of convicted felons, including two men who were convicted of felony voter intimidation. He asked one of the panelists, Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, if the Democratic bill, H.R. 1, would let these people vote again.

Gupta began talking about how “disenfranchisement laws” were “a product of Jim Crow,” but Gaetz interrupted her talking points and brought the argument back to reality. Who, in 2019, gets to vote?

“I’m talking about the people who go out of their way to intimidate voters, and what you’re saying is that we ought to let those people back into the system,” Gaetz said.

He then asked if the bill makes a distinction between violent and non-violent felons. Gupta admitted that all classes of felon would receive their voting rights back, regardless of the type of crime they committed.

Gaetz had specific examples of ballot propositions that felons would be allowed to vote on. He brought up the case of a man who committed sex acts with a 12-year-old at knifepoint and asked if he should be allowed to move to Missouri and vote on a recent ballot initiative that dealt with whether an individual’s past criminal conduct in violent sexual acts would be considered in sentencing. Gupta had no answer to that other than to state that H.R. 1 “upholds voting as a national symbol of equality and full citizenship.”

“I think that, like, there are some things you can do that are so bad — the degradation of people’s right to vote, intimidating people from voting, raping children — that probably surrenders your right to participate in those decisions in the future,” Gaetz said.

Influential conservatives have come out in opposition to H.R. 1, calling the bill an “attempt by House Democrats to fundamentally undermine the American electoral system.” More than 150 conservative leaders signed a memo from the Conservative Action Project explaining the problems with the bill. The memo explains how this bill:

• Forces states to implement mandatory voter registration, removing civic participation as a voluntary choice and increasing chances for error.
• Mandates that states allow all felons to vote.
• Forces states to extend periods of early voting, which has been shown to have no effect on turnout.
• Mandates same-day voter registration, which encourages voter fraud.
• Limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in multiple states at the same time.
• Prohibits election observers from cooperating with election officials to file formal challenges to suspicious voter registrations.
• Criminalizes protected political speech by making it a crime to “discourage” someone from voting
• Bars states from making their own laws about voting by mail.
• Prohibits chief election officials in each state from participating in federal election campaigns.
• Mandates free mailing of absentee ballots.
• Mandates that states adopt new redistricting commissions.

Gaetz’s thorough preparation, specific examples, and relentless questioning exposed how the Left is perfectly fine passing sweeping legislation that would let child rapists and election fraudsters vote on decisions that would impact them. Does anyone honestly think most Americans support that? (For more from the author of “Nailed It: GOP Rep. Shows How to Expose the Left’s Radicalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Killer Kamala: Her Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Slash Over a Million Jobs, Reveals EXTREME Idea for Gun Control Legislation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Townhall. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is already gunning to be the candidate for the far left in the 2020 primaries. Her agenda calls for nearly $3 trillion in tax hikes, along with the single-payer health care. She made quite the announcement last night during a town hall event with CNN’s Jake Tapper. She wants to get rid of private health insurance. So, we’re nowhere near the Iowa Caucuses, and the far left is already working hard to give Middle America sticker shock for their trash economic agenda. . .To top it all off, Harris’ health care plan would nix over a million jobs (via NTK Network):

According to AHIP, which is a political advocacy and trade association for health insurance companies, Harris’s proposal would cost more than 1.4 million Americans their jobs. That’s according to AHIP’s 2017 report, which tracks those who were employed directly and indirectly by America’s private health insurance industry. . .

That’s over 1,420,000 Americans who could possibly lose their jobs because of Harris Medicare for all proposal. It’s not yet clear how many jobs Harris’s plan would create in a government-run system like Medicare For All.

(Read more from “Killer Kamala: Her Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Slash Over a Million Jobs” HERE)

________________________________________________

Kamala Harris has an extreme idea to get gun control legislation passed

By AOL. While fielding a question about gun violence during a CNN Town Hall appearance, presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris called out Congress for the lack of gun control legislation.

And she even suggested “harsh” means to encourage Congress to introduce a new bill.Harris started her discussion about gun reform by saying: “You can be in favor of the second amendment and also understand that there is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers.” . . .

Senator Harris became even more impassioned while discussing the inaction by congress following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that took the lives of 20 children between the ages 6 and 7.

She said: “I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience.” . . .

While there was not a direct response to Senator Harris’s statements, in 2018 the National Rifle Association’s CEO Wayne LaPierre suggested armed guards instead of gun control to curb the problem, saying: “Evil walks among us, and God help us if we don’t harden our schools and protect our kids.” (Read more from “Kamala Harris has an extreme idea to get gun control legislation passed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

AGT’s Jackie Evancho Reveals Hollywood Pedophiles ‘Wanted to Hurt Me’ as Childhood Star

/0 Comments/in , , /by

[Jackie] Evancho wrote that “entering adulthood as a 18 year old moving to New York, I felt the need to put this out into the universe as a way of continuing the healing process I’m on. I no longer have the fear to stay silent.” . . .

She recently returned to compete on “America’s Got Talent: The Champions” and wrote on Facebook “there are a lot of aspects that aren’t so glamorous about being a child in the music industry but there’s a lot that I’m thankful for and would never change.” . . .

“Throughout my childhood I was also facing another reality – that there were men out there who wanted to hurt me,” she said. “Some even went to the extreme of claiming they were priests and other disarming occupations to gain trust and easy access backstage, but clearly their intentions weren’t so pure.”

Evancho also said her family had the additional worry of potential stalkers “and other dangers of being in the spotlight that my family and I had to deal with.” (Read more from “AGT’s Jackie Evancho Reveals Hollywood Pedophiles ‘Wanted to Hurt Me’ as Childhood Star” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texas Democrats Seek to Ban Christianity Using So-Called Anti-Discrimination Laws

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 86th Texas legislative session got underway a few weeks ago, and liberals are already going on the offense in the traditional conservative stronghold. Left-leaning legislators have formed Texas’ first LGBTQ caucus while promising a “transformative” agenda. This includes a number of proposed “sexual orientation and gender identity” laws (SOGI) that would attack people of faith so aggressively that they can justifiably be described as “Ban the Bible” bills.

“Ban the Bible” doesn’t have to mean confiscating physical Bibles. LGBT activists aren’t that obvious with their intentions (yet). But it does mean something even worse: stripping Texans of their right to practice biblical teachings in their day to day lives.

These bills would create new government power and protections that ban the free expression of biblically grounded beliefs, especially teaching on marriage and sexuality. Numerous bills seek to force people of faith to conform to others’ personal and political activities, while setting aside their own sincerely held religious beliefs. Those who do not comply will face fines, possible jail time, or other criminal charges. . .

These proposals try to fly under the radar as “anti-discrimination” bills, because who doesn’t want to stop bullying? But such so-called anti-discrimination laws turn law-abiding Christians into criminals and Texans can’t stand by and watch it happen. H.B. 244, for example, creates a $100 per day fine for any violation. H.B. 188 includes a Class A Misdemeanor, the same punishment for a DUI or domestic violence, which could lead to a year in jail if the anti-discrimination policy is not followed.

These policies are similar to ones used against Christian cake baker Jack Philips in Colorado. Jack, of course, famously won at the U.S. Supreme Court, but that wasn’t enough to stop liberals from trying again. (Read more from “Texas Democrats Seek to Ban Christianity Using So-Called Anti-Discrimination Laws” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE