Hillary Clinton Breaks Her Silence on FBI Announcement

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton finally spoke out Monday about the FBI’s announcement Friday that it is revisiting the investigation into her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state because of newly discovered emails.

“There is no case here,” she said at a rally in Kent Ohio.

“I’m sure a lot of you may be asking what this new email story is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election with no evidence of any wrongdoing with just days to go,” Clinton said to her supporters. “That’s a good question.”

The new emails emerged from the FBI’s investigation into allegations that former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) sent illicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. Weiner is the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and the two shared a computer.

Although Abedin served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff in the State Department and is vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, Clinton referred to her as “one of my staffers” Monday.

“Now they apparently want to look at emails of one of my staffers, and by all means, they should look at them,” she said.

Clinton continued, “And I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year. There is no case here.”

Her campaign released a video seeking to downplay the FBI announcement, and it quickly went viral, reaching more than 1.4 million views on Facebook.

Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, tried to persuade voters not to be swayed by the FBI announcement. “The more information that has come out, the more overblown this all seems,” he said. “You’re probably just as puzzled and outraged as we are.”

Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, attempted to put a positive spin on the FBI investigation.

“It has kind of revved up some enthusiasm, a little bit of righteous indignation and righteous anger. It’s revved it up a bit,” Kaine said Sunday in Michigan.

On Sunday, Republican nominee Donald Trump tried to make the most of the situation at an event in Las Vegas.

“Huma. They just found a lot of them. We never thought we were going to say thank you to Anthony Weiner,” he said.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, has confirmed that there will be no changes to Abedin’s duties.

“She’s played a central and vital role in this campaign and she continues to do that,” he said. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Breaks Her Silence on FBI Announcement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Romney Making Campaign Stop in Arizona for GOP Candidate

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will make a rare campaign appearance in Mesa, Ariz., on Thursday in support of another former GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Romney, who lost to President Obama in 2012, will try to help McCain win a sixth term in the Senate.

The GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee is being opposed by Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.

A recent Monmouth University poll found McCain leading Kirkpatrick by 10 points.

The poll showed McCain with 50 percent support against 40 percent for Kirkpatrick and 4 percent for Green Party candidate Gary Swing.

“McCain is sitting on a decent lead, but it’s worth noting that he has won all five of his previous Senate races by more than 20 points,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

The poll showed McCain leads Kirkpatrick 56 percent to 34 percent among white voters, but trails her 53 percent to 39 percent among non-white voters.

Despite the fact that the senator has kept his distance from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, the Monmouth poll found Trump supporters favoring McCain with 79 percent to 9 percent for Kirkpatrick. Supporters of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton favor Kirkpatrick, 77 percent to 19 percent.

The poll also noted that 53 percent of respondents approve of the job McCain has done in Washington, while 39 percent disapprove.

The most recent YouGov/CBS News poll showed McCain leading Kirkpatrick 43 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of the voters undecided and 8 percent preferring another candidate.

Romney, who has largely avoided the campaign trail this year after his much-publicized antipathy toward Trump, went to Arizona in December on behalf of McCain.

“John McCain has been a strong leader in the United States Senate and a dedicated representative for the state of Arizona, making important contributions to our service members, veterans and families,” Romney said at the time.

“John’s deep knowledge of national security issues and experience helping American veterans is unmatched. We need advocates like John to fight against President Obama’s failed policies and get this country back on track,” he said then. (For more from the author of “Romney Making Campaign Stop in Arizona for GOP Candidate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Homeless Trump Supporter Attacked by Pro-Clinton Mob

There’s a toxic myth in the culture that Christians and other pro-lifers need to debunk. Let’s call it the Seamless Snuggie, since it makes so many people so very comfortable. The Seamless Snuggie teaches:

The Left is the voice of compassion and empathy toward the vulnerable.

The Right is more attached to abstract rules than to concrete human beings.

So the Left is willing to trash abstractions such as property rights and national borders, for the sake of protecting the weak. The Right pushes back, defending the ideas which it cares about more than people.

However, the Left has a soft spot when it comes to sexual freedom, which gives it a blind spot on abortion. It misses the fact that the unborn are vulnerable and deserve protection.

The Right, because of its fetish for abstract rules (such as “Thou Shalt Not Murder”), opposes abortion. It is right, but only by accident.

So the Left is a much better candidate for protecting unborn children than the Right. We need to keep on electing pro-choice leftists like Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, but quietly try to help them see that the unborn deserve protection — just like illegal immigrants, Ivy grads with unpayable student loans, and transgender athletes.

Freedom Begins Below the Belt

Who wears the Seamless Snuggie? Bishops like Blaise Cupich of Chicago, members of groups like Democrats for Life, and all those “social justice Christians” out there who still insist that they are really pro-life, because while their candidates do want to keep abortion legal and taxpayer-funded for all nine months of pregnancy and for any reason including sex selection and killing the handicapped — they’re willing to offer bigger government programs for pregnant women. Of course, they want bigger government programs everywhere and for everyone, with the state taking ever greater control over every part of our lives — except in the bedroom. Freedom begins below the belt, and ends just above the thighs. So maybe the Seamless Snuggie is more like an astronaut diaper.

But we saw the Snuggie ripped off this weekend, trampled on the ground, and left in shreds on the streets of Hollywood Boulevard. Watch this video, which shows a mob of Hillary Clinton supporters confronting an elderly, homeless woman — who was holding up a Trump sign, trying to protect his “star” on the Walk of Fame from further vandalism. They surround her, assault, knock her down and taunt her. (WARNING: THIS VIDEO IS DISTURBING AND CONTAINS PROFANITY.)

The leftist who originally posted this video was part of the mob, and he put it on Youtube because he was proud of it, as Gateway Pundit reports. That site preserved his original commentary, which sneered at the beaten homeless woman — comments he later took down, before making the video private. His comments were seconded over and over again by anonymous cowards willing to gloat on the Internet over the violent assault on a homeless old lady, an American citizen who was stating her political views.

Life Unworthy of Life

This is the face of the Left today: Intolerant without being coherent, self-righteous without any rectitude, self-satisfied but insatiable. The Left wants to be seen as the face of compassion, but in fact there’s a long list of real human beings whom it has decided are beyond the pale of empathy — people who are, in the words of a long-ago German socialist party, “lives unworthy of life”:

Unborn children, especially those who are mentally handicapped or whose parents are poor.

The “deplorables” who reject liberal pieties on ethnicity, sex, and religion — who make up one fourth of the population, according to candidate Clinton.

Believers in the “middle ages dictatorship” of the Catholic church, according to email exchanges with Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Blue collar Americans who fear the impact of massive low-skill immigration on their neighborhoods and tax bills.

College professors who tell students to act like draft-age adults, and stop pretending that harmless Halloween costumes make them “feel unsafe.”

Cops risking their necks in neighborhoods pulverized by the Sexual Revolution and the welfare state

Nuns who don’t want to pay for the abortion pill

Christian bakers, florists, and college officials who object to same-sex marriage — a practice which both the Clintons and the Obamas claimed to oppose eight years ago.

Religious believers whose stance on unborn life threatens the “fundamental rights” of women, as Hillary told the United Nations, so it will “have to change.”

These are the people whom the Right wants to protect, along with everyone else, by insisting on “abstractions” like individual rights, human dignity, the natural law, and all the rest of those precious discoveries that our ancestors made and defended with their lives — from the Magna Carta through the American Revolution, from D-Day through the fight against ISIS. It is these precious safeguards, not smart phones or Netflix, that separate us from blood-crazed mobs that gloat over public executions, or theocratic rapists who cite sacred texts as pretexts for turning pre-teen girls into sex slaves. The Left has been assaulting such mores as hypocritical fictions for decades, and now we see what results: Naked, vicious tribalism, hatred, and blood in the streets.

I am the Image of God

The pro-life mission I Am Whole Life affirms the human dignity of every precious human being, from the persecuted Nubans of Sudan to the homeless in America’s city streets. I Am Whole Life conducts the “Imago Dei” outreach, sharing food, drug-store essentials, and t-shirts that remind these Americans down on their luck, or worn down by mental illness: “I am the image of God.” Here’s a video from one of those missions, conducted on the same street where that homeless American was attacked.

Anyone who can’t see that homeless people, unborn children, and people who disagree with their politics are really human beings too, with the same rights from the same God, has no place in public office. (For more from the author of “Homeless Trump Supporter Attacked by Pro-Clinton Mob” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republican-Appointed Supreme Court Justices May Disappoint, but Democratic Appointees Will Horrify

One of the biggest reasons Christian conservatives are voting for Donald Trump is the make-up of the Supreme Court, and the reasoning is simple: If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will nominate between two and four new justices, and that could have a disastrous effect on the nation for the next 20-40 years, threatening our fundamental liberties and making it virtually impossible to overturn Roe v. Wade for a generation or more.

But are these concerns exaggerated?

Dr. Benjamin L. Corey, who blogs as a committed (and formerly fundamentalist) Christian, recently posted an article entitled, “The Christian Right’s False Hope In A Conservative SCOTUS,” in which he challenges the idea that “if we had a SCOTUS filled with justices largely appointed by Republicans, we wouldn’t have Roe v. Wade, right?”

Corey rightly observes that “it was a majority Republican appointed SCOTUS that legalized abortion in the first place,” noting that 5 of the 7 justices who voted for Roe were appointed by Republicans.

He writes, “Even in the time since Roe v Wade, we’ve had periods of Republican dominance of SCOTUS — at one point with 8 of the 9 justices were Republican! And yet, there have still been plenty of rulings that were objectionable to the right wing– including the upholding of Roe v. Wade.”

He continues, “So here’s my question: if legalized abortion was given to America by a Republican SCOTUS, and if it has been upheld by an almost unanimously Republican SCOTUS, why the heck is one of the major selling points of this election the idea that they’ll get more court picks so that they can finally overturn it?”

In fact, Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority verdict in Roe v. Wade, was a Nixon appointee who was expected to hold a conservative position on abortion. Instead, he became a passionate supporter of a woman’s “right” to have an abortion.

Is Corey, then, correct in reproving Christian conservatives who are trusting in Donald Trump to nominate good SCOTUS justices who will (hopefully) overturn Roe v. Wade and stand for our fundamental freedoms?

On the one hand, he is absolutely right in raising a cautionary flag, reminding us of how often we have been disappointed with either the justices appointed by a Republican president or, even more profoundly, with the decisions made by some Republican appointees.

After all, it was Justice Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, who was the notorious swing vote in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that redefined marriage, writing the majority opinion.

And it was Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, who was a strong, surprise vote in upholding Obamacare.

And so, we do well not to vote for Trump with naïve expectations, not only regarding the make-up of SCOTUS but for other reasons as well (although, as I have recently explained, I plan to vote for him). And we do well not to put our hope in the decisions that will be made by the Supreme Court, recognizing that the ultimate way America will be changed will be through the faithful witness and work of the church.

But there’s something important that Corey appears to have missed, which is this: While the votes of conservative-appointed SCOTUS justices sometimes disappoint conservatives, the votes of liberal-appointed SCOTUS justices rarely disappoint liberals.

In other words, a liberal-appointed justice is much more likely to be consistent in his or her rulings than will a conservative-appointed justice, one reason being that it appears that Republican presidents have sometimes appointed more middle of the road conservatives while Democrat presidents have appointed more radical liberals.

Just look at how Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, both appointed by Obama, and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both appointed by Bill Clinton, have voted on major cases, including Obergefell and Hobby Lobby. There were no surprises from any of them in these cases.

And ask yourself how some recent, critically important, 5-4 decisions would have turned out if there was a Clinton or Obama appointee voting rather than Justice Scalia (appointed by Reagan) or Justice Alito (appointed by George W. Bush) or Justice Thomas (appointed by George H. W. Bush; note also that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas have been quite consistent in their rulings).

Accordingly, while five out of the seven Republican-appointed justices disappointed their conservative constituents in Roe v. Wade, the two Democrat-appointed justices did not disappoint their constituents in voting in favor of Roe.

Not only so, but since 1973, the lines have been drawn much more clearly in the abortion debate and there are clearer litmus tests that can be used in appointing justices by either potential president.

And while I agree with Corey that there’s certainly no guarantee that Trump-appointed justices would even attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, let alone succeed in doing it, there is a virtual guarantee that Hillary-appointed justices would rule against pro-life legislation and for pro-abortion legislation, not to mention ruling the wrong way on the many religious liberty cases that are expected to come before SCOTUS in the coming years, along with other cases involving the meaning of marriage, the right to bear arms, and more.

Just consider recent bills like California’s AB 1266, which could effectively shut down Christian colleges, or recent rulings like Ninth Circuit’s upholding of the California law that pro-life pregnancy centers refer clients to abortion clinics, and ask yourself how SCOTUS would rule with new Hillary appointees on board.

And what of the roughly 250, life-appointed, federal judges who the next president will nominate? Shall we factor that in as well?

In light of these realities, it does make good sense to vote for Trump and against Hillary, more with the certainty of the damage she will do rather than with the hope of the good that he will do.

Considering just how many close, monumentally important, rulings have come down in the last few years, the stakes really are quite high. (For more from the author of “Republican-Appointed Supreme Court Justices May Disappoint, but Democratic Appointees Will Horrify” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Report Suggests Massive Turnout for Hillary… Among Zombies

The Clinton camp is expecting a huge boost in voting after tonight, as 1.8 million zombies are getting ready to scratch their way out of their tombs in a get-out-the-vote effort truly befitting the greater of two evils running for office.

“What the ACLU and the violent mobs couldn’t do, the zombies are taking care of,” one campaign operative quipped, “I used to have to actually go down to the cemetery and copy down the names from the tombstones. This is way easier.”

Even though the fun of Halloween is over for many areas, as they have already held weekend trick-or-treating events for efficiency’s sake over tonight there will be plenty of action out there if you know where to look. Digger Flanagan, groundskeeper for my hometown’s Red Oak Cemetery, says he dreads tonight more than any other night.

“On the one hand, I appreciate how the zombies pretty much put a stop to pranksters who have been toppling gravestones. But on the other hand, zombies aren’t real neat about how they come up. Nobody really cares about all the work I have to do to keep this place nice for the dead, especially the undead.”

Skeptics claim that zombies don’t have a prayer in turning this election for Hillary, since investigation after investigation seems to suggest that human error is the cause of millions of voters remaining on the rolls after death. But that claim is hardly in line with the progressive push for equality that zombies have been banging their caskets about for decades. One surprisingly articulate zombie told this reporter that he’s being oppressed simply because of the technicality that he is undead.

“If the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights were properly followed, equality for zombies would be a no-brainer,” he said, shuddering at the thought. “Look at this newspaper, voter discrimination is rampant against zombies, felons and illegals, but no group suffers prejudicial social, and economic discrimination more than us zombies. Look at it!”

His insistence was compelling but off-putting, so I shot him with a pea-shooter which just ticked him off. Luckily, I had a potato mine back up.

There are some progressives who clearly are paving the way for zombie acceptance, and there is work being done to compensate loyal zombie voters. Equal wages are, of course, a difficult thing to manage, since zombies don’t want walking around money, just brains. But fraudsters are finding that a massive bank of unused brains is out there still watching and buying into the mainstream media’s lies. Once progressives figure out who’s still watching, they’ll be able to thank the zombies properly.

Happy Halloween. (For more from the author of “New Report Suggests Massive Turnout for Hillary… Among Zombies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liar Harry Reid Makes Wild FBI Claims. Does Anyone Believe Him?

The corrupt, buffoonish Nevada senator, Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) is at it again. You remember in 2012 when Reid said that Mitt Romney “hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” a claim that the Washington Post gave “Four Pinocchios.” Now, Senator Reid is saying that the FBI is withholding information about Donald Trump and Russia, in the wake of the FBI reopening the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Reid’s claim has a serious ring of déjà vu.

Here’s what Vox is reporting Reid is saying:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says that FBI Director James Comey is sitting on ‘explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.’

Comey isn’t telling the American public what he knows about Trump and the Russians, Reid says. But, he says, Comey seems eager to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton.

How can Reid expect the American public to believe him, after defending his previous lie to CNN with, “Well, Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Chris Cilliza of the Washington post called Reid’s answer to CNN “appalling.”

And yet the clip above shows Reid, in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, not only refusing to apologize for the claim but defending it — in a very weird way.

‘Romney didn’t win, did he?’ Reid said in response to Bash’s question of whether he regretted what he had said about Romney.

Think about that logic for a minute. What Reid is saying is that it’s entirely immaterial whether what he said about Romney and his taxes was true. All that mattered was that Romney didn’t win.

It was a rare glimpse into the tactics of the Left. A win-at-all costs mindset that has little regard for truth permeates everything they do. While we know that Hillary Clinton did, in fact, use a home-based email server — and that the server processed classified information — nothing has ever been disclosed about a secret Trump and Russia link.

When pressed about the connection, all Reid’s camp would say is: “There have been classified briefings.”

That raises the question. If the briefings are classified, and did in fact happen, isn’t Reid breaking the law? Something he is now accusing Comey of doing?

Reid, of course, has been no stranger to corruption. Judicial Watch (JW) has put him on their “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list time and time again. In March of 2015, when Reid decided against running for reelection, JW highlighted the corruption scandals Reid has alleged involvement in.

JW highlights that in 2006, Reid allegedly violated: “Senate rules by concealing a seven-figured payoff on a suspicious land deal orchestrated by a longtime friend known for political bribery and mob ties.” In 2012, Reid was allegedly “embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal involving a Chinese “green energy” client of a Nevada law firm run by his son Rory.” Then, in 2013, Reid allegedly took “more than $130,000 in illegal campaign funds from a shady donor, Harvey Whittemore, who eventually went to jail.” And lastly, Reid allegedly “abused his authority to pressure the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite a $115 million foreign investor visa deal critical to his son’s casino client.”

When trying to determine if yet another one of Harry Reid’s outlandish claims has merit, remember to look at his past actions. When you do, you can chalk this one up to “Well, (insert name of political opponent here) didn’t win, did he?” (For more from the author of “Liar Harry Reid Makes Wild FBI Claims. Does Anyone Believe Him?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alabama Judge Finds Right to Gruesome Abortion Procedure and Allows Clinics Near Schools

Late last week, I warned Alabama Republicans that if they accede to the tyranny from judicial supremacy, it would run much deeper than the issue of marriage and Judge Roy Moore. Well, on Thursday a federal district judge engaged in nullification and blocked the state’s common sense abortion regulations. Do these same impotent Republicans believe this is also the law of the land? This case is particularly poignant because it is a quintessential example of why the federal judiciary must be stopped by blunt force, irrespective of who wins the presidential election.

Myron Thompson, a puny district judge for the Middle District of Alabama used his misconstrued ‘judicial veto” to block Alabama’s law barring abortion clinics within 2,000 feet of a K-8 public school. The liberal Carter-appointed judge also blocked the portion of the law barring the use of the “dilation and evacuation” method of abortion commonly used in the second trimester to tear apart the baby with forceps [watch this video demonstration of the particularly gruesome procedure if you can stomach it].

While any lower judge will obviously uphold the underlying bad precedent of Roe and Casey, this decision is part of a disturbing trend of lower courts expanding the concocted right to an abortion to new extremes and precluding states from enacting common sense limitations and regulations on the procedure and on clinics. Evidently, not only is there a right to an abortion that never existed in the Constitution and since our Founding, but judges are now saying that any restriction on the clinic or any procedure at any time is burdensome. Judge Thompson opined that the restriction on clinics near schools would shut down too many abortion facilities and place a burden that is “particularly devastating for low-income woman.” He also said that requiring doctors to first stop the heartbeat of the baby instead of tearing it apart limb by limb places a gratuitous burden and risk on the mother.

Why do we even have elections anymore when district courts — which were created by Congress, not the Constitution — can decide every social and political issue of our time?

Consider the following perverse constitutional jurisprudence in the legal system: the government can ban guns within range of schools, even though carrying a gun is an unalienable right explicit in the Bill of Rights. At the same time, a state cannot regulate the most gruesome abortions and ban the practice within range of schools, even though there isn’t a mention of the word “abortion” in the Constitution.

The Long-term problem with lower courts shutting down red states

Remember, even in the best case scenario — if Republicans win the White House, Congress, and the majority of state legislatures — there will be almost no policy benefit to such an electoral outcome. The courts will nullify the few good policies that Republicans actually enact, which are few and far between. Abortion regulations are a superlative example of how the lower courts are shutting down the debate over issues squarely within the purview of state governments. States have been unable to get common sense regulations on abortion clinics or defunding of Planned Parenthood past a single appeals court.

What about the Supreme Court?

There is a widely held myth that the high court hangs in the balance pending the outcome of the presidential election. In reality, Anthony Kennedy is about as far left as the other four liberals on Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, especially as it relates to abortion. He already made it clear this year in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that not only is abortion a fundamental right, but states cannot enact reasonable regulations on clinics that will in any way limit access to abortions. Replacing Scalia with an originalist or blocking the appointment of a Hillary pick will not alter the balance because the Left already has five votes in the ‘super legislature’ on almost all social issues. And few legal experts believe Chief Justice John Roberts would overturn Roe.

Ironically, although we’ve chronicled a torrent of court cases in recent months inhibiting states from exercising basic state powers, it will get a lot worse if we actually elect conservatives. Most Republican legislatures are as useless as Republicans in Washington and drift like balloons in the wind. Commensurate with the degree of righteous initiative that we desire from elected conservatives will come the blowback from the entrenched forces of legal warfare. Pick your favorite policies you want to see enacted in your state and just understand that the Left has the ability to place the law in court within days and usually succeed in obtaining an injunction.

This is why we must think beyond the failed judicial strategy of the past half century. It’s time to restore the courts to their original mandate — interpreting the law, not nullifying it. One idea I propose in Stolen Sovereignty is to begin with the lower courts and block them from adjudicating broadly political cases concerning issues such as abortion, marriage, religious liberty, election law, and immigration enforcement.

As we’ve noted before, district and appellate courts are created by Congress. The legislative branch of government has the power to abolish those courts, so members of Congress can certainly regulate their jurisdiction. In 1812, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.”

There is simply no reason a lower court judge should have the unilateral authority to veto every policy created by a legislature. However, there would still be an avenue for judicial review by bringing lawsuits in state court. The advantage here is that most state courts have some form of election or retention ballots for their judges. While plaintiffs would still have the ability to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, the limited resources of the high court would prevent it from intervening in many cases that the lower federal courts have been officiously asserting their will.

Thus, if by some miracle we have 20 Republican-controlled legislatures promoting good policy on an array of foundational issues, there is no way the Supreme Court could “police” them all like the numerous district courts do at present. All we need is a party actually committed to preserving the states and reining in the runaway judiciary. (For more from the author of “Alabama Judge Finds Right to Gruesome Abortion Procedure and Allows Clinics Near Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The ‘Untold Threat’ Responsible for 40% of Illegal Aliens

While the debate over illegal immigration tends to focus on how to control and treat those who make it across our nation’s borders, a more enduring challenge for the U.S. government has been what to do to stop legal entrants from overstaying their allotted time here.

The problem of so-called visa “overstays”—which make up about 40 percent of the 11 million people living illegally in the U.S.—will continue on past the Obama administration and follow the next president.

That’s partially because the government has not yet delivered on its long-promised—and congressionally mandated—plan to create a better checkout system to track who has left the country on time, and who hasn’t.

“It [visa overstays] is the most overlooked issue when it comes to immigration,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“It’s an untold threat,” McCaul added. “We are allowing millions of people to overstay visas and remain in this country who could potentially pose a threat to homeland security.”

The uncertainty around the scope of the problem comes at a time when a growing percentage of the illegal immigrant population is made up of visa overstays as opposed to people being apprehended at the border.

For more than 20 years, the U.S. government had struggled to quantify just how many people entered the country legally with a visa and stayed too long, making it impossible to prescribe policy fixes.

That finally changed in January, when the Department of Homeland Security released a first-of-its-kind study reporting that 527,127 people who traveled legally to the U.S. for business or leisure and were supposed to leave the country in fiscal year 2015 in fact overstayed their visas.

This figure is larger than the 337,117 people caught crossing the border illegally last year.

The long-awaited data from 2015 was not all-encompassing. It counted only visa holders who entered the U.S. by air and sea, not by land, and it did not include those who came as students or temporary workers.

Still, immigration and security experts as well as policymakers welcomed the new information because they thought it would force the government to move faster on methods to improve, most importantly in trying to assemble a system to obtain biometric data—such as fingerprints, facial recognition images, and eye scans—on those leaving the country.

‘A Top Issue’

The 9/11 Commission recommended the Department of Homeland Security complete an entry and exit system “as soon as possible,” viewing it as an important national security tool because two of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, had overstayed their visas.

Plagued by financial and logistical challenges, the government has introduced various pilot projects at some airports and land borders, but is still a few years off from implementing a biometric exit system on a large scale.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has pledged to have biometric checks at major airports in 2018, and Congress in last year’s omnibus spending bill authorized $1 billion in visa fee increases over 10 years to pay for an exit system.

The struggle to install a biometric exit tracking system is well known.

Foreigners who apply to enter the U.S. on a visa are interviewed and photographed and have their fingerprints taken at a consulate overseas before arriving here. But collecting biometric data on those exiting the country is not as easy.

That’s because U.S. airports do not have exclusive terminals for domestic and international flights, which makes it hard for officers from Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol to screen overseas travelers and get their information.

“Most countries have a designated checkout system built in airports,” Stewart Verdery, a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. Verdery added:

We just didn’t build our airports this way. So the question is where do you collect the information in a way that doesn’t inconvenience travelers and is actually effective in making sure someone has left? None of the options are particularly great. And though the biometric equipment is very mature, there is also a manpower issue over who maintains the machines.

To satisfy these limitations, Verdery expects the government to pursue a facial recognition exit system that automatically would snap a traveler’s photograph—likely at the gate.

‘It Doesn’t Matter’

Even if the U.S. were to settle on a workable exit tracking method, some national security experts doubt that such a system would be an effective counterterrorism tool, especially when considering its cost.

David Inserra, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation, says the government could just as well use already collected biographical information, such as a traveler’s name and date of birth, to track exits and collect overstay data. But other experts say bad actors could use fake passports and aliases to bypass a system that did not require biometrics such as fingerprints and facial recognition.

No matter the method used, Inserra and other experts note that an exit system simply reveals who has departed—and remained—in the country. It would not help discover where those that stayed are living, and whether they present a security risk.

“Even if you have the greatest biometric exit system, if someone doesn’t leave, it doesn’t matter,” Inserra said, adding:

You are now left with the problem of every other police officer looking for someone. They are a missing person who doesn’t want to be found. If you want to stop visa overstays, the solution isn’t to spend money on an exit system.

Inserra argues that policymakers instead should give more money to intelligence agencies such as Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement so they can go into communities and try to locate—and deport—people who overstayed their visas.

Yet other experts are doubtful that would happen. They say the government does not prioritize enforcing immigration law against those who’ve stayed past their visa expiration date because those travelers were screened before coming here.

“In terms of removing a garden variety illegal migrant, you aren’t going to search for somebody on that basis,” Edward Alden, an immigration and visa policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The notion we will have some special dedicated effort to go find overstays I find completely implausible.”

Alden says the government can take simpler steps to deter visa overstays, by emailing reminders to foreigners of their expected departure date, specifying the consequences of not leaving on time.

Many who overstay their visas don’t intend to settle in America, Alden contends.

The Homeland Security report from earlier this year found that as of Jan. 4, a total of 416,500 of the 527,127 overstays in 2015 remained in the U.S. More have left the country since then, the government says.

The government also has taken diplomatic steps to better track foreign visitors, especially by improving information sharing with Canada, the country that had the most overstays in the U.S.

The U.S. and Canada exchange names and biographical information of those from third countries who enter on their shared border. Mexico, the second-largest source of visa overstays in the U.S., generally does not yet have the capacity to exchange information like that, Alden says.

‘Serious About Enforcement’

Despite these improvements, Congress is not backing off its demand for a biometric exit system.

McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says he hopes for a vote next year on a broad border security bill he sponsored last year. It includes a provision requiring the government to establish an exit system at the 15 largest airports, seaports, and land ports within two years.

The legislation, which President Barack Obama promised to veto, would impose financial and other penalties on Department of Homeland Security political appointees if the government fails to meet the timeline.

Having the best data possible, supporters of the exit system say, will give the government incentive to more aggressively enforce the law against those who’ve overstayed visas.

“I think once the government gets an exit system up and running, they’ll be serious about enforcement,” Verdery said, adding:

We will never have a system where we will go out and find someone who overstays and just wants to do nothing on their buddy’s couch. But we will go out and find them when they try to get a job, draw the attention of law enforcement, or illegally try to claim benefits.

(For more from the author of “The ‘Untold Threat’ Responsible for 40% of Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans Face Fewer Obamacare Choices, Higher Premiums in 2017

As open season begins Tuesday for enrollment in Obamacare next year, most customers for health insurance in the individual market will face both fewer choices and higher premiums under President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

More than three-fifths of the states, 33 of them, will have fewer insurers offering coverage on the Obamacare exchanges than they did in 2016.

Arizona and Texas are each losing six insurers, while two other states—Kentucky and Ohio—are losing four each. Only one state, Virginia, will have more exchange insurers next year than this year.

Five states—Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming—will have only one insurer offering exchange coverage in 2017, while another 13 states will have only two.

Because many of the remaining insurers offer coverage only in part of a state, the reduction in choice is even more pronounced at the county level. One-third of all U.S. counties (32.8 percent) will have only one insurer offering exchange coverage in 2017, and another one-third (35.9 percent) will have only two competing insurers.

So exchange customers in two-thirds (68.7 percent) of U.S. counties will be faced with either a monopoly or a duopoly in health insurance.

At the same time, insurers also have increased premiums significantly. The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Obamacare, had to admit that premiums are increasing by an average of 25 percent in the 39 states using the federally run insurance exchange.

Indeed, residents of 10 states using the federal exchange face average premium increases of 40 percent or more: Alabama (58 percent), Arizona (116 percent), Illinois (43 percent), Kansas (42 percent), Montana (44 percent), North Carolina (40 percent), Nebraska (51 percent), Oklahoma (69 percent), Pennsylvania (53 percent), and Tennessee (63 percent). In at least one state running its own exchange (Minnesota) premiums are increasing by a similar rate (56 percent).

The Obama administration has tried to spin this news by repeatedly stating that 85 percent of customers on one of the state insurance exchanges receive taxpayer-funded subsidies for their coverage, which will soften the blow to their wallets.

While that is technically true, it offers an incomplete and misleading picture.

The most recent comprehensive enrollment data show that 17.7 million Americans had health coverage from the individual market as of the end of 2015. Of that number, 7.4 million (42 percent) had coverage subsidized by taxpayers, while the remaining 10.3 million (58 percent) paid the full cost on their own.

Because the Affordable Care Act bars insurers from charging off-exchange customers a different premium than on-exchange customers for the same plan, nearly 60 percent of those with individual market coverage will face the full cost of any premium increases.

Want to understand why Obamacare remains persistently unpopular?

Consider the likely reactions of those 10 million Americans as they open letters from their insurers informing them of their premium increases—or, worse, that their health care coverage is being discontinued. (For more from the author of “Americans Face Fewer Obamacare Choices, Higher Premiums in 2017” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After This State Blocked Online Eye Exams, a Health Care Startup Is Fighting Back

A Chicago-based health care startup that allows customers to conduct eye exams from their homes and obtain a prescription is fighting back against a South Carolina law that prohibits the company from operating in the state.

Opternative, an online eye exam company, and the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, filed a lawsuit in South Carolina civil court last week arguing that a law passed in May violates the state constitution.

“Opternative wasn’t banned in South Carolina because there was anything wrong with their technology or because there was any public health or safety problem with their technology,” Robert McNamara, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, told The Daily Signal. “They were banned because their technology interferes with the business model of established optometrists.”

Opternative, which was founded in 2012 and launched to the public in 2015, developed technology that allows customers to obtain a prescription for glasses and contacts without ever stepping foot in a doctor’s office.

Using Opternative’s technology, customers self-perform their own vision test for $40 using a smartphone and computer. The results of the exam, along with answers to a list of questions about the patient’s medical history, are then compiled and sent through Opternative’s platform to a state-licensed ophthalmologist, who reviews the information and writes a prescription.

Opternative currently operates in 39 states, but the company has been effectively banned in South Carolina.

There, state lawmakers passed the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law this year, which states that vision assessments “must not be based solely on objective refractive data or information generated by an automated testing device, including an autorefractor or other electronic refractive-only testing device, to provide a medical diagnosis or to establish a refractive error for a patient as part of an eye examination.”

The American Optometric Association pushed for the legislation, but Gov. Nikki Haley, a Republican, ultimately vetoed the bill and criticized it for using “health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry.”

“If [the bill were] allowed to become law, South Carolina would become the eighth state to impose such a ban, putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation,” Haley continued.

The Republican-led state Legislature ultimately voted to override Haley’s veto, with the Senate voting 39-3 and the House voting 98-1.

“This bill is protectionist legislation at its worst,” Aaron Dallek, Opternative’s CEO, told The Daily Signal. “It protected the economic interest of one group of people over the interest of the citizens of the great state of South Carolina.”

According to a complaint filed with the state court, the lawsuit argues that the law keeps Opternative from exercising its right to “pursue an honest living free from arbitrary, irrational, and protectionist regulation.”

“The South Carolina Constitution protects people’s right to be free from arbitrary and unreasonable economic regulations, and it’s part of an ongoing trend we’ve seen in state courts of announcing that their state constitutions are going to give people stronger protections against this kind of arbitrary or protectionist economic regulation than you might see under the federal constitution,” McNamara said.

In response to the lawsuit, Barbara Horn, secretary-treasurer of the American Optometric Association and an optometrist in Conway, South Carolina, said Opternative and the Institute for Justice “are not concerned about the health care needs” of South Carolinians.

The American Optometric Association also filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration in April urging the agency to take action against Opternative.

“Having lost decisively in our state capital and still lacking any credible research or federal medical device approvals, they’ve come back to try to impose their profit-driven approach to health care on South Carolina,” Horn said on behalf of the organization regarding the lawsuit. “Their questionable legal tactics will cost the citizens of our state time and money—resources better invested in protecting the health of our patients.”

McNamara, meanwhile, said the South Carolina Legislature has carved out specific regulations and restrictions for eye care and optometrists, specifically.

In June—one month after the Legislature voted to override Haley’s veto of the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law—state lawmakers passed the South Carolina Telemedicine Act, which legalized telemedicine across the state.

The two laws, McNamara said, conflict with each other.

“That’s part of what makes the ban on Opternative’s technology unconstitutional,” he said. “What the state has essentially said is, ‘We don’t have a problem with telemedicine, and we trust doctors, as long as they’re meeting the standard of care, to choose what technology they want to use and choose how they want to incorporate the internet into their practice, except for ophthalmologists.’”

In addition to South Carolina, lawmakers in Georgia and Indiana passed bills this year prohibiting Opternative from operating in those states.

Dallek said the company “doesn’t make threats” regarding the potential for legal challenges to laws in those two states. However, he didn’t rule it out completely.

“We do believe that we have the right to defend our doctors’ right to offer affordable and convenient eye care services to their patients, and we’ll work with those states to try to correct any legislative restrictions on our services,” Dallek said. “If we have to, we’ll use the judicial system to defend our doctors’ constitutional right to their economic freedom.”

Challenges to Opternative’s technology underscore debates taking place in state legislatures nationwide and in the courts following the rise of technology companies like Uber and Airbnb.

In response to these new technologies, government officials at the local and state level have passed ordinances and laws regulating companies like Opternative.

McNamara said that no matter what the company or service is—be it eye care, ride-sharing, or mobile vending—the core issue remains the same.

“When you look at these fights, it’s always the same underlying phenomenon. Whatever the specific facts of the case are, it is always a legislature kowtowing to a powerful, private interest group at the expense of some new entrant, some entrepreneur, some innovator,” he said.

“I think a big solution to the problem is to persuade the courts to continue the growing trend of taking a serious look at regulations like this and standing up to the protectionists for protectionists sake,” McNamara continued. (For more from the author of “After This State Blocked Online Eye Exams, a Health Care Startup Is Fighting Back” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.