Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the fact it’s illegal, further proof that the Obama administration is not opposed to moving inmates from Guantanamo Bay’s military detention facility to U.S. soil was confirmed this week.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt disclosed the Pentagon spent federal dollars to scope out Fort Leavenworth — where the Department of Defense’s only maximum security prison is located — as a potential site to house former Gitmo detainees,” the Topeka-Capital Journal’s Justin Wingerter reports.

“As time runs out for the Obama administration to make good on its promise to close Guantanamo, this document raises new concerns for those who object to bringing detainees to the U.S. mainland,” Schmidt said after his office discovered the Pentagon’s actions through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Schmidt’s office underwent a 10-month battle with the DOD over the FOIA request.

However, bringing Gitmo inmates to the U.S. is illegal and prohibited by federal law. Additionally, multiple members in Congress have emphasized it will continue to remain illegal.

“After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe. And he doesn’t seem interested in continuing to try,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan R-Wis., (F, 53%) said in a statement in February after Obama confirmed his intentions to close the facility in Cuba.

“His proposal fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility. Congress has left no room for confusion. It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.”

Questions regarding the transference of remaining Guantanamo detainees have been rekindled. Just this month, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. (A, 96%), reintroduced a proposal halting detainees to be transferred to U.S. soil. This resolution was first introduced in February and is now gaining support from 50 Republican House members.

Similar to Kansas residents near Fort Leavenworth, the issue is relevant for Duncan and his district, since another potential U.S. site for the detainees is the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

“No state should be a terrorist dumping ground. I know the people of South Carolina are vehemently opposed to this plan,” Duncan said in a statement. “If brought to a city like Charleston, the community would immediately become a high priority terrorist target where millions of tourists travel every year to visit. In fact, any community forced illegal to house these notorious terrorists would be at risk.”

Currently, there are 61 detainees remaining at the Gitmo facility; Obama said earlier this month 20 of those are approved for transfer.

It’s important to note 66 percent of Americans are opposed to closing the facility, according to a Gallup poll from June.

Americans are concerned about former terrorists on the loose, and Obama should be, too. (For more from the author of “Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A GOP Congress Should Not Give Planned Parenthood Another Dime of Taxpayer Money

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood has once again proven it does two things exceedingly well—ending innocent human lives in the womb for a fee, and getting American taxpayers to subsidize its operations.

How else to explain Congress making America’s No. 1 abortion provider eligible for new funding when it already gets over a half-billion dollars (yes, billion) in taxpayer money per year?

The House version of the continuing resolution, a short-term government spending measure, provided $95 million in health care funds to address the Zika emergency. But it effectively limited grant recipients to Medicaid providers in Florida and Puerto Rico.

This meant that Planned Parenthood clinics in Florida would have been guaranteed funding, but its Puerto Rico partner, Profamilia, would not because it did not qualify under Medicaid rules.

This was unacceptable to congressional Democrats who threatened a shutdown fight over this one abortion provider that runs six clinics. The subsequent Senate version of the continuing resolution dropped the Medicaid requirement and allows Profamilia access to Zika funds, but seems to leave the question of who ultimately gets funding in the hands of Florida and Puerto Rico health authorities.

Because Florida cut off Planned Parenthood funding under Medicaid this year (only to be overturned by a liberal judge), there is at least some hope that it will direct all Zika funds to life-affirming health centers instead of abortion clinics.

But Puerto Rico? The place that once boasted of the highest female sterilization rate in the world because of the coercive teamwork between Planned Parenthood and the Puerto Rican government? We already know Planned Parenthood and its allies are willing to hold emergency Zika funding hostage over a handful of clinics, so it would be the height of naïveté to think that the master of working the system would not find a way to get its typical cut of the money if given the chance.

Instead of allowing Planned Parenthood access to new federal funding streams, Congress should be closing the spigot entirely. For example, when videos of alleged corruption and illegal voter fraud surfaced around the notorious left-wing group known as ACORN, Congress promptly defunded it. The same logic applies to Planned Parenthood, especially after undercover videos raised serious questions over whether its affiliates were illegally profiting from selling organs of unborn babies.

Thankfully, we still have landmark laws like the Hyde Amendment that prevent direct taxpayer funding of abortion. But while Planned Parenthood fights for Hyde’s repeal, it has used every trick in the book to get federal money by trying to pretend that its core business is anything but industrial-scale abortion.

Congress should not make Planned Parenthood eligible for a raise. Rather, it should bar Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from health care funding up front and redirect it to more comprehensive and life-affirming health care providers. Such a move would reflect the simple fact the Planned Parenthood has long since disqualified itself from taxpayer money because of its callous disregard for innocent human life. (For more from the author of “A GOP Congress Should Not Give Planned Parenthood Another Dime of Taxpayer Money” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Use Presidential Debate to Talk About Conservatism

/0 Comments/in , /by

With an estimated 100 million people tuning in to watch Monday night’s presidential debate, the topic of conversation for the week will be the showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, therefore giving you ample opportunity to talk conservative policy.

But you’ll have to be diligent in this endeavor as the memorable moments in presidential debates are rarely about policy:

1. Ronald Reagan disarmed Walter Mondale in a 1984 debate, saying, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” The punchline not only made the audience laugh, but Mondale genuinely cracked up too.

2. In 1988, Michael Dukakis lacked every emotion when asked if he would favor the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. He responded without mentioning his, uh, wife: “No, I don’t … I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.”

3. Most remember that Al Gore repeatedly sighed as George W. Bush spoke during a 2000 debate. “But the best moment might have been when Gore at one point stood up, seemingly to intimidate Bush, and Bush simply nodded hello at him and continued what he was saying,” writes Time’s Dan Mitchell.

These moments are brought to you by an “uh-oh,” or a laugh, or a great sound bite, not policy. But we promise the ensuing chatter around these moments and the superficial aspects highlighted by the media allows you to pivot to a substantive conversation.

Here are three ways to focus your otherwise shallow conversation on conservative policy.

Common Ground

While we want to be entertained during the 90-minute debate (no risk of being slighted this year), you want to move past the performance and instead discuss policy. Acknowledge the moments the media will obsess over, but then pivot to the candidates’ policies on your political issue of choice.

For example, if a candidate makes an exaggerated claim about income inequality that the media just can’t stop talking about, acknowledge the claim as absurd and then pivot to policy. Use common identifiers like “we both know his/her statement was absurd, but the policy behind it needs to be addressed. We can both agree that…” You recognize the absurdity of the claim (common ground) and then refocus the conversation on the substance behind the claim.

Examples

Use what the candidates say. Even if we witness in-depth policy discussions Monday night, you may disagree with the style and substance. Play off the candidates’ comments to give tangible examples. If the person you’re talking to cares about guns, or health care, or income inequality, refer back to the columns we’ve written about how to have conversations about those topics.

Remember, you win by using an example, personal anecdote, or analogy that frames the policy in a relatable way. And adding in a simple data point along with an example is always a great way to prove you’re right … because numbers, like hips, don’t lie.

Words

NEWS FLASH: Beating someone over the head with your perspective is not persuasive. You gain no ground by talking (or yelling) at someone. They will shut down and likely never want to discuss politics with you again. We know the debate will be heated Monday, but don’t let that tension influence your conversation.

A great way to resist the temptation to yell/kick/scream your way to winning is to use the right words. Talk about “choice,” what’s “fair,” “rights,” and “equality.” It’s been said many times before, but steal the words and phrases used to great effect by liberals. Doing so is disarming, but more importantly, those words accurately describe your conservative policy position too.

While fireworks are expected, remember that what the candidates do on stage won’t be worth mimicking in real life, especially if you want to persuade. Instead, find common ground, use examples, and say the right words. (For more from the author of “How to Use Presidential Debate to Talk About Conservatism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are in a hurry to get out of town so they can hit the campaign trail and convince voters to send them back to Washington. But, considering they’ve pushed off most of the big decisions until after the election, their list of accomplishments this year is a very short one. Maybe they think voters won’t notice.

(For more from the author of “Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Spotted at Ginny Meerman-Lee’s place:

1. There’s a Black President
2. There’s a Black Congressman
3. There’s a Black Mayor
4. There’s a Black District Attorney
5. There’s a Black Chief of Police
6. The officer involved in the shooting was Black
7. The victim perp was Black

So whose fault is it when the perp gets taken out?

Oh, that’s right. The era of racial healing instigated by Barack Hussein Soetero Dunham Obama is truly remarkable.

Fundamentally transformed, alright. (For more from the author of “THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may be second-guessing her decision to appear on the popular online comedy show Funny or Die.

In an effort to increase her support among milennial voters, Clinton was interviewed by actor and comedian Zach Galifianakis in a segment called, “Between Two Ferns.”

Galifianakis began the interview by saying, “Critics have questioned some of your decision making recently and by you doing this show I hope it finally lays that to rest.”

Clinton responded, “Oh, I think it absolutely proves their case. Don’t you?”

The comedian went on to ask if she was excited to be the first “girl” president.

“Well, I mean being president would be such an extraordinary honor, and responsibility, but being the first woman elected president… That’s pretty special.”

At one point the discussion turned to Clinton’s opponent Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Galifianakis asked if she ever looked at how well racism worked for Trump and thought, “Oh, maybe I should be more racist.”

Clinton responds by shaking her head.

When asked if she would leave the country if Trump becomes president, Clinton remarked she would remain in the U.S. and try to prevent him from destroying the country.

The host asked if she would lead the “civil war,” to which Clinton replied, “No, I wouldn’t take up arms. I think that might be a little extreme.”

“Oh right, because you were saying before we were rolling that you wanted to take away everyone’s guns,” remarked Galifianakis.

That was when Clinton said, “I really regret doing this.”

He also poked fun at Clinton’s wardrobe by saying, “I’d love to meet the person who makes your pantsuits because for Halloween I want to go as a librarian from outer space.”

Galifianakis stopped the interview for a word from a sponsor, which turned out to be a Trump campaign ad.

After asking a few more questions, Galifianakis said, “Well, this has been a lot of fun Mrs. Clinton. We should stay in touch. What’s the best way to reach you? Email?” (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Admits: Islamic State Terrorists Trying to Pose as Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged Wednesday that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as a refugee.

“I wouldn’t debate the fact that there’s the potential for ISIS terrorists to try to insert themselves, and we see that in some of the refugee camps in Jordan and in Turkey, where they try to insert themselves into the population,” Kirby said on “Fox and Friends.”

Still, he argued that the vetting process for these refugees is tough, and should be enough to keep terrorists out, although he admitted it’s not a perfect process.

“The vetting process, while not perfect, is a very, very stringent, and it can take almost up to two years for a single refugee to make it into the country,” he said.

He said in the same interview: “Is it perfect? Can it be perfect? Can it be foolproof? Well, probably not, no.” (Read more from “State Admits: Islamic State Terrorists Trying to Pose as Refugees” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Discovery: Ancient Old Testament Fragment Identical to Copy Found 2,000 Years Later

/0 Comments/in , /by

Modern technology met ancient text when imaging software showed a 2,000-year old Israeli scroll matches the modern Hebrew Bible’s Book of Leviticus.

As reported by The Associated Press, the scroll was discovered decades ago and has been kept in a storeroom thanks to being too brittle to open. According to researchers, that’s no longer a problem:

The passages from the Book of Leviticus, scholars say, offer the first physical evidence of what has long been believed: that the version of the Hebrew Bible used today goes back 2,000 years.

The discovery, announced in a Science Advances journal article by researchers in Kentucky and Jerusalem on Wednesday, was made using “virtual unwrapping,” a 3D digital analysis of an X-ray scan. Researchers say it is the first time they have been able to read the text of an ancient scroll without having to physically open it.

“You can’t imagine the joy in the lab,” said Pnina Shor of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who participated in the study.

The digital technology, funded by Google and the U.S. National Science Foundation, is slated to be released to the public as open source software by the end of next year.

The scroll was discovered 46 years ago inside an ancient synagogue that was destroyed in a fire. Preserved by the dry climate, it was left largely undamaged until researchers attempted to open it. Since 1970, it has set dormant, unreadable and unusable.

The experimental reading was requested last year by the man who discovered the scroll, Yosef Porath. AP reports he asked researchers at the Israel Antiquities Authority’s Dead Sea Scrolls preservation lab in Jerusalem to scan a box of scrolls. While Shor initially asked if Porath was “joking,” she agreed to do the scans.

[Shor] agreed, and a number of burned scrolls were scanned using X-ray-based micro-computed tomography, a 3D version of the CT scans hospitals use to create images of internal body parts. The images were then sent to William Brent Seales, a researcher in the computer science department of the University of Kentucky. Only one of the scrolls could be deciphered.

Using the “virtual unwrapping” technology, he and his team painstakingly captured the three-dimensional shape of the scroll’s layers, using a digital triangulated surface mesh to make a virtual rendering of the parts they suspected contained text. They then searched for pixels that could signify ink made with a dense material like iron or lead. The researchers then used computer modeling to virtually flatten the scroll, to be able to read a few columns of text inside.

“Not only were you seeing writing, but it was readable,” said Seales. “At that point we were absolutely jubilant.”

The scroll is expected to be of assistance in expanding the understanding of the Hebrew Bible. The famed Dead Sea Scrolls date back more than 1,700 years, but differ significantly from the modern Hebrew Bible, despite scholars’ belief that the Bible has changed little since the time of Christ. One scholar told AP after the recent discovery that “in 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”

The implications for other historical discoveries are also significant, according to Tel Aviv University’s Noam Mizrahi. “It’s not only what was found, but the promise of what else it can uncover, which is what will turn this into an exciting discovery,” he told AP. (For more from the author of “Discovery: Ancient Old Testament Fragment Identical to Copy Found 2,000 Years Later” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is true that, as followers of Jesus, we will be hated and rejected just as He was (Matthew 10:24-25; John 15:18-20). And it is true that many of our words and deeds will be unpopular, as we speak truth to power, as we stand for justice, as we expose unrighteousness, we call people to repentance, and as we confront the corrupt status quo.

This is what happened to the prophets of old when they called their people to account, and this is what will happen to us as we follow in their footsteps today (Matthew 5:10-12).

But that doesn’t mean that we are troublemakers or agitators; instead, we are called to be peacemakers and ambassadors of reconciliation (Matthew 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

It is true that our message will divide people, as Jesus told us long ago (Matthew 10:34-37), but our goal is not to divide people but rather to call them together, to build bridges rather than tear them down.

I’m quite aware that, in the Book of Acts, the disciples were often accused of being rabble rousers who stirred up dissension and conflict.

In Acts 16 Paul and Silas were accused of throwing the city of Philippi into an uproar; in Acts 17 the disciples were referred to as those who were turning the whole world upside down; in Acts 21 Paul was mistaken for the leader of a violent revolution; and in Acts 24 he was accused of being a troublemaker (literally, a pestilence), stirring up riots in city after city.

And in 2 Timothy 3:12, after describing his long history of being persecuted for the faith, Paul told Timothy, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” In other words, “Timothy, I’m not the only one who is going to be persecuted!”

But reality is that Paul was neither a troublemaker nor the leader of a violent revolutionary movement, although he certainly was a leader in a revolutionary movement — the Jesus movement, the most revolutionary movement of all time, not simply in its call for radical change but also in its methods, overcoming evil with good and conquering hatred with love.

As noted by Christian teacher H. S. Vigeveno, “Our world has witnessed many a revolution, but none as effective as the one that divided history into B.C. and A.D … Revolutionary, indeed, this mission, to begin with a cross and sway the whole world through suffering love.”

Revolutionary, indeed!

Do we dare seek to live it out?

Do we dare seek to follow the Jesus model of laying down our lives for others and of loving our own enemies?

Can we find a way to have hearts of compassion joined with backbones of steel, to mingle grace together with truth, to be both caring and courageous?

Can we learn to confront unrighteousness without becoming unruly? Can we stand up for justice without provoking people to carnal rage?

Followers of Jesus may challenge the sinful status quo but our words and deeds will never lead to looting or violence or riots.

Instead, we urge people to put down their sword (which means renouncing acts of lawlessness and violence) and pick up their cross (which means death to our fleshly desires and self-will).

That is how we change the world, and that is how we live out our calling to peacemakers and reconcilers and bridge builders. We are a movement, not a mob.

In the words of Vernon Grounds, former Chancellor of Denver Theological Seminary, “A Christian who … becomes a revolutionary will serve as a revolutionary catalyst in the Church; and by the multiplication of revolutionized Christians, the Church will become a revolutionary catalyst in society; and if society is sufficiently revolutionized, a revolution of violence will no more be needed than a windmill in a world of atomic energy.”

In these days of social upheaval and violence in our cities, followers of Jesus need to rise to the occasion, tackling the controversies and confronting the challenges, but doing so in a way that produces light not heat, conviction not rage, and hope not despair.

We do have answers in the gospel — constructive, holistic, life-changing answers — but we must practice what we preach if the world is to listen to us.

Let us, then, lead the way in bringing healing to our nation.

Let us be peacemakers rather than troublemakers, ambassadors rather than agitators. (For more from the author of “We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Planned Parenthood fetal harvesting partner StemExpress should be held in contempt of Congress, according to Republicans on a panel investigating the fetal harvesting industry.

The House Select Panel on Infant Lives’ vote was based upon a report Republicans say outlines cause to hold StemExpress and its CEO Cate Dyer in contempt for not responding to the Panel’s subpoenas and other requests and demands for information, including accounting records. The recommendation for contempt was successful, 8-0, after the Panel’s six Democrats staged a walk-out.

“Nearly one year ago our Panel was established and given the important task of investigating very disturbing allegations that some abortion clinics and middleman procurement organizations, including StemExpresss, were violating federal law by profiting from the sale of human fetal tissue,” said Panel Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in a statement after the vote. “In order to determine if these entities were in violation of federal law or if the relevant statute needs to be updated, our Panel must review all accounting and banking records.”

The Panel issued requests, then subpoenas, to StemExpress, starting in December 2015. Subpoenas were issued starting in early 2016, according to a timeline provided to the press by the Panel. A final attempt to contact StemExpress’ lawyer was made in early September.

“Nine months is enough time for an entity to produce accounting documents,” said Blackburn. “A subpoena is not a suggestion. It is a lawful order that must be complied with. If StemExpress continues to obstruct, then we will work with House leadership to determine the necessary next steps.”

For its part, StemExpress said in a statement that it has complied with the Panel’s investigation. “StemExpress offered to testify before the Select Panel, but this offer was ignored. Several House and Senate Committees have reviewed our accounting records and closed their investigations. We have provided hundreds of documents to the Select Panel, including accounting records, both voluntarily and in response to subpoenas.”

A spokesperson for StemExpress did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about whether the company had explicitly provided the accounting information demanded by the Panel. The harvesting company’s former bank, Five Star Bancorp, likewise did not respond to a request for comment.

Press staff for the House Panel did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about StemExpress’ claim about testifying before the Panel.

StemExpress has been in Republicans’ sights since the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos showed the company possibly engaging in illegal harvesting of fetal organs and other body parts. While Planned Parenthood and StemExpress parted ways shortly after the videos were made public, the Panel’s investigations show that StemExpress was providing Planned Parenthood clinics with profit in exchange for fetal parts.

It is the profit that concerns the Panel, since it violates a 1993 federal law authored by former Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of Massachusetts. However, StemExpress said it could not cooperate with the Panel, claiming it was “gravely concerned about the safety and security risks of identifying StemExpress personnel involved in the procurement of fetal tissue.”

Blackburn and Panel staff say StemExpress’ concerns are unnecessary. “The Panel staff and the Chairman have represented publicly and to StemExpress counsel that the Panel’s policy was to keep the names of lower-level staff and researchers redacted from any public documents or reports. Indeed, the directions to such subpoena recipients provide a methodology to protect the identities of persons in functional positions.”

All of the Panel’s Democrats walked out before yesterday’s vote. In a press release, top Panel Democrat Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said, “Chair Blackburn has manufactured a controversy over information that she does not need,” accusing Blackburn of making a “McCarthyesque threat. …” (For more from the author of “Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.