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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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.

The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a fascinating new documentary, Clinton, Inc., which every voter in America really ought to see. Media are full of news stories, most of them hyped and some of them false, that highlight objections which conservative or moderate voters might have to Donald Trump. The same reporters and editors who fawned over Trump in the primaries and granted him billions in free coverage seem to have turned on him the day he clinched the GOP nomination.

Now some of them have abandoned even the frayed mask of objectivity and openly taken up the cause of trying to throw the election the Democrats’ way. Amiable Jimmy Fallon was subject to a public shaming because he gave Trump the same kind of friendly, softball interview he gives every other guest on his light-hearted late night show.

Conversely, major media have been virtually complicit in smoothing over Hillary Clinton’s scandals, particularly since she defeated Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Little coverage goes to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who embraces Sanders’ agenda. It’s as if a quiet memo had been issued across the media, instructing reporters and editors: “Lay off until the election.”

The makers of Clinton, Inc. didn’t get the memo. The film’s producer is Doug Sain, who also produced 2016: Obama’s America, which was a huge hit among conservatives. Clinton, Inc. is based on the book of that title by Weekly Standard editor Daniel Halper. But this film doesn’t focus on ideology. In fact, it’s a movie you can take your liberal friends and family members to see. They’ll emerge from it deeply troubled about Hillary Clinton’s character and her fitness to be president.

Clinton, Inc. is a cool, objective look at the rise of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. It consults biographers, former advisers such as Dick Morris, psychologists, marital therapists, FBI agents, and progressive activists, to analyze the characters of both candidates and the changes they’ve undergone over the decades. The film asks (and goes far toward answering) critical questions such as:

Why did such a highly intelligent, ambitious politician as Bill Clinton get himself into a long series of squalid, potentially embarrassing sexual affairs with poorer, less powerful women while joined in a very public, political marriage to Hillary? Why couldn’t he control himself?

Why did a strong-willed, overtly feminist woman such as Hillary accept Bill’s humiliating infidelities, and step in to save him from political bankruptcy again and again — even targeting and demonizing the women who truthfully admitted their part in these affairs?

How was Hillary’s political acumen crucial to Bill’s political career?

Why did Bill Clinton back the trade deal NAFTA against the fierce objections of his labor union voting base? How did that decision open the door to massive fundraising from international corporations, which far outweighed the anger of disgruntled Teamsters and auto-workers?

What behind-the-scenes bargain existed between Bill and Hillary, rewarding her for her silence about his compulsive infidelities?

How have two politicians who left the White House deep in debt accumulated a private fortune of more than $100 million, while running what is supposedly a non-profit charity, the Clinton Foundation? Why has the foundation never been properly audited?

What favors did they trade, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, to foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, in return for multi-million dollar donations?

Why did Hillary Clinton flout the law to use an insecure private email server to send hundreds, or even thousands, of classified emails while she was Secretary of State? What might have been on the 30,000 emails which Congress had requested, which she deleted instead?

It’s Not About Sex. It’s About Perjury.

Sex scandals, while unsavory, are a key part of the Clintons’ story. Those of us who lived through the late 1990s will well remember the sordid spectacle of Bill Clinton’s exploitative affair with intern Monica Lewinsky — a White House intern who was only eight years older than Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea. What we might have forgotten, and what younger voters won’t even know, is the reason that such private conduct became an issue of public debate. It wasn’t prurient interest on the part of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, though that’s how most media choose to retell the story.

No, the question of Bill Clinton’s sexual activities while in public office became relevant because he was being sued for sexual harassment by a former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, an accusation which he denied under oath. Perjury is a crime, which Starr was obliged to investigate. That was what forced Starr to look into the news of Bill’s affair with Lewinsky. It established a pattern of conduct.

What most of America wondered, as that sordid story unfolded and Hillary backed Bill in public lie after lie, was why such a strong-willed, steely woman stood by her cheating husband from the beginning to end of the scandal. What did she get in return for enduring that gross humiliation?

Clinton, Inc. gives the answer: Bill Clinton essentially appointed her the Democratic nominee for Senate in New York State. She received that party nomination without even facing a primary — a staggering coup d’etat in a state full of ambitious Democratic candidates.

The Clintons had never lived, worked, or paid taxes in New York. The one time Hillary appeared in a Yankees baseball cap reporters burst out laughing. But the New York State Democratic Party is an old-style political machine, one that a sitting Democratic president could work to his advantage. And as Clinton, Inc. makes clear, the price that Hillary demanded for backing up Bill’s lies all through those sexual scandals was that Bill jump-start her own career by short-circuiting democracy for New York Democratic voters.

As this film makes clear, that nasty back-room trade-off epitomizes the Clintons. Their governing motive isn’t even ideology. It is naked ambition — a ravenous hunger for power and wealth that trumps political issues. So fixated are the Clintons on building a political dynasty, that they are more than willing to get in bed with the crony capitalists at Goldman Sachs, or Saudi princes whose government executes homosexuals.

They will lie for each other, lie to Americans, lie under oath, and punish old friends and allies who happen to stand in their way. If you wondered how on earth someone as offbeat as Bernie Sanders became a major threat to Clinton, this film will help you understand why so many well-meaning Democrats refused to back Mrs. Clinton. She offended their sense of smell. (For more from the author of “The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Priebus Still ‘Hopeful’ Bush 41, 43 Come on Board for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Monday that he’s “hopeful” former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush will be able to come around and support Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.

“I’m hopeful that that is going to change soon,” Priebus told Laura Ingraham of the absence of any support from the Bush family. “I know that Bush 41 is very upset over what [Kathleen Hartington Kennedy] had said and is not happy.”

Kennedy claims that President George H.W. Bush told an audience in private that he was going to vote for Clinton, but Bush denied ever saying that. Priebus agreed he could clear it up by saying he’d vote for Trump, and downplayed the divide in the Republican Party.

“I think the divide is like … 90/10. It’s 88/12. It’s not much of a divide. We have a sliver that’s resistant, and I think if people are serious about getting our country in a place that has been a bunch of talk, but is actually some action, then they need to get on board and elect Donald Trump president. I think they’re getting — I think they’ll get there.” (Read more from “Priebus Still ‘Hopeful’ Bush 41, 43 Come on Board for Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

9 Big Lies the Hillary Campaign Tells America

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is having a tough time spinning a web of half-truths, misrepresentations, and distortions around an American public that just doesn’t trust her.

The nine biggest Clinton campaign whoppers, falsehoods, and deceptions are listed below.

1. Americans trust Hillary

The Clinton spin machine is furiously peddling the lie that the American people trust Hillary, yet they it’s clear that they really don’t. According to a Newsday poll, 60 percent of the voters who know Hillary the best — New Yorkers — say they don’t believe she is honest or trustworthy. (A mere 37 percent believe she is.) An August 15, 2016 Rasmussen poll also indicates that most voters don’t trust her.

2. Hillary is a real, down-to-Earth person

Hillary believes that if you use a fake laugh and tell people you are a real person, they will believe you.

3. Hillary is just like you and me

Hillary’s net worth, according to Moneynation is between $31.3 and $10.8 million.

4. Hillary has been under live fire in a war zone

Looking back to Hillary’s first run for president, on March 17, 2008, Hillary claimed she was under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia on an official trip for the White House in 1996. The Washington Free Beacon reported in March of last year that she lied about it. Watch the CBS report here.

5. Hillary is not a serial or compulsive liar

“Louder with Crowder” hits it out of the park on this whopper.

6. A ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ is the root of all of the Clinton problems

According to a Washington Times report, Hillary was the point person to destroy women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.

7. Hillary did not Lie on ‘Fox News Sunday’ about her email scandal

The Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler concluded on July 31, 2016 the following about her repeating lies on “Fox News Sunday”:

As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.

8. Hillary supports the Second Amendment

For those who treasure Second Amendment rights and don’t want to be playing defense for the next four years on Supreme Court nominees and gun control legislation, this fall’s election will have a significant impact on the government’s respect for the Bill of Rights – because Hillary wants to effectively erase the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

9. Hillary is not a faker

(For more from the author of “9 Big Lies the Hillary Campaign Tells America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Things America Can Learn From a Likely Jihadist Assassination in Jordan

/0 Comments/in , /by

The assassination of a Jordanian writer who was under investigation for allegedly sharing a cartoon mocking the Islamic State has some very real lessons for American policy makers and the fight against global jihadism.

According to a report at CNN:

A prominent Jordanian writer facing charges for sharing a “blasphemous” anti-ISIS cartoon that outraged Muslim groups was fatally shot in Amman on Sunday, state news agency Petra reported.

Nahed Hattar, a member of the country’s Christian minority, was shot three times outside a courthouse in the capital where charges against him were being heard.

Public Security Department personnel, who were near the scene of the attack, rushed Hattar to a nearby hospital, but he died from his injuries, Petra reported.

Hattar was brought up on charges for sharing a cartoon that depicted a jihadist in bed with two naked women demanding that God bring him refreshments (thereby mocking ISIS members’ view of heaven). Hattar was charged with “inciting sectarian strife” for having shared an image that was “abusive to the divine entity,” according to state media reports.

Local authorities have arrested the attacker and an investigation is underway, but the attack would appear to be motivated by the high-profile case against Hattar.

The assassination itself is a tragedy — one that evokes painful memories of other extrajudicial Islamist killings in other Mideast regimes (which will be discussed later). But it also offers three very important lessons for those of us in the West.

1. Our allies still have Islamism problems, and that’s a problem for us

First, the fact that this happened in Jordan shows us that even our allies in the Middle East exhibit the same root problems that lead to the formation of jihadist terror organizations.

“Our challenge in the Middle East is that sharia supremacism fills all vacuums. It was this ideology that created ISIS long before President Obama came along,” writes Andy McCarthy at National Review. “And if ISIS were to disappear tomorrow, sharia supremacism would still be our challenge.”

Jordan has been one of the anti-ISIS coalition’s most visible and important players, but the weekend’s courthouse murder suggests that even the Hashemite monarchy run by King Abdullah II (and the beloved Queen Rania) isn’t free from the societal trends that feed the problem of Islamist supremacism.

“America needs to finally wake up,” says Dr. Zhudi Jasser, the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

Dr. Jasser is a prominent Muslim reformist, former U.S. religious freedom commissioner, and author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.” The Muslim Reform movement, which he co-founded, names the “separation of Mosque and state” as a core tenet of its beliefs.

“Hattar was assassinated only after he was formally charged with the same kind of crime for which ISIS executes people on a daily basis,” said Jasser in an interview with Conservative Review Monday. “The only difference between countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia and ISIS is that the former two are corporate Sharia states … but they’re all drinking from the same ideology.”

When the United States refuses to acknowledge these trends in its foreign policy, it has the effect of “treating arsonists like firefighters,” he added.

That cases like Nahed Hattar’s persistently happen outside ISIS lines and beyond the control of the Iranian mullahs ought to show Americans that real peace in the Middle East won’t be achieved by balancing the region out with America-friendly, Sharia-based regimes, says Jasser. Rather, it’s going to take a much more stringent litmus test.

“When we realized that the Soviet Union has ideological, imperialist goals that involved spreading communism to every corner of the globe, we didn’t try to work with ‘moderate’ communists elsewhere in the world” to moderate the threat, Jasser explains, saying that American foreign policy should exhibit a similar commitment to only ally itself with regimes that do not function as Sharia states.

“This problem is not going to go away until we raise the bar for our allies,” he said. “It may seem far-fetched or quixotic, but there is no other alternative.”

2. This is bigger than one assassination

Second, Hattar was also a victim of one of one of the most widespread human rights violations in the world right now: blasphemy laws. The simple fact that Hattar was even facing charges for something as simple as a Facebook post speaks to a global attack on free speech that goes by several names. In several Muslim-majority nations, this trend takes the form of blasphemy laws, which carry heavy penalties — in many cases, death.

“The reason Nahed’s death is more shocking than others who have been executed under Draconian blasphemy laws is because Nahed simply shared the drawing — he didn’t even draw it himself. It shows us the depth of intolerance in regressive Muslim communities, even if that community is Jordan — a country hailed as being one of the few beacons of the Muslim world,” reads an emailed statement from CounterJihad.com’s Shireen Qudosi, who testified before congress last week.

“However,” she adds, “no society is truly progressive, stable, or capable of taking on the tide of Radical Islam unless it can champion free speech.”

Elsewhere in the world, Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, has marked her seventh year on death row in Pakistan for having the audacity to drink water from the same glass as her Muslim co-workers, then subsequently refusing to convert to Islam in front of her co-workers. While Asia Bibi may be the world’s most visible symbol of the tyranny of blasphemy laws, she’s far from alone, as her case has also claimed the lives of Shahbaz Bhatti and Salman Taseer, Pakistani politicians who were assassinated for daring to speak out on her behalf.

3. America isn’t that different from Jordan or Pakistan when it comes to free speech

Thirdly, sadly, as I have pointed out before, this is a problem outside the Muslim-majority world. In multiculturalist — or what R.R. Reno would more aptly call “non-judgementalist” — Europe, the anti-free speech phenomenon takes the form of so-called “hate speech” laws, where people have even been subjected to jail time for such offenses as giving a sermon about sexuality and marriage, or drunkenly speculating on the sexuality of a policeman’s horse.

Yes, an Oxford student was actually arrested for “hate speech” against a horse.

Meanwhile, the trend in the United States’ is to enact“non-discrimination” laws that prohibit any form of public dissent against the newest government-imposed view of marriage or human biology are taking root from coast to coast. Additionally, Qudosi tells CR, “countless critical thinkers in Islam — including Muslim Reformers like myself — are shamed, harassed, and threatened for the Constitutional values we espouse.”

The trends and laws that led to Nahed Hattar’s death in Jordan represent an egregious violence against basic human freedom. But those in a society dominated by political correctness need to remember that the only difference between these laws and the ones gaining ground in the West are the prevailing ideology and the degree of punishment — for now, at least.

“As long as America allows speech to be censored under a manipulation of the First Amendment and under the illusion of tolerance, America is not that different from Jordan in the challenges it faces,” CounterJihad’s Shireen Qudosi concludes. “American can no longer rally the Muslim world toward liberty and democracy, and not identify the cracks within its own walls.”

Hattar died a martyr to free speech, but he need not have died in vain, so long as freedom-loving countries and policy makers take heed of the lessons his death offered. (For more from the author of “3 Things America Can Learn From a Likely Jihadist Assassination in Jordan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Hammers Clinton Over Racial Comments

/0 Comments/in , /by

Shifting the focus of the first presidential debate toward law enforcement, race relations and Second Amendment gun rights, Republican nominee Donald Trump took a moment Monday night to discuss an element of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s past she likely wish could have stayed buried.

“I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the word ‘super-predator’ about young black youth,” Trump stated.

“That’s a term that I think … it’s been horribly met — as you know — I think you’ve apologized for it, but I think it was a terrible thing to say,” he continued.

The comment Trump was referring to dates back to 1996, when then first lady Hillary Clinton expressed her perceptions of young black men and their role in burgeoning crime statistics.

“They’re not just gangs of kids anymore,” she began. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators. No conscience, no empathy.”

Clinton’s remarks were made all the worse when she offered her solution to dealing with these “super-predators.”

“We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel,” she stated emphatically.

As part of her agenda to bring young black men in line, Clinton proposed harsher sentencing laws, which resulted in mass incarcerations, including severe sentencing for children as young as 13.

Although Clinton has apologized for these comments since beginning her political career, the racial overtones and the imagery evoked of bringing young black men “to heel” has stuck with many in the African-American community.

For this reason and others, enthusiasm for Clinton among black voters has been lower than many expected.

Although she still maintains a healthy lead over Trump, his support has continued to grow. A tracking poll earlier this month showed Trump with a 16.5 percent increase in support from black voters. (For more from the author of “Trump Hammers Clinton Over Racial Comments” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Debate Audience Members Cheer Trump’s Terms for Releasing Tax Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

Though moderator Lester Holt began Monday night’s presidential debate by asking the audience to remain quiet during the 90-minute event, one answer by Republican nominee Donald Trump prompted many in attendance to break that rule.

When Holt brought up Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, the brash billionaire announced one condition under which he would defy his attorneys’ advice and hand over the financial documents.

“We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of,” he said.

“I will release my tax returns against my lawyers’ wishes when [Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton] releases her 33,000 emails she deleted,” Trump added.

Trump’s reference to an ongoing scandal regarding the then-secretary of state’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified information prompted many in the audience to cheer loudly.

Before turning to Clinton for a rebuttal, Holt “admonished” those responsible for the interruption.

For her part, Trump’s rival floated a few theories she said would explain why the real estate mogul has kept his tax returns private.

“Maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is” or “as charitable as he claims to be,” Clinton speculated.

She also suggested Trump might also be trying to hide the fact that he does not pay federal taxes.

“He’s not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are,” she concluded, “because it must be something really important — even terrible — he’s trying to hide.” (For more from the author of “Debate Audience Members Cheer Trump’s Terms for Releasing Tax Returns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.