NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery

/0 Comments/in , /by

Modern leftists have a habit of blaming things they don’t like on slavery — like Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) with opponents of Obamacare. Today’s lesson in “but slavery” is The New York Times on the Electoral College. The Times Editorial Board echoes the 2016 leftist narrative that the Electoral College was created to give “slave states” more power.

The notion is plainly not true, nor supported by the historical record. The Electoral College was designed to give smaller states, slave or not, a more equal say in the selection of the executive branch. It is a guardian against mob rule by pure democracy. It has worked well — remarkably so this year.

Here’s what the Times Editorial Board had to say:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

There is so much wrong with this statement. It is hard to know where to begin. The first fact, ignored by the Times, is the vast majority of states were slave states at the time of the Constitution. Only five of the thirteen states — Vermont did not join the Union until 1791 — had fully or partially abolished slavery by law at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Those states were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Of those states, only Massachusetts had abolished slavery completely. The other four enacted laws gradually abolishing slavery, and there were chattel slaves in those states until the 1800s.

Contrary to what the Times would have you believe, only one of the 13 states present at the Constitutional Convention was a true “free state.”

The abhorrent 3/5 provision had more to do with apportioning seats in the House of Representatives than the Electoral College.

The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

This fact doesn’t fit the leftist narrative stating, “Everything that is bad in the United States is because of slavery.” Which, of course, is a lazy argument. The Times Editorial Board further explains what they really want, which is the National Popular Vote initiative. By calling the Electoral College racist, they think they can get their way. How did that work for them this election?

Unfortunately for the Times, the real reason the Electoral College exists is the exact problem they have with it. The Electoral College was a solution to stop the country from devolving into a mobocracy. The founders studied history and realized that previous pure democracies descended into majority mob rule. That’s why the Electoral College is there. It was to give smaller states (remember all of the states but Massachusetts were slave states at the time) a more equal say in the government. It is the same reason why there is a U.S. Senate and not a unicameral legislature found in many Westminster parliamentary systems.

The Times asks:

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?

The answer is because we are a federal republic of semi-sovereign independent states. The federal government was never meant to supplant the state government as a primary governing body. It was envisioned to provide for the common defense and ease interstate commerce. It was, by and large, a mutual defense and free trade pact. People in different states, while all American, have different values. The Electoral College and the Senate ensure those values have a seat at the federal table.

In effect, the Electoral College is the furthest thing from racism. It is a most elegant solution for representing the rights of the minority. (For more from the author of “NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Steal the Playbook: What Conservatives Lawmakers Should Learn from Open Borders Loons

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the fervent weeks leading up to the inauguration, Democrats are doing everything in their rapidly waning power to “Trump-proof” what parts of government they can before the president-elect takes office. While many of these actions are, as Alexander Hamilton would put it, “contrary to the tenor of the Constitution,” they offer an example (at least in spirit) conservative policymakers in red states ought to imitate in the months and years ahead.

In addition to President Obama stacking federal commissions with last-minute appointees (among them, a former attorney to a notable cop killer), cities across the United States are pondering and, in some cases, creating defense funds for illegal immigrants.

Local officials in Los Angeles city and county gave the go-ahead for a multi-million dollar defense fund to fight back against a president-elect who won with a strong border-security message.

“We’re trying to find a common solution to whatever threats the federal government throws our way,” City Council spokesman Fredy Ceja (D) told the LA Times. “We are telling the next administration and Congress: If you want to get them, you have to go through us,” said California Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon (D) earlier this month in Sacramento.

State officials are also planning to go toe to toe with a federal administration that doesn’t look like it will share the deep-blue state’s positions on the climate change issue.

“We’re ready to fight,” Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco earlier this month.

Local officials in other major cities are also planning similar strategies on the immigration front. According to an Associated Press report, the city of Chicago is planning a $1.3 million defense fund, while New York City is “mulling” a similar public-private fund that would build on the city’s public defender program.

“We need to be able to be able to stand by people who are fearful,” Chicago Mayor, and former White House chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel told his city council last week.

These efforts are directly in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution in both form and spirit. While the founders envisioned a robust federal system with clear delineations between state and federal power, one of the few jobs specifically given to Congress was that to control immigration and “establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

This should really be a no-brainer, folks. The states are united under the same national defense, currency, social safety net, etc., with permeable borders between them; it would make sense that decisions regarding how immigrants can join the body politic be decided at the top level.

In contrast, the Obama administration last week issued a rule in another 11th-hour power grab to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood. So, as Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz pointed out:

“The same liberals who champion sanctuary cities and suggest that Congress cannot force states to simply cooperate with federal immigration law — now believe that HHS can force states to fund a private organization under investigation for harvesting baby organs! Where are the sanctuaries for taxpayers who don’t want to fund murder?”

The truly frustrating thing here is less that Democrats are doing exactly what they should be expected to do (albeit unconstitutionally) in playing the part of the opposition. Rather, it is that these local officials have displayed the kind of fighting spirit that conservatives in red states have needed for decades — especially the past eight years.

Some will say that sort of thing and need is in the past; the tables have turned and the shoe is on the other foot – at least in regard to the White House. And there’s some truth to that. With Trump and company taking the helm of the federal leviathan, state and local government have a much better chance of reclaiming territory than they ever would have under Obama. But POTUS 44 was and is far from the only existential threat to the federal order.

Even if the president-elect turns out to be the most state-friendly president since Thomas Jefferson, the overreach committed on a daily basis by the federal judiciary will still be present. And America’s oligarchy of black-robed jurists will be waiting, gavel in hand, to undo conservative policies as they come — regardless of whether that was the framers’ intention.

Imagine for just a moment if state and local officials in the red states and counties were as adamant about fighting back against federal usurpations with the same fervor and unflinching orthodoxy that liberal politicians in California, New York, and Chicago are channeling against immigration enforcement.

Not only would it be good for their constituents and their sovereignty, but the “conservative” officials would also have the Constitution on their side. (For more from the author of “Steal the Playbook: What Conservatives Lawmakers Should Learn from Open Borders Loons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left’s Plans to Disrupt the Presidential Inauguration

/0 Comments/in , /by

Although the paid violent protests have subsided since the presidential election, hard left wing groups are rallying to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Some websites are actively recruiting demonstrators.

One, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), claims on its Facebook page that over 20,000 people are committed to a demonstration on Pennsylvania Avenue the day of the inauguration. Apparently composed of former Bernie Sanders supporters, the group calls for “a real political revolution.” They want to build a “grassroots movement against war, militarism, racism, anti-immigrant scapegoating and neoliberal capitalism’s assault against workers’ living standards and the environment.”

The group might rally hundreds of thousands of protesters, Fox News reported. A spokesman for Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department said they were preparing for at least 30,000.

Shut Down the Inauguration

DisruptJ20 takes a harder position. Like all hard left activities now, while any group can put together a professional-looking website and rally hundreds or thousands of people on Facebook and Twitter, the group DISRUPTJ20 has an impressive web presence. Who’s really behind it and how much practical support they have can’t be known. The group calls for a general strike on inauguration day.

The homepage of their website declares, “We’re bringing widespread civil resistance to the streets of Washington, DC through protests, direct actions, and even parties and we want you there with us.” On the group’s Contact Us page, they explain that they’re “planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations — the inauguration parade, the Inaugural balls, you name it. We also planning to paralyze the city itself.”

Answering a question about their public planning, the site stresses “the difference between public events and ones where you do not want the cops to be warned about you coming.” They urge people to join and add, “We have always been public about our intent to shut down this inauguration.” They claim they’ve already been approached by the Secret Service, MPD (Metropolitan Police Department), Park Service, and Park Police.

The group does not like Donald Trump. “Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny,” they say. “He is the champion of neo-nazis and white Nationalists, of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email. He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war.”

(For more from the author of “The Left’s Plans to Disrupt the Presidential Inauguration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

For eight years, we have watched Islamic terrorist attacks take place around the world and on our own shores, with the bloody, gory death toll rising by the day (roughly 30,000 attacks since 9/11). And for eight years, we have listened carefully as our president addressed these horrific acts, studiously avoiding the words that so needed to be spoken: “Islamic terror” or “radical Islam.”

Instead, President Obama and his surrogates spoke of “extremism” or “terrorism” — without any reference to Islam — or, worse still, of “workplace violence.”

Mr. Obama and his team would not even identify Nidal Malik Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood mass murderer, as an Islamic terrorist, despite the fact that he identifies as a Soldier of Allah, was mentored by a Muslim terrorist (Anwar Al-Alaki, whom we killed in a drone strike in Yemen), and slaughtered our soldiers in cold blood while shouting out Allah’s name. No, this was an instance of workplace violence. (It was not until 2015 that Obama referenced the attack as “terrorist,” but still refused to mention the word “Islamic.”)

This is not just perverse, it is utterly irresponsible, since it fails to acknowledge that we are not just combatting people, we are combatting an ideology, and if we cannot even name that ideology, let alone describe it, we certainly cannot fight it.

And so yesterday, in the aftermath of the horrific truck attack at the Christmas market in Germany, the Obama administration (not the president himself, who is apparently on his final Christmas break) issued a statement, saying, “The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to have been a terrorist attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, Germany, which has killed and wounded dozens.”

In stark contrast, President-elect Trump stated:

Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.

In one short statement, Trump has done what Obama failed to do in eight years.

1) He identified “Islamist terrorists” by name, directly associating them with ISIS.

2) He specified that their victims have often been Christians, here during the Christmas season, and at other times, in their places of worship.

3) He declared war on these terrorists, asking “all freedom-loving partners” to join him in the battle, thereby opening the door to so-called moderate Islamic nations to join us in the battle. (Would Saudi Arabia fit in this category? How about Pakistan? Yemen? Syria? Libya?)

4) He used the term “global jihad,” again with specific reference to Islamic terror.

The significance of this can hardly be exaggerated.

The UK Mirror reminds us that “Europe was warned that ISIS planned terror attacks at Christmas markets 25 days before the Berlin atrocity.”

Yes, “The attack came after intelligence agencies warned in November that terrorists are planning a wave of Christmas attacks throughout Europe, targeting shopping areas and crowded market-places to maximise casualties. The main groups plotting Yuletide blood-letting are Islamic State and al-Qaeda and UK intelligence agencies and counter-terror police are on high-alert.”

ISIS has now claimed responsibility for the Berlin massacre, which means that we have: 1) Islamic terrorists stating that they will launch Christmas attacks against Christians in Europe; 2) a terror attack taking place against Christians at a Christmas market in Germany; and 3) ISIS taking responsibility for that attack.

Yet it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who has connected the dots (really, these dots are all but connected for anyone with eyes to see), which is one reason that many Americans said No to four (or eight) more years of Obama policies (in the person of Hillary Clinton) and Yes to dramatic change in the person of Donald Trump.

It is true that his tweets can be reckless and unpresidential and that not all his saber-rattling is helpful. But it is also true that the world needs leaders like Trump who will call out Islamic terror by name, which is why right-leaning, populist movements are growing around the world — and it is not because Americans and Europeans and others are suddenly becoming “Islamophobic.”

No, the problem lies with radical, murderous, terroristic Islam and the failure of these governments to address it head on, as the leaders appear to be more concerned with offending “moderate Muslims” than with protecting their own citizens — including unarmed children, women, and men.

The time for that is over. (For more from the author of “‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook’s Crackdown on Fake News May Censor Conservative News

/0 Comments/in , /by

Facing criticism recently over the surge in fake news on Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a new plan to crack down on fake news stories appearing on the site. The social media giant will be asking users to report fake news stories by clicking a button next to the story. Zuckerberg said in a post on his page, “if many people report a story, then we’ll send it to third-party fact checking organizations.”

If the journalists at those sites, which include the Associated Press, deem it fake, “you’ll see a flag on the story saying it has been disputed, and that story may be less likely to show up in News Feed.” The flag cautions the user against sharing the story. Adam Mosseri, the Facebook VP of News Feed, added, “Once a story is flagged, it can’t be made into an ad and promoted, either.”

Facebook faced severe criticism last spring for cutting out conservative news from its Trending box. There is a real danger that left-leaning Facebook users will report conservative articles as fake, and journalists who lean to the left will affirm the reports.

Troubling Fact-Checking Sites

Mossieri said they will be using the list of fact-checking sites that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles.The Poynter organization is funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros and other organizations on the left. The sites included so far are the left-leaning Snopes, Politicker, The Associated Press and ABC News. No doubt more left-leaning sites will be added.

Conservatives have reason for concern. Snopes labeled as false the story that the death of DNC staffer Seth Rich was connected to the Clintons. However, the police had not yet issued a report, nor had the autopsy been released. How does Snopes know before the police complete their investigation that there is no connection?

Politifact declared the recent #Pizzagate controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta false, as did other left-leaning fact-checking sites. Some elements of the long, sordid story were accurate, but the sites didn’t bother to mention those.

Facebook has 1.8 billion members, who spend an average of 50 minutes a day on the site. If Facebook wishes to be fair, it should ensure that the fact checkers it uses are balanced between the right and the left.

Alternatively, there are plenty of other ways to deal with fake news, such as prominently showing the name of the news organization next to an article, or requiring users to opt in if they want to see posts from fake news sites. (For more from the author of “Facebook’s Crackdown on Fake News May Censor Conservative News” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Special Committee Investigating Russia’s Cyberattacks Could Do

/0 Comments/in , /by

A bipartisan group of senators is pressing for the creation of a special panel—known as a select committee—to investigate and provide the definitive account of Russian cyberattacks on the U.S. political system.

Sens. John McCain. R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., along with incoming Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called for a select committee on cybersecurity in a bipartisan letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

McConnell, so far, has resisted the idea of appointing a unique investigative body, preferring to go through the normal process where already existing committees with jurisdiction over cybersecurity issues, like the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee, conduct their own probes.

“We don’t need to set up a special committee to do what we [can do] through regular order,” McConnell said Monday night on Kentucky Educational Television.

Supporters of the select committee say Russia’s actions are extraordinary enough to warrant an all-encompassing investigation.

“Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American,” the bipartisan group of senators wrote on Sunday to McConnell. “Cybersecurity is the ultimate cross-jurisdictional challenge, and we must take a comprehensive approach to meet this challenge effectively.”

McConnell would need to allow the vote on a select committee to go forward, although senators could force a vote on the floor.

According to media reports, the intelligence community, including the CIA and FBI, have concluded that hackers associated with Russia broke into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, and leaked emails during the presidential campaign.

The CIA recently told Congress that Russia tried to help President-elect Donald Trump win. A new leaked memo shows the FBI director backs that assessment. Russia hackers also tried to hack the Republican National Committee, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The procedural debate is important because forming a select committee would raise the public profile of Russia’s actions at a time when Trump continues to reject the conclusions of intelligence reports.

The Daily Signal below explains the many questions surrounding a potential select committee.

What Is a Select Committee and How Is One Formed?

Congress usually forms a select committee to examine a specific issue for a limited time, but they are rarely created. When they are, these special panels tackle issues that span the different coverage areas of the normal committee structure.

“You can imagine if lots of committees looked into this, you would get different answers and interpretations of evidence, so there is a lot of value in having a select committee that produces the definitive account,” Susan Hennessey, a fellow in national security in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Members and senators in either chamber of Congress could introduce a resolution creating a select committee. The House and Senate could also authorize a select committee together, but it’s more likely to be handled by one chamber individually.

On Monday, Politico reported that Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., plans to introduce a bill that, if passed, would mandate a new select Senate committee on cybersecurity.

A stand-alone proposal in the Senate creating a select committee would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster attempt. The president cannot veto the imposition of a select committee.

Select committees are made up of lawmakers from both parties chosen by leadership.

What Would a Select Committee on Cybersecurity Do?

Lawmakers spell out the specific duties of a select committee in the resolution mandating its creation.

“The role could be framed as a committee just investigating Russian cyberattacks or it could be framed more broadly and be about foreign cyberattacks conducted on the U.S. since a specified date,” said Jordan Tama of American University, who specializes in foreign and national security policymaking.

Schumer, McCain, Graham, and Reed, indicated to McConnell that the panel they propose would focus not only on Russian cyber behavior but also potential threats from other countries, including China and Iran.

The senators recommended that such a committee also develop “comprehensive recommendations and, as necessary, new legislation to modernize our nation’s laws, governmental organization, and related practices to meet this challenge.”

Typically, however, select committees do not have direct legislative authority, meaning they cannot issue legislation. They usually devise a report with recommendations for action, and lawmakers could use the findings to separately introduce legislation outside the committee structure.

A select committee does have the power to issue subpoenas, and they would likely hold high-profile news conferences and hearings, bringing more attention to the Russian hacking issue.

Supporters of a major investigation say that would be the biggest role of a select committee—credibly telling the story of what happened to a still skeptical public.

A new Politico/Morning Consult poll revealed that just one-third of Americans say they believe Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election.

“Many Americans still don’t believe that the Russians influenced our elections, and vast majorities for Russians don’t believe it,” Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. “You need firm attribution before taking steps against Russian individuals or agencies.”

What Other Select Committees Has Congress Authorized?

The most prominent recent example is the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Democrats have dismissed that committee as partisan.

Select committees have a longer history in the Senate where dozens have been formed, according to CNN, including ones probing the Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, and the Ku Klux Klan.

The 9/11 Commission, set up to provide the “complete account” of the Sept. 11 attacks, is perhaps the most recognized congressionally-authorized investigation. However, an independent commission is different than a select committee in significant ways.

The 9/11 Commission included bipartisan members who were not in elected office at the time, but they had previous legislative and executive experience.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has led a chorus in her caucus calling for an independent commission into Russia’s actions this election. Republicans so far are not supporting that effort.

Does the Trump Administration Have to Follow the Committee’s Findings?

Trump has downplayed the Russian hacks so far, and if he maintains that stance, he could clash with Republicans in Congress if they participate in a select committee that proposes actions against the Kremlin.

“The president is not bound by the findings, nor does he have to agree with it,” Hennessey said. “To the extent the committee’s report includes classified information, he does have some control over what can be made public.”

Tama said Trump could also limit the degree to which the executive branch cooperates with a select committee investigation.

“With an investigation, the bigger, more direct conflict is whether Trump will allow or encourage executive branch officials to cooperate with the investigation,” Tama said. “Any congressional investigation can be made more complicated if the president is not cooperating either directly or implicitly by saying he doesn’t want the executive branch to cooperate.”

Reince Priebus, White House chief of staff, suggested Sunday that Trump will accept Russia’s role in the hacking if the intelligence agencies draft a report with consensus agreement.

“I think he would accept the conclusion if they would get together, put out a report, and show the American people they are on the same page,” Priebus said on “Fox News Sunday.” (For more from the author of “What a Special Committee Investigating Russia’s Cyberattacks Could Do” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Breaks Single-Day Record with 78 Pardons

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama granted 153 commutations and 78 pardons Monday, the most individual acts of clemency granted in one day by any president in American history.

The president has now commuted the sentences of 1,176 individuals, including 395 life sentences, and he has pardoned 148 individuals.

“Today’s acts of clemency, and the mercy the president has shown his 1,324 clemency recipients, exemplify his belief that America is a nation of second chances,” Neil Eggleston, Obama’s White House counsel, said in a statement Monday afternoon.

Obama visited the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution in Oklahoma in summer 2015, becoming the first sitting president to visit a federal correctional facility.

The president commuted 46 prisoners that week, and fought for sentencing reform when it came to low-level drug offenders and nonviolent criminals.

The president has the power to commute a sentence or pardon the crime that a citizen is convicted of. A president’s decision to grant clemency is not reviewable and he (she) does not have to give a reason.

Clemency is the overall term for official forgiveness of a violation. A “pardon” wipes out the conviction while a “commutation” leaves the conviction on record, but wipes out the punishment.

“Today’s grants signify the president’s continued commitment to exercising his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office,” Eggleston said. “I expect that the president will issue more grants of both commutations and pardons before he leaves office,” the president’s top lawyer predicted in the statement. (For more from the author of “Obama Breaks Single-Day Record with 78 Pardons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Looks to Bury Aborted Babies Despite Legal Objections from Abortion Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new set of rules in Texas requiring aborted babies to be cremated or buried has prompted a legal battle in the Lone Star State. Pro-abortion groups are attempting to halt the law with a lawsuit, and its implementation has now been delayed by a court order.

The abortion burial measure, which would also apply to miscarriages that happen at hospitals, abortion centers, and other health clinics, was set to go into effect Dec. 19.

The state department of health approved the measure, but it has been delayed until Jan. 6 by a court order.

Advocates for the new law say it is necessary to protect the dignity of life and also public health.

“All human beings deserve to be treated with respect after death,” Marc Rylander, a spokesperson for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said in a statement before the court hearing delaying the measure on baby tissue remains. “To that end, Texas will continue to defend the safety and dignity of the unborn up to and as far as Supreme Court precedent will allow.”

Rylander added:

These new rules simply provide for the humane disposal of fetal tissue instead of sending it to landfills like unwanted trash, as is the abortion industry’s current practice. They do not, in any way, interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. Our office looks forward to proudly defending these commonsense rules in court.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit last week, challenging the required burial for aborted babies.

“The politically-motivated rules are designed to restrict a woman’s right to access safe and legal abortion by increasing both the cost of reproductive health care services and the shame and stigma surrounding abortion and pregnancy loss,” the organization said in a press release.

After the Center for Reproductive Rights sued John Hellerstedt, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks temporarily delayed the implementation of the new rule, ABC News reported. Sparks is expected to decide, after a preliminary hearing on Jan. 3, if the burial rules will go into effect.

“Texas has chosen to dignify the life of the unborn by requiring the humane disposition of fetal tissue,” Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement following the hearing last week. “I am confident in the constitutionality of these rules and look forward to the court upholding their validity by Jan. 6.”

“Medical facilities will be required to either cremate or bury the unborn babies they kill, not contingent on the period of gestation—as opposed to sending the baby’s remains to be incinerated or dumped into a landfill, as most facilities currently do,” The Daily Wire reported on Nov. 29.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission proposed the law in July. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, supported the rule change.

“I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbott said in a fundraising email in July, reported The Texas Tribune.

“Gov. Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,” Ciara Matthews, Abbott’s deputy communications director, said in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal. “For the unborn, the mothers, and the hospital and clinic staff, the governor believes it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life.”

“Further, it is Gov. Abbott’s hope that the Legislature will consider legislation next session to enshrine the new rules into state law,” Matthews added.

The Texas department of health said that the measure could also be effective in stopping the spread of disease.

“While the methods described in the new rules may have a cost, that cost is expected to be offset by costs currently being spent by facilities on disposition for transportation, storage, incineration, steam disinfection, and/or landfill disposal,” Carrie Williams, Texas health department spokesperson, told LifeNews.

Pro-abortion activists are unhappy that the rules could “create more obstacles for people obtaining abortions,” The Dallas Morning News reported.

Critics of the law say burial and cremation costs could get in the way of access to abortion.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement that the law is an “insult to Texas women” and a “new low.”

“This restriction, just like the many before it, all across our nation, does not create any health benefit for women and is strictly designed to limit access to safe, quality abortion care,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said in a statement.

Whole Woman’s Health is part of the lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of multiple health clinics.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, in a press release last week, said the Catholic Church would pay for the burial costs at Catholic cemeteries.

“Catholic cemeteries estimate that their costs will range from $1,500 to $13,000 annually to inter children who die from abortions,” the press release said. “There are more than 50 Catholic cemeteries in the state; the [Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops] also hopes to collaborate with other cemeteries, funeral homes, and mortuaries.”

Abortions and miscarriages that take place at home are exempt from the rules.

Pro-life advocates point out the “humanity” that comes with burying a dead baby.

“It’s no surprise the abortion industry is adamantly opposed to this law. They would rather sell those body parts for money or find some other nonhumanitarian way to dispose of the remains,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, told LifeSiteNews.

“We hope that this law helps our nation to see the humanity of the child in the womb and also helps women who are contemplating abortion to understand more fully the unique gift of a child.”

“What we’re saying is, it needs to be humane, and the mother needs to be given the opportunity to have a say and be informed with what’s happening,” Kristi Hamrick of Americans United for Life says, according to NPR. (For more from the author of “Texas Looks to Bury Aborted Babies Despite Legal Objections from Abortion Groups” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite Conservative Victories in 2016, Assisted Suicide Has Gained Ground

/0 Comments/in , /by

While the nation’s attention has been squarely on President-elect Donald Trump’s win in recent weeks, election night also saw several significant losses for conservatives.

Among these is Colorado’s Proposition 106, known as the End of Life Options Act, which passed by an astounding two-thirds percentage and effectively legalized suicide in that state.

Proposition 106 signals a stark shift in the cultural and legal landscape in one of the nation’s most purple states. Colorado became one of the first two states to legalize marijuana in 2012, and over the past four years, it has been one of the top two states in receiving an influx of young professionals under 40.

Even though local mainstream media and editorial opinions that are not typically conservative came out strongly against the measure, it still passed at the ballot box.

Proposition 106 was carried forward on a palpable cultural perception of “freedom” that is now markedly different from traditional conservative definitions of liberty, which had shaped red states in elections past.

Conservatives and certainly our Founders recognized that liberty is the self-governing right to live and therefore act freely within certain universal moral parameters. But that orthodoxy is now shifting.

Our culture now largely perceives the liberal contention that freedom is the universal ability to live and therefore act outside of any presupposed moral construct.

Freedom, the 2016 progressive agenda says, is not just my right to believe anything, but also my “right” to do literally anything I please, so long as I personally believe my actions are valid.

The year 2016 saw this leap from belief to action (the natural consequence of beliefs) on a bigger scale than arguably any prior year in American history.

From the Obama transgender mandate that told educational institutions they had to allow the supposed “freedom” to act incongruently with one’s actual gender to the rising acceptance of legalized marijuana, the cultural mandate is asserting that freedom means action without moral restraint.

The right to believe whatever one chooses, particularly in a religious context, is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. But even the Supreme Court has never stated that a person has the liberty to act however he or she chooses. Actions are always governed by the rule of law, and this orthodoxy is consistent with American principles of liberty and freedom.

But assisted suicide—the action of deliberately ending one’s own life—quietly became law amid this wave of redefined freedom. The culture is now asserting unrestrained self-identity and unrestricted freedom nonsense, as well as the liberal notion that every person should be “free” to subjectively self-identify his or her own quality of life, even to his or her own objective detriment.

This is not legitimate freedom or liberty. This is redefining the value Americans have always placed on genuine freedom and liberty. Once we frame liberty with a broad brush that any action—even self-selected suicide—is permissible, we lose the true moral definition of freedom, and perhaps we lose freedom altogether.

While Colorado is not the first state to pass assisted suicide (as of 2016, five states have legalized assisted death), Proposition 106 does not place any restrictions or safeguards against “doctor shopping” or encouraging insurance companies (who could providing kickback incentives to doctors) to push cost-effective provisions in aiding dying rather than costly lifelong medical care.

Once the law grants this “freedom” to subjectively choose the value of one’s life and when it should end, the law becomes meaningless to restrain certain harmful acts and to protect people from those acts.

The rule of law has always been used to impose morality upon society and the individual, under the basic premise that certain actions are universally wrong and harmful to society. This is why we have a criminal code that prohibits certain behaviors, which is society’s expression of objective values and morality.

When the law fails to serve as the civil mechanism for preserving and protecting true liberty through moral restraint, the law then loses this inherent legitimacy and important governmental function.

The Founders recognized in the Declaration of Independence that objective truth exists, and that fundamental human rights (including life and liberty) come from an objective source—our creator. Assisted death expressly contradicts this truth by giving people the ability to subjectively determine—and fully deny—the value of their own lives.

It is often said that politics is downstream from culture, and our culture is redefining the moral virtues of freedom and liberty. Conservatives must not ignore the significant losses in 2016 (though thankfully few), but rather engage at the cultural level, while also keeping active in politics and law. (For more from the author of “Despite Conservative Victories in 2016, Assisted Suicide Has Gained Ground” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Ambassador to Turkey Gunned down ‘for Aleppo.’ What’s next for Turkish-Russian Relations?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russia and Turkey have come a long way over the past year.

In November 2015, the Turkish Air Force blew a Russian fighter jet out of the sky. And the countries were (and continue to be) at great odds over the civil war in Syria. Over the past year, however, relations between the two countries have rapidly improved. Their successful detente was illustrated by the Russian ambassador’s speaking engagement at a photo exhibit’s opening ceremony in the Turkish capital of Ankara.

Today, however, Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was delivering remarks, when he was assassinated by a lone assailant who has since been identified as 22-year-old Turkish police officer Mevlut Mert Altintas. The off-duty officer reportedly shouted, “Allahu akbar! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria!”

“After shooting the ambassador, the gunman climbed to the second floor of the same building and a 15-minute shootout with police ensued before he was killed, Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported,” the AP reports.

Now, where do we go from here?

Take him at his word?

The gunman’s actions and rhetoric suggest he was motivated by the Russian government’s role and action in Syria’s civil war. It should be noted that he did not attack the stunned innocent bystanders at the exhibit after striking down the Russian ambassador.

Was this a mere act of revenge, or something much more?

Was the shooter a jihadist?

Pro-government sources in Turkey are alleging that shooter could have been tied to Al Nusra, an ally of al-Qaeda that is operating in Syria. But there appears to be no proof of any substantial ties thus far.

What is the state media saying?

Observers may want to check in with the state-run media outlets in both Moscow and Ankara, as the media censors often reflect the official government stance on important issues.

Blame Gulen?

The Turkish government, often without proof, frequently takes to blaming Gulenists — followers of Fethullah Gulen, a popular cleric who now lives in exile in America — for terrorist attacks or any other negative event that happens inside the country.

Most notably, after a failed July coup attempt, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan blamed Gulen for inciting the attempted overthrow. Yet, he never provided any evidence that Gulen was involved.

And right on cue, the mayor of Ankara has alleged Gulen is to blame for Andrey Karlov’s assassination.

Blame America/the West?

Nothing unites two adversaries like some good old-fashioned anti-American conspiracies, which are known to be rife in both Turkey and Russia.

Katehon, a Russian think tank that promotes extreme anti-American views, has called the assassination a “typical CIA operation” meant to sow discord between Russia and Turkey.

Additionally, a Kremlin representative has blamed the attack on the “secret services” of a “NATO country.”

Syria

Will this incident worsen the ever-increasing sectarian chaos in Syria? Just before the assassination, Russia had finally agreed to pause its military campaigns in Aleppo and let select civilians evacuate from the area. Does this latest incident mean the deal is off? (For more from the author of “Russian Ambassador to Turkey Gunned down ‘for Aleppo.’ What’s next for Turkish-Russian Relations?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.