I grew up in a small town without a lot going on. There were two types of girls at my high school: those who dropped out, and those who played basketball.
We had other sports, too, but they served mainly to keep us in shape. Kids at my school couldn’t name our (female!) senators, but they knew everything about legendary coach Pat Summitt. At sleepovers we watched the movie Love and Basketball or a screening of A Cinderella Season: The Lady Vols Fight Back.
When Seattle got their WNBA franchise in 2000, girls in my class drove three hours to watch their first games with Lauren Jackson. When they made the playoffs in 2002, we celebrated Sue Bird, the fresh, energetic rookie from UConn.
So I was surprised when I saw that Bird is still playing. And my heart sunk when I saw the headline at The Seattle Times: “Storm Partners With Planned Parenthood for Fundraising Rally.”
For the first time ever, the abortion giant is getting public support from a professional sports team. Given the abortion provider’s history of exploiting women, I would have expected the Pittsburgh Steelers. But no, it’s the WNBA’s Seattle Storm who will raise money for Planned Parenthood.
Raising Money for Organ Harvesters
The Storm’s owners announced a rally on July 18, with proceeds going to Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Hawaii (PPGNHI).
And guess where infamous Planned Parenthood organ harvester Deborah Nucatola is now? After undercover videos exposed her practice of changing abortion procedures and profiting from the sale of human organs, Nucatola moved … to Hawaii. She is now the Hawaii Medical Director for PPGNHI.
Which means that ticket sales on July 18 will help support the work of a doctor who illegally performed partial-birth abortions. Remember that Nucatola is the one who taught other abortionists the best methods to harvest organs “intact” by ignoring federal law.
Storm owner Dawn Trudeau explained the move to support Planned Parenthood in a statement: “Access to affordable, quality health care, including a full range of reproductive care, is a critical precondition for anyone — especially girls and women, to pursue their dreams and grow into their best selves.”
Basketball is a great thing. It teaches girls how to grow strong, focused and disciplined, and it brings communities together. But any dream that requires killing children in the womb is not going to lead to anyone’s best self.
Abortion is Hurting Female Athletes
Female athletes already face tremendous pressure to abort. Olympic runner Sanya Richards-Ross just wrote a book about her abortion and her post-abortive journey to healing, by God’s grace. But her story is too common.
“I literally don’t know another female track and field athlete who hasn’t had an abortion,” Richards-Ross told Sports Illustrated. “And that’s sad.”
Partnering with America’s largest abortion provider may benefit the team’s owners, but it doesn’t help women. It only compounds the pressure they already feel. And raising money for an organization that harvests human organs is the opposite of empowering.
The Storm’s decision to partner with Planned Parenthood is heartbreaking for pro-life fans. They were a team we once looked to with excitement and pride. But with this partnership, they’re choosing a side in the fight for life — and it’s the side of despair and greed. (For more from the author of “When Your Basketball Team Partners With Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/basketball-933173_960_720.jpg639960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 23:30:432017-06-16 23:30:43When Your Basketball Team Partners With Planned Parenthood
Kate Hall won the 100m sprint at regionals her sophomore year. But a year later, Hall was beat by Andraya Yearwood, a high school freshman. Yearwood was born male but “identifies” as female. At the time of the race, he had not undergone hormone treatment or surgery to “transition from male to female.”
More Than Testosterone
Much of the debate about “transgender” athletes has focused on testosterone. Consider the NCAA policy for such transgender athletes focuses only on testosterone. According to the NCAA’s policy for men transitioning to women:
A trans female [male transitioning to a female] student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment. (NCAA Inclusion of Transgender Student-Athletes, 2011)
Notably, a trans male (female identifying as male) does not have to wait a year before competing on a men’s team.
Testosterone plays a big role in athletic performance. But when we start talking about high-performance competition, especially in track and field, small variations make all the difference. These go well beyond testosterone.
Hip Structure and Center of Mass
Some differences can’t be changed, even with surgery and hormone treatments.
One of the major differences between male and female runners is the hip structure along with everything attached to hip movement. It’s not just a matter of having wide or narrow hips. A key difference is the ratio between hip width and femur length. Women tend to have a greater hip width-to-femur length ratio, which leads to greater hip adduction — that is, movement toward the center of the body. This difference has a domino effect that results in small differences in joint rotation and muscle recruitment.
In other words, men and women differ in how the lower parts of their bodies move as a coordinated wholes.
Other Differences
Men also tend to have more fast-twitch muscles than women. According to experts this isn’t something that can change with training. Fast-twitch muscles are what you want for sprinting because they help you explode off the starting line. They also help produce the kind of “anaerobic” energy you need for sprinting . Slow-twitch muscles are good for conserving energy. They’re the kind of muscles you want in a distance race.
Men also tend to have larger internal organs. This sounds like a disadvantage for sprinters, but larger lungs and heart result in more oxygen uptake. The more oxygen you can take in, the more that can be transported to your muscles. VO2max measures an athlete’s maximum oxygen uptake. It’s higher in men than it is in women, even for men and women that have the same body mass and equivalent lean muscle mass. Biologically, men have a higher VO2max, all other things being equal.
As a result, men also tend to have a higher concentration of hemoglobin in their blood than women do. For athletes, that’s an advantage. This is why doping with EPO, a protein that increases your oxygen-carrying hemoglobin, is illegal in sports. A runner who is born male, therefore, has an advantage over most female athletes wanting to run a clean race.
The Body Can’t Be Completely “Reformatted”
Even with surgery, doping, and hormone treatment, you can’t change every piece of your body. The body functions as a cohesive whole. The skeletal system, the size of major internal organs, and one’s center of mass are all fundamental components of the body. We see this in athletes who use steroids. They often sustain injuries because steroids change muscle mass without changing the ligaments and tendons connected to the muscle.
Doctors can change some things about the body. But they can’t “reformat” the body to become something else completely. A biological male is going to have the fundamental structures of a male body. That’s an inherent advantage in many sports.
Subordinating Athletes Who are “Born Female”
Separating men and women in sports has opened the door for many opportunities for women. Title IX has allowed women athletes to attend college on a scholarship and compete at a high level. Women athletes have also served as role models to other women.
Consider some of the great female runners. Joan Benoit Samuelson took gold the first year the women’s marathon was part of the Olympics. Paula Radcliff holds the women’s marathon world record. Jackie Joyner Kersee holds the best heptathlon score and the second farthest women’s long-jump. Florence Griffith Joyner, considered the fastest woman of all time, ran the women’s 100m in 10.49 and the 200m in 21.34.
All these female athletes have made huge contributions to running. Yet even Florence Joyner’s times would not have qualified her for the men’s semi-finals. In fact, the top twenty-five fastest men in 100m have times under 10 seconds, beating Joyner’s time of 10.49.
Of course elite athletes are by definition outside the norm. But there’s something wrong when half of the population has an inherent disadvantage. If biological males can compete against biological females, it won’t be long, especially in elite sports, before males win all the races and hold all the records.
Women will, in effect, but pushed out of competition because they were born with female bodies. Does that make any sense? As Jeff Jacobs asks in his thoughtful article in the Hartford Courant, “What do we tell these girls? A transgender’s journey is more important than your journey?”
Kate Hall showed grace and maturity in the face of disappointment. But how many more young women will have to say what Hall said in response to her defeat, “It’s frustrating … but that’s just the way it is now”? (For more from the author of “Transgender Sports: Men and Women Have Physical Differences That No Surgery or Hormone Treatment Can Change” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/runners-304972_960_720.png708960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 23:22:172017-06-16 23:22:17Transgender Sports: Men and Women Have Physical Differences That No Surgery or Hormone Treatment Can Change
This was the comment made by the lead reporter covering Joe Miller and his upstart race for senate, for the then little known, and financially unviable Alaska Dispatch, the night of the primary when Miller pulled off the biggest upset in the history of Alaskan politics, in Trumpian style, back in 2010.
The power, and sheer hubris of the media – had never been more on display – for those attuned to it, than in that race. To be clear- All the powers that be, the media, the left, the establishment GOP, the “deep state” – as it’s now referred to (those sitting in the bureaucracy taking an active hand against a populist or independent minded candidate), all had been taken off guard, and reacted with the full might of their power, doing all they could to sink his campaign in the general election. And, with some help from his own missteps and those of his well meaning staff of honest novices-none of whom, admittedly, had ever been on such a stage, against such seasoned foes- it worked.
It is fair to say, never had Alaskan politics experienced such an upset- and never had that upset been followed by such an assault, from all quarters. Page one lies, followed a week later by page seven retractions. Over an 8 week period of the general election, a count was done of the published articles on each candidate; 26 negative on Miller, 3 on McAdams (the Democrat) and 5, all favorable, on Murkowski, running as a write-in. The myriad of laws broken by state and federal election officials, the slanders by the media, and the betrayals by the party whose primary he won, are legion – too many to list here – but needless to say, the fix was in, and it was heaped on all sides, by all sides.
Fast forward 6 years – and on a much grander stage – a similar event takes place. An unprecedented and more importantly, unpredicted win takes place, and the pillars of power shake.
The response was immediate. The strategy predictable: discredit the win, disavow the mandate.
Never, in the recorded history of our national political scene, has the media, the left wing, the establishment right, and the “deep state” lifelong bureaucrats, all coordinated such a prolonged attack against a sitting president, over.. in realty, nothing..and yet, in a battle, essentially for everything. Make no mistake, the country’s soul is what is up for grabs, and if you do not think so, please take a moment to consider the stage that is set, and where we find ourselves.
A concocted narrative, with no facts, no evidence, and no proof, has dominated the last 8 months of American politics, and is all but insuring the failing of a legislative and executive agenda, which puts as it’s primarily goals, restoring peace and security to the nation and its peoples, and returning freedom and prosperity to the American body, and the individuals of which it’s made, as it’s central goals.
And that, is exactly the problem.
And that, is exactly the point.
The powers that be, on all sides, may not be “colluding” as is the new en vogue phraseology- but they all may as well be. They have a common goal, status quo- and thus- a common enemy: the President. More importantly – his agenda – but there’s more to it than that. A visceral hate, on all sides, because he is beholden to none of them, and this is key; none of them ordained him. In essence- his affront to their sensibilities is three-fold; his goals are in opposition to theirs (no matter what they say in the GOP), they did not create him, thus they cannot control him, and thirdly- they did not predict him, thus he disapproves their all knowing omnipotence.
The last, is the greatest sin.
You can never underestimate the sheer insult it is to the ruling class, when someone they don’t own, and didn’t create, beats their expectations. By extension their lackeys and sycophants in the media and academia are likewise injured, after all- they are the keepers of knowledge and the “knowers of all that is and shall be”, far be it from any citizen, be he small town judge, father of eight and decorated veteran, or billionaire New York real estate magnate and pop culture icon. If they don’t approve you, you don’t get in. If they don’t control you, you don’t get to make decisions. And most importantly – if your basic existence refutes the premise that they know all..
..you must be destroyed.
It’s that simple.
As we watch good men, like former Senator and now Attorney General Jeff Session, get drug thru the mud and have to defend baseless accusations that he should not be subject to…as we watch a media hate cycle feed itself it’s own stories 24 hours a day seven days a week…as we watch craven political operatives and elected politicians shiver with fear in the corner of inaction and cowardice- we may ask ourselves “Why?” And “How did this come to be?” To be be frank, the answer is really not that hard to discern.
For certain, there is money, lots of money at stake. Power, mainline power, the kind that money can’t buy- that is there, to be sure, all of that as well..and all of that has contributed to the decline of nobility of service and replaced it with the utter sleaziness of “job security”, but if you want to know what is really driving all of this, in a word, it is simply this:
Arrogance.
Not just any arrogance.
The kind of arrogance that believes a story shouldn’t be a story unless it was thought of or predicted in the minds of the journalists writing it weeks, months or years before.
The kind of arrogance that thinks the citizen works for the government, and not the other way around.
The kind of arrogance that thinks the powers that be should brook no insolence from the serfs and slaves that tend the fields.
And finally, the kind of arrogance that corrupts a man when he wakes up one day and thinks, not only does he know better than his neighbor how his neighbor should live his life, but that he should be entitled to compel his neighbor- thru force- to live his life accordingly.
At best, this arrogance is giving in to a weakness in all men and women- a failure to discipline oneself against base instincts and poor character temptation that tests us all– at worst, it is the embodiment of evil, and a desire to control ones fellow man, and see them all as merely extras, in the grand Play of ones life, to be moved about to for purposes other than their own, and not deserving of power over their own lives, instead of individuals, with thoughts and opinions and hopes and dreams, and as the only true masters over their own destinies.
It is this arrogance that we are, those of us who hold these beliefs the founders annunciated so well, have been fighting for for centuries. It is this arrogance that we confront now, in the face of the farce that are these hearings and investigations, innuendos and insults, and the attack on our intelligence that is the daily media and pop culture assault, on anyone who dare challenge this arrogance, and those who hold to its self centered axiom, and it is why we must continue to persevere.
This is the world when they have no true power. Full of lies, rumor, slurs, defamation, and character assassination. They are losing right now, thru the grace of God alone.
Imagine the world in which they win?
In the midst of all this, now more than ever, we cannot waiver. We cannot relinquish our freedom and our intellect. We cannot fail to resist. We cannot afford to lose.
______________________________________________
Dr Walter Campbell is a lifelong Alaskan, former Marine, and physician.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/33013659951_835a5d52e0_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 23:15:462017-06-18 01:44:46“If We Knew He Would Win, We Would Have Stopped Him”
A Russian fighter jet last week intercepted a formation of 11 NATO aircraft, including U.S. bombers, as they flew within international airspace over the Baltic Sea as part of a military exercise.
This correspondent for The Daily Signal was onboard a U.S. Air Force KC-135 aerial refueling tanker, part of the formation June 9, and witnessed the intercept by the Russian Su-27 fighter jet.
“It’s a game,” Air Force Lt. Col. Kristofer Padilla, commander of 52nd Operations Group Detachment 1, tells The Daily Signal afterward. “They [the Russians] broke no rules.”
Watch the video:
On this day, NATO warplanes join for an extraordinary aerial formation, comprising two U.S. Air Force B-1B bombers, one USAF B-52H bomber, two German Eurofighter Typhoon fighters, two Polish F-16 fighters, two U.S. Air Force F-16s, and a U.S. Navy P-8 surveillance aircraft.
The aerial refueling tanker, which flies in front of and above the rest of the formation, carries The Daily Signal’s correspondent and other members of the media.
The event is part of an annual NATO maritime exercise in the Baltic Sea called BALTOPS, running from June 1 to 16.
The exercise dates to 1972. But with Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, and heightened tensions across Eastern Europe between NATO and Russia, the exercise is now more than just a chance for NATO forces to practice operating together in the high-stress environment of simulated combat.
Today, BALTOPS is a signal to NATO’s eastern members that the alliance is committed to their defense. It’s also a message of deterrence to Moscow, underscoring that military aggression against a NATO member could lead to war.
The New Normal
The NATO formation comes together while it orbits on a refueling track over the Baltic Sea within international airspace. Then, unannounced, a Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter merges to intercept the NATO aircraft.
Out of the rear refueling boom operators station, with a window facing down and behind the aircraft, this correspondent observes as the Russian fighter jet, painted in light blue camouflage, approaches.
The Russian fighter moves in from the front right side, merging to intercept within a few hundred meters laterally and at the same altitude as two U.S. Air Force B-1B bombers—approximately what the Air Force calls tactical formation.
The Russian warplane cuts laterally across the formation from right to left, briefly trailing a U.S. B-52 bomber. The NATO formation does not modify due to its unanticipated presence. After a few minutes, the Russian Su-27 breaks off and the formation continues as planned.
U.S. pilots and their commanders downplay the Russian intercept, underscoring that it was not provocative and that U.S. and NATO aircraft never were in danger.
In an email to The Daily Signal, a U.S. military spokesman confirms the Su-27 had its transponder switched on, so the aircraft could be identified.
“We were flying with our allies in the Baltic Sea and we were intercepted by Russian fighters as expected,” writes Lt. James Fisher, an Air Force public affairs officer who was on the KC-135 flight to observe the Russian intercept.
“It was in international airspace and has been characterized as safe and routine,” Fisher says of the intercept. “It was all handled very professionally.”
Still, the sight of a Russian fighter jet merging alongside a pair of B-1B bombers and then cutting across the tail of a B-52 bomber is extraordinary, underscoring the new normal of NATO-Russian military encounters in the region.
The Western alliance is engaged in a delicate, peacetime back and forth with Russia, in which both sides are prone to see routine military operations and exercises by the other camp as provocative acts of brinkmanship, or regional power plays.
‘We Expect Intercepts’
Russia’s air activities over the Baltic Sea have been more aggressive since 2014, the year it invaded Crimea and launched a proxy war in eastern Ukraine. Resultantly, NATO has stepped up its air policing mission in the region, doubling the number of warplanes tagged to patrol the Baltic skies from four to eight in 2014.
“In 2014 and 2015, the number of NATO Air Policing flights over the Baltic and Black Sea areas increased significantly due to increased Russian air activities,” according to the 2016 NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report.
Russian warplanes now routinely intercept NATO warplanes and ships in the Baltic Sea. U.S Air Force personnel say that as long as Russian jets abide by international norms of air safety, they are free to do what they want within international airspace.
“We expect intercepts to happen,” Fisher, the Air Force public affairs officer says. “We act as professional airmen when they do. … There are a number of intercepts that take place on a regular basis. The vast majority are conducted in a safe manner.”
Russian state media and U.S. Air Force personnel portrayed the June 9 intercept in sharply contrasting ways.
Kremlin officials and Russian state-controlled media painted the intercept as an instance of Russia’s standing up to NATO aggression.
“The fact that NATO forces are converging near Russia’s borders and carrying out military exercises supported by strategic bombers from the USA capable of carrying nuclear weapons hardly helps de-escalate tensions in Europe,” Russian Foreign Ministry official Mikhail Ulyanov said, according to Sputnik, a Russian news agency.
For their part, U.S. pilots dismiss this intercept as a normal part of flying in international airspace.
“We’re professional fighter pilots; that’s not something that would be a distraction, or would require any focus to prep. That’s kind of normal ops for us,” Lt. Col. Benjamin Freeborn, commander of the 510th Fighter Squadron, says.
The 510th is an F-16 squadron based in Aviano, Italy, which deployed here to Krzesiny Air Base, Poland, to support BALTOPS and Saber Strike, a concurrent NATO exercise in the region.
“Everything we’ve seen in the exercise so far has been safe and professional,” Freeborn says.
Assurance and Deterrence
BALTOPS is an annual multinational, maritime-focused exercise. This year, 14 countries participate. The exercise involves 4,000 shipboard personnel, 50 ships and submarines, and more than 50 aircraft.
Like other military exercises in Eastern Europe involving NATO and its partners, the simulated enemy forces confronted by NATO in BALTOPS are not specifically labeled as Russian.
The simulated enemy aircraft, called aggressors, are considered to be near-peers—a hypothetical military adversary with technology and training on par with the U.S. and its allies.
The BALTOPS aggressors are, for the most part, simulating Russian military aircraft.
“It’s not focused in any cardinal direction or against any specific adversary,” Freeborn, the F-16 squadron commander, says.
The U.S. has no permanent Air Force bases in Poland. Yet, different units rotate throughout the country in a noncontinuous cycle, and U.S. pilots are embedded within the Polish Air Force as instructors and advisers.
Detachment 1, from the 52nd Operations Group, which is commanded from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, is the first U.S. permanent operational military unit in Poland.
Beginning in 2012, the detachment supports four annual U.S. aircraft rotations into Poland, two each of F-16 fighters and C-130 Hercules planes.
Most U.S. pilots are too narrowly focused on their day-to-day mission to gauge the overall effect of their presence on how allies feel about U.S. security guarantees–or on deterring Russia.
Yet, at the back of their minds is the realization that every mission flown is not just about learning or perfecting a combat skill. Every sortie is also a diplomatic statement.
“Success for me is our unit getting to exercise our multirole airpower that we train to with our NATO partners, and hopefully that contributes to some sort of long-term stability, independence, and prosperity in the region,” Freeborn says.
Ambassadors
There is another, deeper, layer to exercises such as BALTOPS, and it involves more than just ironing out logistics or developing common tactics.
A level of human-to-human trust develops when working side by side with other countries’ militaries in the high-stress environment of simulated combat.
“It takes time to build that trust,” Staff Sgt. Marcus Mathews, an F-16 crew chief with the 510th Fighter Squadron, tells The Daily Signal. “By week two, you start to feel things out. It’s a beautiful thing. It’s not about us, it’s about the whole NATO alliance.”
“We’re ambassadors of our nation,” Mathews says.
Mathews is from Killeen, Texas. He speaks in a measured clip and says “sir” a lot when talking to this correspondent. Walking among the 510th Squadron’s F-16 fighters lined up on the Polish ramp, he is upbeat and full of pride about his job.
Much of the media attention in an exercise such as BALTOPS focuses on the aircraft and the pilots—especially with B-1B and B-52 bombers in the mix.
However, some of the most important lessons learned, and the hardest work done, happens on the steaming hot tarmac of airfield ramps such as here at Krzesiny Air Base. That’s where Mathews and other crew chiefs work day and night to keep jets flying.
Transplanting the squadron’s maintenance infrastructure from Aviano Air Base in Italy up to Poland requires maintainers like Mathews to start from scratch in many ways.
Even the simplest things–where to get fuel, where to throw out the trash–can be headaches at an unfamiliar base. Then there’s the language barrier with Polish counterparts.
Those minutiae of day-to-day operations are some of the biggest hurdles to sort out in peacetime exercises.
“No matter where we’re at, our job doesn’t change,” Mathews says. “Every time a jet goes up, there’s a life in that seat that we’re responsible for. I never forget that.”
Deploying to an unfamiliar airfield is a challenge for pilots, too.
Freeborn says that flying daily simulated combat operations out of a new base, with unfamiliar airspace and local procedures, takes pilots out of their comfort zones and better simulates the real world complications that come from rapidly deploying away from home station to respond to a crisis.
“They have to adapt their normal habit patterns to an unfamiliar setting,” Freeborn says.
Enduring Bonds
BALTOPS is a peacetime military exercise occurring above the actual location where a conflict could break out. It comprises frequent aerial run-ins with NATO’s most likely adversary, Russia.
It’s not an exercise held over a desolate desert range in Nevada, or a swath of empty terrain in Alaska. NATO forces are not simulating, in some distant place, the battlefield over which they could fight the next air war. They’re at it. And the enemy is watching their every move.
As a result, this exercise is more than a chance to rehearse combat operations. It’s also a dry run of the logistics operation necessary to move U.S. military assets to the Baltic region.
“Even the simple things are difficult,” Freeborn, the F-16 commander, says.
Another novelty of the exercise for the Air Force is the battlespace.
Air Force pilots typically spend less time training to operate in the maritime environment than their Navy counterparts. Yet, as part of NATO’s air policing responsibilities in the Baltics and the Arctic to counter the Russian threat, many Air Force missions occur over the water.
BALTOPS is a chance to hone skills supporting maritime operations, which only can be simulated at other Air Force training sites.
“In day-to-day training we don’t have access to that level of joint assets,” Freeborn says, adding:
At least for us in the 510th, that’s an absolutely unique experience for us to actually get to physically work with the naval component of our joint team.
Certainly working with the physical assets and not having to simulate something is great. Both with the Army, the Marines, the Navy … those are just usually fake voices on the radio.
Team Players
The U.S. trains to go to war with its allies.
“I’m conditioned to operate and think as a coalition,” Padilla, an F-16 pilot based in Poland with Detachment 1, says. “At a minimum, to be joint minded. And to be humble and gracious enough to know we are not the big bear in the room.”
Poland, a former Warsaw Pact member state, joined NATO in 1999. Today, the U.S. F-16 pilots hold their Polish counterparts in high regard for the rapid transition they’ve made from a post-Soviet military into a valuable NATO asset.
“It’s remarkable what they’ve done in such a short amount of time,” Padilla says. “They’re motivated.”
On the ramp here at Krzesiny Air Base, Soviet-era Russian fighter jets that the Polish Air Force operated as part of the Warsaw Pact are lined up beside a U.S.-made F-16 fighter—the Polish Air Force’s modern workhorse, which it began flying in 2006.
Every so often, on this day, U.S. and Polish F-16s roar overhead.
On the ramp beside the old Russian fighter jets, Padilla, a seasoned American fighter pilot for whom jet noise is a humdrum part of his workday routine, can’t help but look up.
“What’s the modern day Warsaw Pact?” Padilla says. “There is none. But NATO endures.” (For more from the author of “Watch as Russian Fighter Jet Intercepts US Bombers Over Baltic Sea During NATO Exercise” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/military-aircraft-568641_960_720.jpg643960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 23:11:452017-06-16 23:11:45Watch as Russian Fighter Jet Intercepts US Bombers Over Baltic Sea During NATO Exercise
All across America, preparations are underway for high school graduation. It’s a glorious time, representing both a milestone and a gateway to adulthood.
But missing from this year’s ceremonies are more than one million kids who dropped out and will not be attending graduation day.
The future those high school dropouts face is chilling. They will have a much harder time getting a job and will earn much less than those who did graduate. They’re also more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be the victim of one.
In short, many of them face a life that will be so much more difficult—all because they could not or chose not to finish high school.
The consequences of this crisis are especially evident in my community. Today, more than half of all African-American students in many large U.S. cities don’t graduate from high school. Think about that.
And those kids aren’t just dropping out—they’re escaping.
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, schools that serve majority-minority communities have the worst performance, the highest crime rates, and the largest achievement gaps.
In cities like Detroit, more than nine in 10 black students can’t even read or do math at grade level.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, ruling that school segregation is unconstitutional. “Massive Resistance” soon followed as many states launched an all-out effort to block integration.
My home state of Virginia was one of them, and anti-reform forces there mobilized to prevent black students from going to whites-only schools. They succeeded for a while but, in 1960, the first contingent of brave black students changed all that.
I was a member of the second contingent and, in 1961, was one of 26 black students assigned to integrate John Chandler Middle School in Richmond.
As the first day of school approached, we heard ominous threats of “blood flowing in gutters.” Thankfully, that didn’t happen. Instead, the only blood I saw was mine.
For the first month at Chandler, I never made it through the packed hallways between classes without at least one white student pricking me with a pin.
Sometimes, I was stuck so many times I had to press my dress against my body to keep the red streams from dripping down my legs.
It was awful, but it was worth it. In my own little way, I knew I was fighting for our equal right to get a great education.
Little did I know that more than half a century later, other girls and boys would still be fighting for education equality. Many of those kids are African-American like me, and the families many of them come from are poor and broken, like mine was.
But I was able to attend a better school, and they aren’t. Instead, anti-reform forces are blocking them from going to better-performing public charter and private schools.
Today, the nemesis isn’t the old Massive Resistance crowd, but a similarly determined cartel of unions, bureaucrats, and politicians. They make a great deal of money from the current system in the form of union dues, salaries, and political contributions.
As a result, they view education equality as a threat and anyone seeking it as their enemy.
Just ask Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Appearing before Congress recently, DeVos testified that her goal is “ensuring that every student has an equal opportunity to receive a great education.”
But rather than be hailed for seeking the equality promised decades ago, she’s being attacked by those who want things to stay just as they are.
But the secretary isn’t just right—she’s echoing the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling which declared education to be “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
Today in America, that right is conditional. If you are wealthy, white, connected, or elected, your child probably goes to or graduated from a great school.
But if you are African-American or Latino and living in a poor urban neighborhood, your child is much more likely to go to a failing school, a school where more than half of all students can’t read or write well, have low math scores, face the daily threat of bullying and violence, and won’t graduate.
Do these sound like “equal terms” to you?
In place of the equality mandated by the Supreme Court, we have disparities that are so shocking they defy belief.
Right now, America’s public school system includes outstanding institutions where students get an excellent education, use the best academic, athletic, and cultural facilities tax dollars can buy, and go on to college and promising lives.
And the same school system also includes failure factories where students don’t learn, spend their days in dilapidated and crime-infested buildings, fall further and further behind, and often drop out.
Now, which of these schools do you think is most often found in poor minority neighborhoods?
The reality, as House Speaker Paul Ryan has put it, is that the current system is effectively quarantining poor and minority children in failure factories.
For the sake of all those high school dropouts who will miss out on this month’s graduations, our nation needs the proponents of education equality to prevail.
Every single child—no matter their race, income, gender, or address—has the equal right to receive an excellent education. And every day in which that right isn’t a reality is a day in which we are losing more of these precious children. (For more from the author of “Our Public School System Isn’t Producing Education Equality” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/FVES_Classroom-1-1.jpg6751200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 22:58:562017-06-16 22:58:56Our Public School System Isn’t Producing Education Equality
The Defense Department recently held an LGBT Pride Month event, while the Army conducted transgender sensitivity training, moves that baffled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin and some other conservatives.
They had expected that the new command, under President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired Marine general, would revise if not reverse some of the Obama administration’s policies on transgender individuals in the military.
“I was very surprised, not so much by Donald Trump but by Gen. Mattis. I thought his total focus would be on military readiness and winning wars, and not social engineering,” Boykin told The Daily Signal.
Boykin is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council, which promotes traditional values.
The retired Army general argues that political correctness about both gender identity and women in combat is degrading the morale and readiness of the armed services by having troops spend hours in classrooms learning about gender issues.
“For 16 years we’ve been at war. When service members are not deployed overseas, they are preparing for war,” Boykin said. “Not one minute of preparation time should be squandered on social experiments.”
On June 12, the Pentagon held its sixth annual LGBT Pride Month celebration. Anthony M. Kurta, a retired Navy rear admiral, stressed its importance.
“[L]et us reflect on the service and sacrifice of all DOD members, past and present,” Kurta said, according to a Defense Department press release on the event. “We take pride in the contributions of all who defend and serve our country, and rely on the diversity of our members to meet our mission.”
Kurta is the Defense Department’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, a position he has held since 2014 under the Obama administration.
One group of conservative leaders, the Conservative Action Project, called for the Trump administration to “discontinue funding and directing personnel resources” for special interest events such as LGBT Pride Month that “do not strengthen military readiness.”
Some of those conservative leaders, including Reagan administration veteran Becky Norton Dunlop, say they understand that such programs likely have operated on autopilot since Trump succeeded Barack Obama as president Jan. 20.
Trump did not issue a presidential proclamation declaring June as LGBT Pride Month, as Obama did in the eight previous years.
Just before June, however, the Navy issued its own statement anticipating LGBT Pride Month.
“To remain the finest seagoing fighting force, the Navy needs men and women who are the right fit for the right job regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, or gender identity,” Capt. Candace Eckert, the Navy’s special assistant for inclusion and diversity, said. “Our goal is to ensure that the mission is carried out by the most qualified and capable sailors.”
Other federal agencies, from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Veterans Affairs, confirmed to The Daily Signal that they use government resources to promote LGBT Pride Month during June.
Kathy McGettigan, the Trump administration’s acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees all federal employees, heralded the month celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.
“LGBT Pride Month is just one way that we can honor the struggles and achievements of the LGBT community, including the LGBT members of our federal workforce,” McGettigan, a 25-year employee, wrote June 9 on the Office of Personnel Management website. Her post provided related links for LGBT employees.
“Enjoy your celebration and Happy Pride Month,” McGettigan wrote.
The Department of Veterans Affairs put up three large LGBT Pride Month posters in its central office in Washington. The agency printed 150 bulletins to hand out at an event scheduled June 22 at VA headquarters, Sterling Atkins, the VA’s diversity and inclusion specialist, told The Daily Signal.
As for the State Department, a spokeswoman told The Daily Signal that the department “issued guidance to embassies and consulates allowing them to, as appropriate to their local context, recognize LGBTI Pride Month.” The “I” in LGBTI stands for “intersex.”
The State Department did not provide specifics.
The Small Business Administration scheduled an event June 21 and printed 75 pamphlets, spokeswoman Carol Wilkerson told The Daily Signal.
Conservatives interviewed say they particularly are concerned about the military, specifically with transgender recruits, because of what they consider issues of preparedness for war and unit cohesion.
“This puts extra burdens on military doctors and nurses who have to provide these hormone benefits and surgeries to service members who aren’t deployable for months. So, this becomes a magnet [for people seeking gender transition],” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative pro-defense group, said in an interview.
Both the Republican Party platform and Trump as the nominee for president “vowed to eliminate political correctness in the military,” Donnelly told The Daily Signal.
“Military voters put trust in the president, but now there are so many Obama holdovers in the Pentagon making policy,” she said.
Donnelly, Boykin, and Dunlop were among 85 conservative leaders— including former members of Congress and former Cabinet officials—who signed a May 16 “memo from the movement” as part of the Conservative Action Project.
The memo raises similar concerns about government time and resources being devoted to “gender transitioning,” saying:
It must be difficult to suffer from gender dysphoria and confusion about one’s sexual identity, but concerns about these individuals do not justify mandates on military medical doctors and nurses to approve, provide, or participate in life-altering transgender treatment or surgeries. Many object to these experimental treatments on grounds of medical ethics or sincere religious convictions. …
[C]ontinuing implementation of the Obama transgender policies for service members would ignore the strongly felt concerns of women particularly, who do not want to be exposed to individuals of the opposite sex in facilities which offer minimal privacy. This grave problem must be taken seriously when the incidence of sexual assaults and rape in the military is so severe. …
Secretary Mattis should suspend and, upon further careful study, rescind Defense Department and military service directives permitting transgender individuals to serve. … Further, the Trump administration should discontinue funding and directing personnel resources for special interest events, including LGBT Pride Month events in June, which do not strengthen military readiness.
The memo was signed by cultural, economic, and national defense conservatives because frivolous defense spending affects everyone, said Dunlop, chairwoman of the Conservative Action Project, who is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
“This is entirely at the feet of Secretary Mattis,” Dunlop told The Daily Signal. “The president clearly, just by watching him, is a delegator.”
Even so, Dunlop, who worked in the Reagan administration, said she understands the Trump administration may not be able to address related issues immediately. But, she said, she would like to see movement in the right direction.
“Things do take time, but we expect to see evidence of changes,” Dunlop said. “We have not even seen evidence of people put in place to make the changes at the Defense Department.”
Readiness and combat effectiveness are the priority, Lt. Col. Myles Caggins, a Defense Department spokesman, told The Daily Signal. He said the department, at Kurta’s direction, conducted a review of the military’s ability to work with new transgender enlistees.
In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, Caggins said:
Diversity is a source of strength for the Department of Defense, and is a key to maintaining our high state of readiness. Diversity encompasses more than demographic differences (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation) — we also value diversity of thought, background, language, culture, and skills.
Matt Thorn, executive director for OutServe-SLDN, a Washington-based advocacy group for LGBT individuals in the military, dismissed the concerns expressed by the conservative leaders. SLDN stands for Service Members Legal Defense Network.
“This is expected from the far right, and it doesn’t have any foundational basis,” Thorn told The Daily Signal. “There is no evidence that we’ve heard or seen that makes the argument that transgender people [in the armed forces] affect military readiness.”
Navy veteran Ken Boehm, chairman of National and Legal Policy Center, a government watchdog group, was among the signers of the memo. Continuing the Obama administration’s social engineering policies is fiscally irresponsible, he told The Daily Signal.
“The Obama administration stuffed the Pentagon with people who didn’t have the defense of the country in mind, but had social engineering on their mind. Every dollar we spend on social engineering is one dollar less we are spending on defense,” Boehm said.
Boehm said he doesn’t understand why the Trump administration hasn’t made a change, but is willing to give Mattis the benefit of the doubt.
“I would suspect it’s a little like drinking from a fire hydrant,” Boehm said of what may be on the defense secretary’s mind, adding:
There is already one problem after another. I’ve never viewed Mattis as squishy. Trump authorized him to handle troop levels in Afghanistan. If he has that authority, I’d think he would tighten other things up. But sometimes you have to make trades in the short term for the bigger picture.
At this early juncture, it likely is a matter of priorities for the Trump administration, said Steven Bucci, a retired Army Special Forces officer and former top Pentagon official who was military assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Every day a policy is in place, it gets harder. Because of the ‘little c’ conservative nature of the Department of Defense, change is difficult,” Bucci, now a visiting fellow on national security policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
“Ash Carter’s legacy was women in combat and transgender issues,” Bucci said, referring to the last of Obama’s three defense secretaries, and a deputy to the previous two. “I don’t think we want Mattis to focus on the social issues as his No. 1 priority. We want him fighting bad guys. It’s unrealistic to think he would change the policies this early.” (For more from the author of “Trump Administration Keeps Obama LGBT Policies at Pentagon, Other Agencies” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/19013009800_f40df419b5_b.jpg5751024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 22:55:252017-06-16 22:55:25Trump Administration Keeps Obama LGBT Policies at Pentagon, Other Agencies
This week, in response to President Donald Trump’s February executive order, the U.S. Treasury released the first in a series of reports examining the U.S. financial regulatory system.
The report identifies policies that would improve federal financial regulation in a manner consistent with the Trump administration’s seven core principles.
Treasury incorporated a wide range of perspectives on financial regulatory reform, and they should be commended for producing a large volume of specific reform proposals.
For the most part, the reforms seem perfectly in line with the administration’s core principles. And since those principles closely track the ideas in the Financial CHOICE Act—Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s bill that recently passed the House—Americans should be rejoicing.
Treasury champions the innovative “off-ramp” approach to regulatory relief found in the CHOICE Act. For instance, page 12 states that:
Treasury supports an off-ramp exemption for [Dodd-Frank Act stress tests], [Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review], and certain other prudential standards for any bank that elects to maintain a sufficiently high level of capital, such as the 10 percent leverage ratio proposed by H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017.
Page 53 expands on the idea and says:
An alternative approach for providing regulatory relief that should be considered would be to establish a “regulatory off-ramp” from all capital and liquidity requirements, nearly all aspects of the Dodd-Frank’s enhanced prudential standards, and the Volcker Rule for depository institution holding companies and insured depository institutions.
The capital election is an incredibly simple yet powerful idea. If a bank chooses to improve its ability to absorb losses, it earns regulatory relief. There is, after all, little reason to heavily regulate banks that can absorb their own financial risks.
Ultimately, Congress could expand this idea to provide even more regulatory relief and build even stronger markets.
The report also aligns very closely with the CHOICE Act approach for reforming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Here are a few highlights from the CFPB section.
The CFPB’s structure renders it unaccountable to the American people.
The CFPB’s combination of an unaccountable structure and broad, unchecked regulatory power is unprecedented.
The CFPB’s substantive authority is unduly broad, ill-defined, and susceptible to abuse.
The CFPB has exercised its authorities in a manner aimed at maximizing its discretion, rather than creating a stable regulatory environment.
The Consumer Complaint Database lacks appropriate safeguards.
The CFPB’s supervisory authority is duplicative and unnecessary.
The CFPB’s supervisory authority over nonbanks represents a major shift in regulatory practice, with no clear benefits to justify the additional burdens.
Treasury recommends, among other reforms, making the CFPB director removable at-will by the president, funding the CFPB through the regular appropriations process, and repealing the CFPB’s supervisory authority.
The House and the Trump administration are clearly on the same page with these reforms, and the CFPB is clearly in their crosshairs.
The report suggests many other positive reforms that would improve financial regulation in ways consistent with the administration’s core principles.
For instance, Treasury recommends that Congress “reduce regulatory fragmentation, overlap, and duplication,” reforms that are long overdue and that the CFPB (ultimately) phase out the Qualified Mortgage Patch, subjecting all market participants to the same transparent set of mortgage rules.
On balance, the report is very positive and shows clear support for the types of reforms that have passed the House. However, several sections of the report seem to favor keeping Dodd-Frank-type rules in place.
For instance, page 10 of the report states:
The key elements of the regulatory framework that should be retained through any reform include:
Explicit, appropriately risk-sensitive capital standards;
Supervised stress-testing appropriately tailored based on banking organizations’ complexity;
Explicit, measurable, and transparent liquidity requirements;
Actionable living wills for the largest systemically-important banks; and
Enhanced prudential standards, based on the size and complexity of financial institutions.
Many of these items align perfectly with the Dodd-Frank approach, not the administration’s core principles. Several other policies in the report might make sense because they provide some relief to smaller institutions, but ultimately they could be harmful.
For instance, Treasury makes the following recommendations:
The threshold for participation in the company-run [Dodd-Frank Act stress tests] be raised to $50 billion in total assets (from the current threshold of more than $10 billion);
That Congress amend the $50 billion threshold under Section 165 of Dodd-Frank for the application of enhanced prudential standards;
Changing the threshold for compliance with living will requirements for
bank holding companies from the current threshold of $50 billion to match the revised threshold for application of enhanced prudential standards;
Banking organizations with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets should be entirely exempt from all aspects of the Volcker Rule. A further exemption from the proprietary trading prohibition should be provided for all consolidated banking organizations, regardless of size, that have less than $1 billion in trading assets and trading liabilities and whose trading assets and trading liabilities represent 10 percent or less of total assets.
In the absence of a permanent congressional repeal, or instituting an off-ramp to fully exempt banks, it might make sense to provide temporary relief measures such as these. Ultimately though, it provides little benefit—at great cost—to keep these regulations.
It makes no sense, for example, to force banks to prove they have a plan to stay in business when the economy goes south. They really don’t want to go out of business.
Similarly, policies such as the Volcker Rule provide no particular benefit and ultimately make it more difficult for a bank to diversify its risks. These kinds of rules do not make the system safer.
Even focusing regulatory relief only on smaller banks is problematic. Unless such reforms acknowledge that the principle behind the regulation is flawed, implementing relief in this manner sends a clear message to remain small and undiversified.
While small, narrowly focused banks sound harmless, the U.S. has a disastrous history with those types of banks. Both the Great Depression bank failures and the Savings and Loan crisis consisted of mostly small, undiversified banks. Small banks are not automatically safer.
Regardless, the Treasury’s report is another positive step toward strengthening financial markets, ending bailouts, and protecting taxpayers.
The report includes many specific reforms idea that are consistent with the administration’s seven core principles, particularly empowering Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth.
Dodd–Frank relies on the federal government to plan, protect, and prop up the financial system, all of which are contrary to the administration’s principles. The approach in Dodd-Frank is counter to the principles that support free enterprise and maximize individual wealth.
The House has done its job to reform financial regulations, and the Trump administration is practically begging for the chance to sign a reform package based on the CHOICE Act.
Now, it’s up to Senate.
Many observers think that the CHOICE Act will not go anywhere in the Senate because Democrats won’t support the bill.
The Senate’s 60-vote threshold is a real hurdle, but Senate Republicans can still pass key sections of the CHOICE Act—perhaps even the entire bill—with only the 52-seat majority they currently hold.
They can do so through the budget reconciliation process.
Senate rules require that budget bill provisions be “germane” to budgeting and avoid increasing the deficit. Does the CHOICE Act meet those requirements?
Yes, indeed it does. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated “that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $24.1 billion over the 2017-2027 period.”
The CBO report is a green light for the Senate. It’s now up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Banking Chairman Mike Crapo to push for reforms that will strengthen financial markets, end bailouts, and protect taxpayers. (For more from the author of “What the Treasury’s New Recommendations Would Mean for Financial Reform” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Seal_on_United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury_on_the_Building.jpg12001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-16 22:50:032017-06-16 22:55:13What the Treasury’s New Recommendations Would Mean for Financial Reform
Everyone is talking about the latest bombshell report from The Washington Post. Five anonymous sources with knowledge of Robert Mueller’s independent Russian probe claim that President Trump is now being investigated for obstruction of justice.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that this is the top story of the day – Memeorandum has collected more than 50 news and commentary outlets that have addressed the story. And it is a development that can radically alter the political environment in the country, to the point where the impeachment question steps out of the daydreams of partisan Democrats … and enters the realm of possibility.
“The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation,” the Post writes.
The FBI was previously conducting a counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and collusion between Trump’s team and the Russian government. Impeachment was absolutely out of the question. But because obstruction of justice is a criminal charge, Mueller is now leading a criminal investigation into President Trump’s actions that began shortly after former FBI Director James Comey was fired.
From the Post:
The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more than just a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.
Top administration officials to be questioned include Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, NSA chief Mike Rogers, and former NSA Deputy Administrator Richard Ledgett.
Law professor Alan Dershowitz says it is unlikely any investigation leads to a Trump’s indictment.
“The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn’t answer the two basic questions,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job being the head of the executive branch?”
“I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no.”
A criminal indictment is a matter of law enforcement. As the chief executive, the president of the United States has the ultimate authority on matters of law enforcement. Therefore, he is within his constitutional right to refuse to indict himself. (That’s Dershowitz’s point.)
Separate from the law enforcement issue, however, is a political question – that of impeachment. If the investigation reveals that President Trump obstructed justice, the House of Representatives can initiate impeachment proceedings and, if the House votes to impeach the president, the U.S. Senate will hold a trial.
That the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would vote to begin impeachment proceedings against a president from their own party is almost unthinkable. Almost. With elections every two years, the House is the legislative body closest to the people. That means the House is most responsive to the political environment of the country. Popular sentiment seems to be drifting in support of impeachment for President Trump, with almost half of Americans supporting impeachment, if a recent survey from Public Policy Polling is to be believed.
If by this time next year the criminal investigation into President Trump has turned up evidence of obstruction, bet on House Republicans to keep one eye on President Trump’s approval ratings and the other on November elections. Is it beyond feckless Republicans, who have already betrayed the president’s campaign agenda, to turn on the president if there is evidence of wrongdoing … but public sentiment against the administration puts GOP congressional majorities in danger?
Should the Democratic Party retake the House of Representatives in 2018, it is all but guaranteed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi satiates the rabid Democratic base by holding a vote to impeach Trump. An impeachment trial in the Senate would also be politically advantageous for the Democrats, as they will vigorously campaign against any Republican senator who refuses to vote to convict the president. If impeachment doesn’t remove Trump from office after that, the 2020 election surely will.
Long story short: The news of this investigation is a disaster for the Trump administration and the Republican Party. Even under the best-case scenario for the administration, in which the investigation leads to absolutely nothing, the inevitable leaks of the probe’s developments will continue to distract from any accomplishments President Trump may have. Distract how? Look at the messaging from the president Thursday.
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
By responding to the Washington Post report, President Trump invites discussion of the investigation rather than discussion of his policies. Notice how Thursday’s executive order on apprenticeships has been buried by coverage of the Mueller investigation?
There is only one way out for the president and the Republican Party — the political environment needs to change. And the surest way to achieve that is to rally the Republican majorities in Congress back to the fundamental issues of Trump’s winning presidential campaign.
Restore the filibuster in the Senate to break the Democrats’ obstruction. Pass a full repeal of Obamacare and free-market health care reforms. Get the economy growing again with big anti-regulatory bills like the REINS Act. Have Congress use its Article III powers to rein in the courts and bring national security back to the forefront.
Public opinion will respond favorably to good governance, and good governance will persuade voters to keep Republicans in power … and end the question of impeaching President Trump once and for all. (For more from the author of “Mueller’s Trump Investigation Could Prove Fatal for Trump and GOP” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald-trump-secim-840x420.jpg8531280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-15 22:13:162017-06-18 01:27:27New Revelations Show Mueller is a Disaster, Intends Investigation to Kill Trump AND GOP
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is considering suing the New York Times for libel after the Times published a Wednesday editorial falsely accusing her of inciting Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011 even though it has long been established that there has never been any evidence whatsoever linking Palin to the attempted assassination.
Palin tweeted that a journalist suggested to her on Thursday that the Times “has fulfilled the two criteria for libeling a public figure”—a reckless disregard for the truth and malice.
She said she is “talking to attorneys this AM and exploring options.”
(1/2) @nytopinion – commonsense suggestion by a journalist, am talking to attorneys this AM and exploring options. BTW, wonder.. pic.twitter.com/jACvxwUBZH
After James T. Hodgkinson, who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and hated President Donald Trump and Republicans, shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and targeted other Republicans as they were practicing for their Congressional baseball game, the Times decided to publish an editorial on Wednesday in which it falsely blamed Palin for the assassination attempt on Giffords:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
(Read more from “Sarah Palin Considering Suing New York Times” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8571341834_8a994723b4_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-15 22:11:252017-06-15 22:24:08Sarah Palin Considering Suing New York Times
Oregon became the first U.S. state to allow residents to identify as “nonbinary,” neither male nor female, on their driver licenses and identification cards Thursday in a decision by The Oregon Transportation Commission.
Beginning July 1, Oregonians will be able to choose “X” for sex Instead of “F” or “M” on their licenses and identification cards. Applicants will have to pay replacement or renewal fees.
Transgender and intersex Oregonians say the change validates their identities and makes them safer as they hand over their licenses at restaurants, health clinics and airports. Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles officials say they received little opposition to the change, which they first announced plans to carry out last summer. Of 83 comments, both written and oral, only 12 people opposed the change.
The testimony offered “important insight into some DMV customers that according to one of the witnesses are as common as redheads,” said Tom McClellan, the division administrator for the department. “People didn’t share their testimony. They shared their stories. They told us of their struggles so we would understand the need.” (Read more from “US State Becomes First to Allow Nonbinary on Drivers License” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/9731140727_ba631565d3_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-15 22:10:362017-06-15 22:17:58US State Becomes First to Allow Nonbinary on Drivers License
The power, and sheer hubris of the media – had never been more on display – for those attuned to it, than in that race. To be clear- All the powers that be, the media, the left, the establishment GOP, the “deep state” – as it’s now referred to (those sitting in the bureaucracy taking an active hand against a populist or independent minded candidate), all had been taken off guard, and reacted with the full might of their power, doing all they could to sink his campaign in the general election. And, with some help from his own missteps and those of his well meaning staff of honest novices-none of whom, admittedly, had ever been on such a stage, against such seasoned foes- it worked.
