Obama Administration Orders Pentagon to Quit Talking About ‘Competition’ With China

The Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon to quit referring to the country’s response to Chinese expansion in the Asia-Pacific as a “competition,” as the word is too inflammatory, sources familiar with the directive told the Navy Times.

Over the past decade, China has aggressively expanded its military presence in the South China Sea, including creating number of fortified, man-made islands within the region.

As a result of the increased Chinese naval presence, countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States — in addition to other world powers — have experienced strained relations with Beijing.

The U.S. has, in response to the increased military presence, attempted to form strategic alliances in the region to balance out the expansion.

The Navy has also sailed ships close to disputed boundaries claimed by China to exercise freedom of navigation under the rules of “innocent passage,” in an effort to deter Chinese aggression, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

A number of high-profile U.S. military commanders have also weighed in.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, have both previously referred to the American response as a “competition” or “great power competition.”

According to the Navy Times report, in a classified document directed at the Pentagon, the National Security Council recently ordered military leaders to stop using language referring to the dispute as a “competition” when discussing the issue publicly.

The news outlet reported:

[…] a recent directive from the National Security Council ordered Pentagon leaders to strike out that phrase and find something less inflammatory, according to four officials familiar with the classified document, revealed here for the first time by Navy Times.

Obama administration officials and some experts say “great power competition” inaccurately frames the U.S. and China as on a collision course, but other experts warn that China’s ship building, man-made islands and expansive claims in the South and East China seas are hostile to U.S. interests. This needlessly muddies leaders’ efforts to explain the tough measures needed to contain China’s rise, these critics say.

Bryan McGrath, a naval expert and retired destroyer skipper, told the Navy Times the White House’s explanation is “an exercise in nuance and complexity, purposely chosen by the administration to provide maximum flexibility, to prevent them from committing to a real structural approach to the most important national security challenge of our time.”

Despite an international tribunal that found this year China has no rights to waters around man-made and other island chains in the Asia-Pacific region, the country has threatened to move forward with a new island-building project that would put forces within 140 miles of the Philippines’ capital, Manila, and a nearby U.S. military base.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has criticized China’s island-building.

“We have rebuilt China, and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen,” Trump said. “Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country.” (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Orders Pentagon to Quit Talking About ‘Competition’ With China” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter

Okay, Donald, you’re not going to like this. But if you wanted to hear from a yes-man, you would have let Christie out of the basement. So here’s the deal: We GOP voters didn’t overlook your long years of schmoozing with corrupt Democrats, your childish attacks on solid conservatives like Ted Cruz, and your cartoonish public persona, just to have you blow this thing in the home stretch. We nominated, for better or worse, a guy who body-slammed and head-shaved Vince McMahon in a wrestling ring on TV.

What we saw last night was more like George Pataki — nervous, defensive, wonkish, boring, and worried about your legacy. If you win this thing, you’re the president. You’ll have upended U.S. politics. If you lose, you have no legacy. You’ll be a cautionary tale, which the GOP establishment uses to nominate Paul Ryan next time. How’s that going to feel?

In last night’s debate, you started off strong, like an angry boxer blowing all his steam in the first three rounds. Then you let Hillary Clinton play you. She played you like a fiddle — no, I take that back. Sometimes we don’t mind hearing a fiddle. She played you like an accordion. Every time she pushed a button and squeezed, you made the exact wheezing sound that she wanted. And she leaned back and gave that same icy smile that psychologists painted on the wiry monkey mama. Please, for the love of everything that is decent, don’t hand our government to that woman.

Every time she attacked something that you hold dear, like your business acumen, you took the bait and swam right up to the surface where she could spear you. Only once or twice did you hit back effectively — for instance, when she pressed you on your tax returns and you came back and demanded her emails. But then you let it drop — an issue that ought to disqualify Clinton completely from serving as president. Then you actually let her bloviate about the importance of “cyber-security.” Even “little” Marco Rubio would have been pounding on the lectern at that point demanding:

How DARE you, of all people, even mention that! You broke the law, violated the rules, evaded government safeguards, and sent classified materials floating around the Internet — which who knows what countries are using to track down our friends and allies and murder them. Your underlings are all hiding behind immunity and the 5th Amendment, and you barely escaped being put into handcuffs and arrested — because you intentionally destroyed the evidence. You’re the Al Capone of foreign policy — except he got caught on a technicality, while you managed to skate. Maybe you had some friends at the Justice Department.

Why didn’t you point out that your tax returns don’t affect America’s security, did not result in dead Americans and launch a wave of dangerous Muslim immigrants, like her amateur-hour meddling in Libya? Then you could have reminded Americans how Hillary wants to increase the number of unvettable Muslim immigrants into America — like the Cascade Mall shooter from Turkey who is a Hillary supporter. Instead of thinking about reams of boring tax filings, Americans would have been wondering how many more pressure cooker bombers Hillary wants to resettle in their home towns.

You need to stop defending the honor of your hotel chains. Stop thundering like Ralph Kramden (of The Honeymooners) about how wonderful your temperament is. You stopped just short of saying something like “Bang, zoom, Alice — right to the moon!” Remember that in each of those arguments, Alice won.

Stop wandering into the weeds with references and names that only make sense to reporters but not to the public. That tells the media pros who have been targeting you since the convention that they’re getting inside your head. You had Hillary dead to rights on starting the ridiculous birther issue — but you squandered that moment by rattling off boring names and facts. John Kasich could have done that, if that was what we wanted — with more entertaining hand gestures.

Why didn’t you talk about the bribery and influence-peddling operation that is the Clinton Foundation, which sold access to the Department of State in return for secret donations from murderous governments like Saudi Arabia — which hatched most of the 9/11 hijackers, and beheads women and gays? Why didn’t you talk about the uranium deal with Russia that the government had turned down, and suddenly approved after the Russians made a big donation to Bill? How about Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, whose magazine tries to radicalize Muslims throughout the West, and published pieces blaming domestic abuse on women, and blaming the 9/11 attacks on American policies?

When Hillary accused you of stiffing building contractors, why didn’t you answer that she lied to the families of four Americans who died in Benghazi on her watch, blaming what she knew was an al Qaeda attack on a Coptic Christian’s Internet video?

More so than most politicians in the past 30 years, you know how to be funny. We didn’t see that last night. I was hoping that you’d interrupt Hillary’s blather about her father’s drapery business with a classic Trumpian zinger — for instance, “Where was your father on Nov. 23, 1963? I think America deserves to know.” The audience would have loved it, and it would actually have helped defuse some of the resentment which we Cruz voters still treasure despite his endorsement.

Instead, you seemed rattled and touchy. That’s not even the real you, most of the time. You are typically blithely, even blindly self-confident. It’s Hillary who’s the paranoid, secretive, misanthropic control freak. Americans need to see that, before it’s too late.

You need to hit Clinton hard, relentlessly hard, on her deep personal corruption and radical policies — which don’t even flow from conviction, but cold and soulless ambition. You can get away with hitting back at a mean girl — you’ve proven that. Those who despise you for being a bit of a cad are already Hillary stalwarts. Now the rest of us need to see you use that power for good, instead of … stupid. You’re Jimmy Cagney, facing Lady Macbeth, and you’re the one holding a grapefruit. We want to see you use it. (For more from the author of “Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Lifers Protest, Pray as D.C. Planned Parenthood Headquarters Opens

After months of legal wrangling and pro-life prayer and protests, Planned Parenthood’s new D.C. headquarters and abortion center opened on Monday.

But pro-lifers aren’t giving up. A Sunday evening prayer vigil (disclosure: the vigil was attended by this reporter) drew approximately 30 people, and two events on Monday drew many more. And Lauren Handy, the full-time, self-described “Barefoot Activist,” will remain at the center after others have gone home, praying for women to choose life.

“It’s time to move from outrage to action. I refuse to celebrate the scourge of abortion and I hope our community reflects that as well,” Handy told The Stream. Larry Cirignano, Virginia Director for American Catholics for Religious Freedom and the D.C. representative at Choose Life license plates, noted that the center was built with taxpayer money, and declared it “government waste, fraud and abuse at its worst.”

The center has drawn controversy not just for its abortions and Planned Parenthood’s proven and alleged law-breaking across the country. Its location next to a popular charter school just down the street from homes has led to controversy within the community. Late last year, the school filed a lawsuit against several pro-life advocates it claims intimidated parents and children, and trespassed on school property.

One of those advocates, a felon with mental issues who had planned to bomb an abortion center in Maryland a decade ago, has agreed to stay away from the clinic. However, Handy, who is also named in the lawsuit, hasn’t let it stop her from peacefully attempting to save lives.

She criticized the Monday evening gala held by Planned Parenthood to celebrate the center’s opening, saying,“While Planned Parenthood wines and dines tonight, women and children living on the streets go hungry.”

Planned Parenthood received over $500 million from taxpayers in 2015, despite allegedly using illegal abortions to illegally sell fetal body parts. Many of its affiliates have been accused of breaking myriad state and federal laws, such as an Alabama law requiring health organizations to report possible abuse of minors.

In that case, an abortion center in Mobile, Alabama gave a 14-year old girl two abortions in four months. A state official told LifeSiteNews that he and other officials believe the abortion center did not intend to violate state law.

The new headquarters in the Nation’s Capital replaced one across town that closed last year. Pro-life activism delayed the opening of the new center, which was supposed to open this past spring, by several months. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers Protest, Pray as D.C. Planned Parenthood Headquarters Opens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who’s Going to Save the Church?

“I’ve got a word this group really needs to hear this morning. Do you mind if I give today’s message instead of you?” It was 6:00 in the morning. Men were already scooping up their scrambled eggs and biscuits and gravy for our church’s regular Tuesday men’s breakfast.

I wasn’t scheduled to share with the group this time, but at the previous Sunday’s church business meeting, one of our members had made an impassioned call for us all to work together to “save the church.” I was just a layman, but I knew his plea needed an answer. So I approached the morning’s designated leader and made this very unusual last-minute request to speak.

A Church in Crisis

There was nothing idle in my friend’s call to “save the church.” In the short space of just three or four years:

Based on high hopes and a steep growth curve we built a new $4 million dollar sanctuary, but that growth leveled out right when we moved into the new addition and giving expectations went unmet. Result: we were becoming strapped for funds.

Our construction coordinator embezzled funds from the church.

Our greatly loved youth pastor had to admit to disqualifying issues in his life and resigned his position.

He and his family had remained in the church, but one morning not long after that, an undiagnosed lung problem caught up with him and he stopped breathing and died. He was about 35 years old.

Speaking for the whole church, his resignation and especially his death hurt like absolutely crazy. But we went on:

We hired an extremely dynamic new youth pastor.

Then our senior pastor decided (wisely, in my view) that he had led the church as far as he could take it, so he resigned.

The church split into ugly factions, first over his severance package, then over the interim leadership team taking his place. Church meetings were tension-filled nightmares.

The worst meeting by far was also the shortest: our pastor both opened and closed it with the announcement that our youth pastor was under investigation by the sheriff’s department, and had been ordered not to have any contact with minors. He ended up in federal prison.

For me and many others, that last blow hurt the worst of all. I can’t begin to describe it. I don’t even really want to try. It was that bad.

Save the Church? Not Us!

So the church was reeling, no doubt about it. We were losing members, and having trouble making the budget, and a church across the river had just closed its doors after declaring bankruptcy, and people were wondering if we were heading the same direction, and — “We’ve got to pull together to save this church!”

That was what I knew I had to speak to that Tuesday morning. Save the church? No! Emphatically no! Not us! Jesus Christ saved the Church! He died on the cross for His Church. He rose again in victory for His Church. He sent His Holy Spirit to establish His Church as His body.

The same Spirit is still with us with the same life and power. Jesus’ Church was thoroughly saved once, and it remains thoroughly saved.

Our job is to follow our Lord faithfully in the light of His fully finished, perfectly complete salvation. The men there that morning already knew that, I’m sure — but it needed saying anyway.

As time went on and as we trusted Christ together, we saw Christ’s power among us. The church made it through, and it’s thriving beautifully today. The factions let go of their enmity. The surrounding community noticed our endurance through that trial, and recognized it as testimony to the powerful work of Jesus Christ.

I can’t tell you how deeply I miss the richness of the love and fellowship there, since moving to another state four years ago. My wife and I would go back in a minute if God called us.

We Don’t Need To Save the Church

There’s a message here for the wider Church in America, and indeed the whole Western world. We’re under unprecedented stress, to the point that it feels like we’re seriously in danger.

Massachusetts just passed regulations empowering the state to decide what counts as a true religious gathering and what doesn’t. If a church holds a meeting — a spaghetti supper, for example — that doesn’t fit the state’s religion standards, then it must accede to the state’s version of what counts as sexual morality — even inside the church building. Who’s going to save Massachusetts’ churches from that encroachment on their liberty?

Individuals across the country are being coerced into denying conscience to fulfill state-designated moral standards. Businesses have been told they must spend their own money to fund abortion. Who’s going to save them from those infringements?

Without discounting in any what they have lost, still it is true, and I’m sure they know it: Jesus has already saved His people.

God Didn’t Put the First Amendment In the Bible

I’m a firm believer in the U.S. Constitution. I am deeply grateful for the First Amendment. I’ve got friends serving as attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom, and I give my unreserved support to efforts like theirs to defend religious liberty. We need to stand firm on the ground our Founders established for us. Our legal and public information battles are indeed important. I fervently hope and pray we win every one of them.

And yet I think we may be in danger of seeing our Constitutional conflicts as if we were fighting to save the Church. That’s wrong. Neither the Church nor any individuals following Christ are ultimately at risk, for God has a perfectly good eternal plan for us.

What’s really at risk is a certain familiar way of living as Christians and as the Church. It’s a good way, a way of freedom — and because it’s good, it’s well worth fighting for — but it’s not the only good way.

God didn’t put the First Amendment in Holy Scripture, and (have we forgotten?) the Church grew for seventeen centuries without it. Christians through the ages and around the world stand as witness to the way oppressed and persecuted churches can shine bright in the darkness. We could lose every legal battle, and the Church would still have the resurrection life of Christ.

The Battle Is the Lord’s

So whatever battles we may be fighting, we must remember the hope on which we stand. Speaking to persecuted Christians, the book of Hebrews (verse 10:23) says, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

One way we know whether we’re holding on to hope is whether we can keep smiling no matter what the world may bring against the Church. Jesus told those who would be persecuted (Matthew 5:12), “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Meanwhile we must remember that the battle is the Lord’s. As Paul tells us:

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Saving the Church isn’t our responsibility. Jesus Christ has already done it, once and for all time, even for times like ours. Let’s hold on that hope with confidence and with joy, whatever may come. (For more from the author of “Who’s Going to Save the Church?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Times Lester Holt Came to Hillary’s Rescue in Debate Number 1

Monday night’s debate confirmed several presidential debate truisms. For example, substantive discussions of the issues tend to dissolve during these debates. That happened at Hofstra University.

Another tried and true fact of presidential debates is the mainstream media moderator will act as a praetorian guard for the Democrat. And yes, that too happened.

Debate moderator Lester Holt repeatedly challenged statements from Republican candidate Donald Trump while permitting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to slip away. The questions he asked, at times, were also completely irrelevant to the issues facing American citizens, and contributed to the lack of substance in the candidates’ policy stances.

Let’s go over just five quick points to demonstrate Holt’s biased performance.

1) The NBC News anchor interrupted Trump twice on a question on jobs.

The question was, “How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheap labor overseas?”

Trump suggested renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA and was explaining the different tax systems in the U.S. and Mexico when Holt interrupted to ask the question again that Trump had just answered. Perhaps his answer wasn’t satisfactory, but that’s a point the other candidate — not the moderator — should make.

2) Holt dragged Trump’s tax returns into a discussion on tax policy.

“Mr. Trump, we’re talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to …who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?”

Whether or not Donald Trump could or should release his tax returns has absolutely no bearing on the tax policies the next president will enact in office. And in the context of “American prosperity,” which was the nominal topic of this segment of the debate, it was a completely irrelevant point.

Consider that the previous question asked Hillary Clinton to spend two minutes defending raising taxes on the wealthy and Trump to spend the same amount of time defending his plan for tax cuts. Instead of digging deeper into these policy ideas and their effects on the pocketbooks of American families, we were treated to Hillary Clinton asserting Donald Trump may not be as rich as he says he is, and Trump reciting how much his real estate/buildings are worth.

3) Holt brought up the constitutionality of “stop and frisk”; he forgot to do so regarding the due process rights of Americans on the terror watch list.

In the segment on “America’s direction,” Lester Holt began a discussion on race in which both major party candidates agreed that some form of gun control was necessary to curb violence in America’s inner-cities.

As Clinton herself said: “We finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country.” If the moderator is going to challenge the candidates on some political points, this would’ve been a great time to point out the due process rights of American citizens that are threatened by banning individuals on an arbitrary government list from purchasing firearms.

Instead of a follow-up on that point, Lester Holt decided to follow up on Trump on his advocacy for a possible nationwide “stop and frisk” policy — noting that a judge in New York ruled that policy unconstitutional. Constitutional questions are crucial, but shouldn’t the moderator serve them to both sides?

4) Speaking of forgetting issues, where were the questions on the Clinton Foundation’s incestuous relationship to the Clinton State Department? What about Benghazi? Or Hillary’s email server?

When the topic turned to “America’s security,” Lester Holt asked each candidate to describe how they would protect America from cyber warfare by foreign agents like the those that are believed to have hacked the Democratic National Committee.

Unbelievably, Lester Holt did not ask Hillary Clinton about her mishandling of classified information on a private email server, despite the fact that experts have said Clinton’s private email server was likely hacked. Further, not a single question directed to Hillary Clinton regarding her multiple grievous lies.

5) Questions directed to Trump were about personality, not policy.

“Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?”

“Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn’t have, quote, “a presidential look.” She’s standing here right now. What did you mean by that?”

If the candidates want to have a back and forth over who is more sexist/racist/intolerant/bigoted/what-have-you, that’s the candidates’ prerogative. Should the moderator of a presidential debate, whose job is to make these two individuals running for president give the American people an idea of what they will do in office, do their work for them? (For more from the author of “5 Times Lester Holt Came to Hillary’s Rescue in Debate Number 1” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden

President Barack Obama could likely face his first veto override of his presidency this week—which will probably also be the last given his pending exit in January 2017.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, generally referred to as the 9/11 bill, will return to the Senate Wednesday and to the House as early as Thursday for an override vote before lawmakers take another pre-election recess.

It was the rare bipartisan piece of legislation that met a presidential veto last Friday. The bill grants families of 9/11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia for any role the monarchy might have played in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The last president to have only one veto overridden was President George H.W. Bush, who served one term from 1989 through 1993. For Obama’s two immediate predecessors, Congress mustered up the needed two-thirds majority twice to override Bill Clinton’s vetoes and four times to override George W. Bush’s vetoes.

Obama could become the first president to serve two full terms with just a single veto overridden, according to numbers tracked by the U.S. Senate, although some two-term presidents had zero vetoes overriden.

Vetoes themselves are tied heavily to political circumstances, said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University.

“The pattern for vetoes and veto overrides is a pattern less about the president and his leadership ability than it is tied to the congressional partisanship of the time,” Binder told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Vetoes are unusual when you have unified party control, which the president had for his first two years, and the Democrats controlled the Senate for the first six years. So, any bills that passed the House, such as a repeal of Obamacare, were stopped in the Senate. Split control makes it less likely the president will cast a veto.”

Up to this point, Obama was the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson to have zero vetoes overridden. Johnson’s predecessor, John F. Kennedy, also had no vetoes overridden.

The first nine U.S. presidents didn’t have a single veto overridden. Vetoes were somewhat less common in in the early days, as Thomas Jefferson issued zero during his two first terms. James Madison issued seven vetoes and James Monroe issued one veto.

Andrew Jackson was the first to regularly veto bills, issuing 12 over his two terms in office from 1829 to 1837, and Congress didn’t overturn any.

Other presidents to have zero vetoes overturned were Warren Harding, who served from 1821 until his death in 1823; William McKinley, elected in 1896 and assassinated during the first year of his second term; Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1865, also murdered in the first year of his second term; and Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan, who served a single term. Other one-term presidents, James Polk and Martin Van Buren, also had zero veto overrides.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is very sympathetic to the 9/11 families. But, he said such legislation could expose Americans to lawsuits around the world in international courts.

“Carving out exceptions to sovereign immunity puts the United States at greater risk than any other country in the world by virtue of the fact that we are more engaged around the globe than any other country in the world,” Earnest said Tuesday during the White House press briefing. “That’s the concern the president has. … It’s the president’s responsibility to consider the broader impact that this bill, as it’s currently written, would have on our national security and standing around the world and on our diplomats and service members who represent America around the world.”

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored the legislation. Cornyn said he looked forward to overriding the veto to “send a clear message that we will not tolerate those who finance terrorism in the United States.”

“It’s disappointing the president chose to veto legislation unanimously passed by Congress and overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” Cornyn said in a statement. “Even more disappointing is the president’s refusal to listen to the families of the victims taken from us on Sept. 11, who should have the chance to hold those behind the deadliest terrorist attack in American history accountable.”

The scarce number of veto overrides is less astounding when considering the comparatively few vetoes. Obama, and his predecessor George W. Bush, each cast a dozen vetoes, and both maintained at least one house of Congress for the first six years of their presidency. In contrast, the previous two-term presidents, Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had 37 vetoes and had 78 vetoes respectively. Clinton had a Democratic Congress for his first two years. Reagan, who had a Republican Senate for his first six years, had nine of his vetoes overridden by Congress.

Even the last two single-termers used the veto pen far more often. George H.W. Bush vetoed 44 bills from a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter actually vetoed 31 bills in a Congress controlled by his own party, only two of which were overridden.

Further, the successive presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower produced more than 1,000 vetoes. Roosevelt, elected to four terms and serving the entirety of three, vetoed 635 bills, and Congress overturned nine. Truman vetoed 250 bills and Congress reversed 12. Eisenhower vetoed 181 bills and Congress only vetoed two.

It isn’t entirely surprising that a veto override would come at this juncture in Obama’s term, Binder added.

“Normally, enough Democrats would stick with the president to prevent a two-thirds majority, but in this case, they might not want to be on the unpopular side of a vote,” Binder said. “When the issue is framed as either standing with 9/11 families or standing with the Obama administration, Democratic members will be hard-pressed to stand with the Obama administration.”

Other presidents with just one veto overridden are John Tyler, who served from 1841 to 1845; Rutherford B. Hayes, who served a single term from 1877 to 1881; Chester A. Arthur, who served from 1881 through 1885; Benjamin Harrison, who served a single term from 1889 to 1893; Theodore Roosevelt, who fulfilled one president’s term and won another in his own right serving from 1901 through 1909; William Howard Taft, who served one term from 1909 to 1913; and the first President Bush.

Having just one discarded veto likely doesn’t speak to Obama’s legacy, said Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

“The difference under Obama, and it really started under Bush, is we’ve seen minorities in the Senate blocking a lot of legislation,” Hagle told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “It’s a nice trick to accuse a do-nothing Congress when nothing gets done, but it’s not a great sign of Obama’s leadership.”

In the final weeks of a national election, the veto override comes at an interesting time, said Gary Rose, the chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University, noting Obama’s approval rating is higher than it has been in years.

“It’s unusual for a president to have his veto overridden when his approval rating is actually strong, but this demonstrates that members of Congress are looking ahead to their own re-election and are ready to move on and distance themselves from the president,” Rose said in a phone interview. (For more from the author of “Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cruz, Lee Step up Claims That Justice Department Isn’t Doing Enough to Protect Churches

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are pressing their case that the Department of Justice favors abortion clinics over churches, demanding that the law enforcement agency take steps to ensure “the rights of all American citizens”—not just some—are protected.

In a letter sent Tuesday, obtained first by The Daily Signal, Cruz and Lee criticize the Justice Department’s enforcement of a 1994 law. The intent of the law was to prohibit the use or threat of force and physical obstruction outside abortion clinics, guaranteeing safe access to such facilities.

Before passing the legislation, called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, lawmakers extended the protections to apply to places of worship.

In their letter, addressed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Cruz and Lee accuse the Justice Department of a double standard in enforcing the law. They argue that while the agency has pursued more than two dozen cases involving actions to safeguard access to abortion clinics, the agency hasn’t pursued a single case involving churches and other places of worship.

This is the second letter Cruz and Lee have sent to the Justice Department concerning the FACE Act. They sent the first March 16.

The Justice Department responded to Cruz and Lee in June, arguing the reason it has not used the FACE Act to protect religious liberty is because other statutes that are “broader in scope” already enable them to do so.

The FACE Act allows people to protest peacefully, and exercise their First Amendment rights outside abortion clinics and places of worship. However, if those demonstrations turn violent, they could face civil or criminal charges.

Since January 2009, the Justice Department has listed 25 cases it pursued under the FACE Act that involved access to women’s health clinics, some of which performed abortions.

In the response to Cruz and Lee, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik wrote:

With respect to the protection of religious freedom, the department has prosecuted dozens of cases of violence directed at houses of worship and interference with the free exercise of religion under 18 U.S.C. 247, a statute that is broader in scope than the FACE Act.

According to the Justice Department, that statute “prohibits anyone from intentionally defacing, damaging or destroying any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with the property.”

As a result, the Justice Department “has not filed any criminal or civil actions under the FACE Act in this enforcement area,” Kadzik said, citing several cases involving religious freedom that the agency pursued.

In one case, Jedediah Stout “pleaded guilty to the arson of a mosque and two attempted arsons of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Joplin, Missouri,” Kadzik wrote.

Another was the well-publicized mass murder June 17, 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Roof, now 22, was charged with “killing and attempting to kill African-American parishioners … because of their race and in order to interfere with their exercise of their religion.”

But Cruz and Lee weren’t satisfied with the Justice Department’s argument. They responded with the detailed letter to Lynch, dated Tuesday, arguing that the FACE Act “clearly offers broader protections than 247, which greatly undermines the DOJ’s rationale for not using FACE.”

“But even this somewhat misses the point,” the Republican senators add. “FACE is the law. It is not the DOJ’s prerogative to decide which laws merit enforcement and which ones merit no enforcement at all.”

By way of example, Cruz and Lee accuse the Justice Department of taking a pass on an instance in Los Angeles involving accusations involving a massive protest against Mormons for the church’s support of the ballot question known as Proposition 8. Voters eventually approved the measure, which overturned a California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage by upholding the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A news clip, Cruz and Lee write, “shows ‘more than a thousand’ angry protesters chanting hateful slogans and blocking the entrance of the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

“Demonstrations like this,” they add, “were part of a larger campaign of intimidation and harassment carried out against the Mormon Church for its support of California’s Proposition 8.”

Cruz and Lee write:

This campaign of hate was covered extensively by the press; for example, stories ran in major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, and on national news networks like CNN and CBS. The DOJ’s explanation for its inaction on this issue, that the matter ‘had not previously been brought to our attention,’ simply lacks credibility.

“In short, it would appear the DOJ’s process for tracking violations of religious liberty is either woefully inadequate or purposefully biased.”

In their letter, the senators ask the Justice Department to answer a series of follow-up questions and “respond to several inquiries made in our March letter that have gone unanswered.”

“The information we ask for is necessary to carry out our duty to conduct oversight of the DOJ, and to determine whether the DOJ is doing everything it can to protect the rights of all American citizens,” they write. (For more from the author of “Cruz, Lee Step up Claims That Justice Department Isn’t Doing Enough to Protect Churches” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The State of Tax Reform in 2016

Tax reform remains a central issue in Washington because of its overwhelming necessity.

Tax reform is badly needed to revive the slow-growing economy and increase job creation and wages for American families. The current tax system is a large weight holding the economy back from growing as strongly as it could, thereby suppressing opportunity for Americans at all income levels.

To free the economy to grow larger, tax reform must lower marginal tax rates for families, businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Lower rates would increase their incentives for working, saving, investing, and taking risks.

These activities are the basic elements of economic growth. When more of them occur, the economy grows faster.

The right kind of tax reform also would need to eliminate the multiple layers of tax on saving and investment. The current system applies these multiple layers, raising the marginal tax rate on these economically crucial activities and consequently stunting job creation and wage growth.

Lastly, tax reform should make sure the tax code does not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

The business side of the tax code is most badly in need of repair. The U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, as defined by the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The U.S. is also one of only a few countries that taxes its businesses on their foreign income. Under the tax code’s cumbersome system of depreciation, businesses must deduct the cost of capital over many years.

Tax reform would need to abandon worldwide taxation and move to a territorial system of taxing only businesses on the income they earn domestically. It also would need to allow businesses to fully deduct, or expense, the cost of capital when they make such purchases.

If Congress constructed a plan that adhered to these principles, it could increase economic growth by as much as 15 percent over 10 years.

To achieve these aims, conservatives generally favor a system that eliminates multiple levels of taxation levied on saving and investment, which can be accomplished through a consumption tax.

There are four ways to establish such a system:

• A flat fax, either the traditional method or a consumed income method.
• A national retail sales tax.
• A business transfer tax.
• A hybrid of these approaches.

House Republicans’ Tax Reform Plan

Whether tax reform becomes a reality depends on its status in Congress and whether the president has a plan and makes that plan a prominent part of his or her agenda.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans released a tax reform blueprint earlier this year that adhered to many of the principles outlined above.

The blueprint would lower tax rates for everyone, reduce taxes on saving and investment, create a territorial system, and establish expensing. It also would abolish the estate tax, better known as the death tax. It could benefit, however, from a better treatment of interest.

House Republicans’ blueprint bodes well for tax reform. Should the House follow through and write a bill that follows the blueprint, it would create a tax plan that would grow the economy more than 9 percent over a decade.

Donald Trump’s Tax Reform Plan

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has a tax reform plan too. His plan would reduce rates for families to the same levels as the House blueprint.

The Trump plan also would reduce rates on saving and investing. It would lower the rate for businesses to 15 percent, although it remains unclear to which businesses the rate applies.

It would allow more businesses to expense their capital purchases. It would maintain a worldwide tax system. And it too would eliminate the death tax.

The plan is strongly pro-growth, although not as much so as the House blueprint. It would grow the economy between 6.9 percent and 8.2 percent, depending on how it treats pass-through businesses.

The Trump plan would benefit strongly from greater clarity on what tax rate pass-through businesses pay.

The combined rate for C corporations, after accounting for the 15 percent corporate rate and the 20 percent capital gains rate, is 32 percent. The pass-through rate, if the 15 percent business rate does not apply to them, is 33 percent.

A separate rate for pass-throughs in the 25 percent range, such as the House blueprint calls for, could be an agreeable middle ground.

The plan also could be improved by granting all businesses expensing and by moving to a territorial system.

The Trump plan would reduce revenues by between approximately $1 trillion and $2.5 trillion over 10 years, depending on the treatment of pass-through businesses, after accounting for the economic growth it would foster, according to the Tax Foundation’s analysis.

This is a reasonably-sized tax cut considering revenues are set to exceed their historical average as a share of the economy each year over the next decade.

Hillary Clinton’s Tax Hike

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposes several tax increases. A sample of them includes:

• A 4 percent surcharge on adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $5 million.
• A 30 percent minimum tax for AGIs over $1 million (the so-called Buffett rule).
• Limiting the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent.
• Increasing capital gains tax rates.
• Capping the size of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).
• Raising the death tax rate to 65 percent for estates over $1 billion and reducing the exemption amount from $5 million to $3.5 million per person.
• Assessing an exit tax on businesses that invert.

These assorted tax increases combined do not create a tax reform plan that will lessen the impediment the tax code creates for economic growth.

Instead, the Clinton plan would hurt economic growth by reducing incentives for working, saving and investing, and taking risks.

The death tax proposal would be particularly harmful. The confiscatory rate would strongly deter investment, reducing job creation and wage growth.

Tax Reform Hinge on Who Wins in November

Tax reform will have a chance of becoming law in 2017 because of the House’s commitment to it.

If Trump becomes president, he and the House can work to meld their plans. The prospects of a strong pro-growth plan in that scenario are high.

If Clinton becomes president, tax reform would become less likely. Instead, Congress would need to stop her desired tax increases, much as they worked against President Obama’s tax hikes for many of his years in office.

That effort would deter time and focus from the primary goal of reforming the nation’s outdated tax code. (For more from the author of “The State of Tax Reform in 2016” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Joe Miller Campaign Releases First Campaign Ad ‘Testimonials’

Fairbanks, Alaska. September 27, 2016 — The campaign of Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller released its first radio ad on Monday, which is called “Testimonials.”

The ad features four members of the Alaska Republican Party Central Committee, who left their positions (and in one case was removed) to publicly back Miller’s candidacy for U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Others featured include Amy Demboski, the 2015 GOP nominee for Anchorage mayor, who was threatened with removal as district secretary by the vice chairman of the state Republican Party for backing Miller, as well as Russ Millette, who was elected the Alaska Republican Party chairman in 2012.

In the ad, former Anchorage district 25 chairman Dave Bronson states he “was removed for supporting the Constitutional Conservative for United States Senate . . . Joe Miller.”

Others voicing support for Miller are district chairs Shannon Connelly (Palmer), Ron Johnson (Chugiak), and state Central Committee member Mike Widney (Big Lake).


The ad began airing on stations in multiple markets in Alaska on Monday.

“I am very honored that members of the central committee would take the extraordinary step of leaving their positions to back my candidacy,” said Miller. “We have seen a groundswell of support during these last few weeks, which I believe will continue to grow and carry us to victory in November.”

In announcing his candidacy earlier this month, Miller pointed to the near historic low voter turnout in the Republican primary as evidence that Alaskan voters want another choice.

Despite entering the race in September, Miller has already garnered the endorsement of Alaska Right to Life and the support of the Alaska Republican Assembly.

Miller also has the support of the co-chair of Donald Trump’s campaign in Alaska and the former co-chair of Sen. Ted Cruz’s Republican presidential primary campaign.

The Gun Owners of America and conservative talk show host Mark Levin endorsed Miller during the past week.

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense

National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History

Early Monday morning, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council made a huge announcement that rocked the political world.

“We hereby endorse Donald J. Trump, and urge all Americans, especially the millions of lawful immigrants living within our country, to support Donald J. Trump, and to protect American jobs, wages and lives,” the organization’s president, Chris Crane, wrote in a statement published at DonaldJTrump.com.

What made the endorsement so stunning was that the National ICE Council had never before in its history made an endorsement for a candidate running for an elected office.

Plus, the council represented 7,600 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff members.

Yet this time around, the council chose to have a vote, and according to the results of that vote, GOP candidate Donald Trump received the vast majority of the council members’ support.

“This first-ever endorsement was conducted by a vote of our membership, with Hillary Clinton receiving only 5 percent of that vote,” Crane’s statement clarified.

In explaining why council members disliked Democrat candidate Clinton so much, Crane pointed to her support of “the most radical immigration proposal in U.S. history.”

He also claimed that her plan had been crafted with the assistance of “special interests and open-borders radicals.”

“Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders,” his statement went on.

The Democrat candidate would also expand executive amnesty, expand catch-and-release and prioritize the non-enforcement of America’s federal immigration laws, Crane wrote.

Trump’s plan, on the other hand, would “restore immigration security” by, among other things, cancelling President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, putting an end to sanctuary cities and providing immigration agents with the tools and resources they need to effectively carry out their jobs.

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane continued.

“We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal,” he concluded. (For more from the author of “National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.