Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Civil service laws have made it nearly impossible to remove government bureaucrats from their jobs. President Barack Obama has a chance to place many of his political appointments in these secure positions for life and make it difficult for a new president with a different agenda to enact reforms.

It’s a process commonly known as “burrowing,” in which political appointees move into career government status. Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are difficult to fire, are hired through a merit system, and carry over throughout administrations, Republican or Democrat.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking into how many Obama political appointees will be transitioning to the civil service.

“For the federal government to regain the trust of the American people, we must be able to ensure that the federal hiring process is fair and open to everyone, not just the politically influential,” oversight committee member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington make decisions that impact everyday Americans, and even while we work for smaller government in Congress, we need to make sure that the federal employees here are the best and brightest, not the most well-connected.”

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 was passed in order to stop raw political party appointments from securing federal government jobs. The law introduced the merit system into hiring practices and made numerous positions untouchable after they were filled. Civil service law has been updated several times since the Pendleton Act’s passage, but the basics remain the same.

Donald Devine, who served as the Ronald Reagan administration’s director of Office of Personnel Management, said he discouraged the transition when he served. He added, the conversion from political appointee to career civil service has as much to do with job security as pushing an agenda.

“Contrary to all the nonsense, you can’t get better benefits and the pay is very competitive,” Devine told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I’m sure Obama would love to get his people in there. I would suspect this administration is probably encouraging this. … A lot of people who are in the career civil service system are political anyway. They vote about 60 to 70 percent Democrat.”

Devine, now a senior scholar at the free-market advocacy group Fund for American Studies, added there was a push in the 1980s among some Republicans to try to lock Reagan officials into the government, which Devine also opposed.

“During my time, some were saying, ‘Let’s get all the conservatives into the bureaucracy.’ I said if we do that, they won’t be conservatives anymore,” he said. “It’s a silly thing for Republicans to want to, but it makes sense that Democrats would work overtime to do this.”

Burrowing likely affects Republican administrations more than Democratic ones, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

“The reason is different political philosophies,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Republicans generally don’t like big government and Democrats might think a government job is the best they’ve had and it gives them the chance to enact their progressive utopia.”

He noted that when he served in the George W. Bush Justice Department, a former political appointee of President Bill Clinton had transferred to the position of a civil service DOJ lawyer. The attorney’s legal briefs were “completely untrustworthy” and meant to undermine Bush administration policies.

“We had enormous problems with such individuals when I served in the Justice Department during the Bush administration,” he said. “They did everything they could to sabotage and interfere with the policy directives and priorities of the administration while protected by onerous civil service rules.”

However, Democrats raised significant concerns about conversions in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, when about 26 conversions occurred.

Then-House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., inquired about burrowing by Bush political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, inquired about political appointees moving to civil service jobs at the Justice Department. Feinstein wrote a separate letter to the Defense Department, expressing concern that Bush political appointees conversions within the Office of Detainee Affairs.

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut, requested the Bush White House Office of Personnel Management provide him with a full accounting of conversions from April through December of 2008.

A Congressional Research Service report from 2012 found that 158 presidential appointees from the Clinton administration and 135 Bush political appointees moved to civil service jobs.

The federal government has about 3,200 political appointees, out of millions of federal employees, according to The Washington Post. The personnel management office did not yet confirm that number. Generally, the burrowing employees are low-level political employees.

Office of Personnel Management press secretary Samuel Schumach said his office does not have a way to determine how many Obama political appointees have or will apply for civil service employment, but explained the process.

“Political appointees are free to apply for positions in the civil service as any other applicant. If an agency selects a current or former political appointee (in the last 5 years), the agency is required to seek Office of Personnel Management review and approval prior to appointing them,” Schumach said in a written statement to The Daily Signal.

“[The Office of Personnel Management] will review the hiring action to ensure it is free from political influence and meets merit system principles,” Schumach continued. “If we cannot conclude the action is free from political influence and meets merit system principles, we will deny the request to appoint the individual and may refer the matter to the Office of Special Council for further investigation.”

As the Obama administration is winding down, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has asked 23 executive branch agencies to account for how many political appointees are seeking career jobs with civil service protection.

“Such conversions, sometimes referred to as burrowing, run the risk of favoring political staff at the expense of more qualified career applicants,” Chaffetz’s July 20 letter warned.

“Conversions also create morale problems, in that qualified career applicants who lose out on promotions to applicants from the agency’s political staff can rightly wonder if the process was legitimate. The appointing officials must ensure each conversion of a political appointee to a career position results from a fair and open competition. Hiring decisions must be free from political interference, legitimate, and justified.”

The ranking member of the oversight committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told The Washington Post the Chaffetz inquiry was “yet another unsurprising attack on federal workers.”

“The solution to dealing with a few bad employees is not to change civil service laws to undermine the due process rights of all federal employees but to find ways to help agencies and managers implement existing authorities more efficiently and effectively to discipline bad actors,” Cummings said.

New civil service reforms are needed, von Spakovsky said, to prevent agenda-driven employees from getting permanent civil service protections.

“New rules should be implemented that prevent any political appointee from getting a civil service job without a waiting period after they leave their political appointment—at least a year and perhaps even longer,” he said.

A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 found, “Conversions of political appointees to career positions must conform to merit system principles requiring that selection be determined solely on the basis of merit after fair and open competition.”

The accountability office found from May 1, 2005, to May 30, 2009, 143 former political appointees and congressional employees converted to civil service jobs. In most cases, the process was done properly, according to the report.

For seven of these conversions documentation indicates that agencies may not have adhered to merit system principles, followed proper procedures, or may have engaged in prohibited personnel practices or other improprieties. Some of the improper procedures included pre-selecting particular individuals for career positions and selecting former political appointees who appeared to have limited qualifications and/or experience relevant to the career positions. Of the seven conversions, five will be reviewed by [the Office of Personnel Management]; one involves an issue most appropriately reviewed by the agency’s ethics officer, and one does not warrant further action as both the official solely responsible for the conversion and the convertee are no longer with the agency.

(For more from the author of “Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Says Americans Will Have to Change Their Personal and Religious Beliefs

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Hillary Clinton said that Americans will have to change their religious convictions and cultural codes so they can pass laws. Convictions and belief systems of citizens should not stand in her way. Cultural codes and religious beliefs have to change, Hillary said. She said the same thing in April of last year at the the sixth annual Women in the World Summit.

Instead of worrying about Fascism by Trump, people might want to look to the real and substantiated Fascism of Mrs. Clinton.

Americans have to change their beliefs because she says so? She will tell us what to think?

She was mostly referring to abortion but she can extend that to anything. She’s now the thought police.

In addition, Tim Kaine who claims to be personally against abortion, agreed to repeal the Hyde Amendment in exchange for the VP position. (Read more from “Hillary Says Americans Will Have to Change Their Personal and Religious Beliefs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Consider Next Steps After News of Obama Administration Cash Transfer to Iran

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republicans in Congress are criticizing President Barack Obama’s administration for its approval of a $400 million delivery of cash to Iran on the same day the country released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal.

Though the administration says the timing of the $400 million money transfer was coincidental, and part of a resolution of a failed arms deal between the two countries that dates to the Iranian revolution, critics say that a link between the payment and the prisoner exchange is undeniable.

“The claim that the timing is coincidental is beyond unbelievable,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., an outspoken critic of U.S. policy toward Iran. “It is clear at this point that one of two possibilities apply to this administration: either the president has absolutely no idea what he is doing or the president knows exactly what he is doing and is playing for some other team.”

“Unfortunately, paying a $400 million ransom is no game and the consequences are grave,” Zeldin told The Daily Signal in an interview.

Critics of the deal on Wednesday called on the White House to disclose details of the payment.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew demanding answers on the timing and nature of the money transfer, and how the remaining $1.3 billion will be paid.

Other opponents of the deal predicted the money transfer would have broader repercussions.

“The revelation that the Obama administration ransomed the three Americans being unjustly detained by Iran with $400 million in cash is only the most recent piece of evidence that the so-called nuclear deal with the mullahs is fundamentally illegitimate,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement.

“It is nothing but a series of bribes and secret agreements that will do nothing to prevent Iran from reaching nuclear capability, yet will provide funding for their sponsorship of terrorism and encourage them to detain more of our citizens. This ‘deal’ should be ripped to shreds immediately before more damage is done.”

Contested Transaction

In January, the Obama administration announced the implementation of the nuclear deal between the U.S. and Western powers, and Iran, that would constrain Tehran’s nuclear capability in exchange for billions in sanctions relief.

That same weekend, the White House and State Department simultaneously announced a prisoner swap—including the U.S. freeing seven Iranian citizens and dropping extradition requests for 14 others—and the settlement of a financial dispute with Iran that awarded $1.7 billion to Tehran.

But Tuesday night, The Wall Street Journal reported details of the transaction that struck a nerve with Republicans.

The newspaper reported that the administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in cash to Iran, representing the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over the sale of military equipment prior to the Iranian revolution.

The United States sold the military equipment to Iran, but Tehran never received the material because the shah was overthrown in the 1979 revolution.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. procured the $400 million from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, since American sanctions prevent dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran.

The White House on Wednesday disputed Republicans’ characterization of the cash payment.

“We would not, we have not, we will not, pay a ransom to secure the release of U.S. citizens,” Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said at a press conference. “That’s a fact. That is our policy and it is one that we have assiduously followed. The only people who are making that suggestion are right-wingers in Iran who don’t like the deal and Republicans in the United States that don’t like the deal.”

Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who served as the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran, told The Daily Signal that since 1981 the U.S. has been trying to settle various claims from before the revolution.

Nephew said the negotiators were attorneys with the Office of the Legal Adviser at the State Department who were working in the background removed from policy issues related to Iran, including the nuclear component.

He said, in his negotiations with Iran on the nuclear deal before he left the State Department in January 2015, the issue of the outstanding claims to Tehran never came up.

“The reality is a lot of these claims have been settled over the last 30 years that most Americans never heard of,” Nephew said. “This kind of transaction would have happened anyway, without the nuclear deal and prisoner release. I think for opponents of the Iran deal there will always be something you can point to and say this proved how bad the Iran deal is, but we ought to be more careful about how we characterize certain things.”

‘No Coincidence’

U.S. officials have conceded, however, that the Iranians wanted the $400 million money transfer to coincide with the release of the American prisoners to show that Tehran got something of value from the deal.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Iranian media have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment.

Gary Samore, Obama’s former chief adviser on nuclear policy, told The Daily Signal in an interview that the cash transfer should not be technically referred to as a ransom, since the money belonged to Iran.

Yet he said the timing of the payment was not coincidental.

“I don’t think the prisoner release would have taken place without a settlement of this dispute,” Samore said. “If you ask would the Iranians have released those four Americans in the absence of an agreement on this long dispute, the answer is no. From Iran’s perspective, getting their hands on their cash was an essential element of releasing the prisoners. The plane with cash arrived on the same day the prisoners came home. That’s no coincidence. That’s quid pro quo.”

‘We Don’t Have Leverage’

Since the implementation of the nuclear deal, Republicans in Congress have sought ways to punish Iran for its continued support of U.S.-declared terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and conducting ballistic missile tests.

In addition, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which reports to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has continued to arrest foreign nationals, including Iranian-Americans, since striking the nuclear deal.

Before leaving for its summer recess, the House passed legislation to impose a set of sanctions on Iran, and another measure to block Iran’s access to the U.S. financial system.

“If we want to deal with Iran’s bad activities, which include imprisoning more Iranian-Americans and foreigners, we need to put that leverage back on table,” Zeldin said. “We don’t have leverage right now.”

In the Senate, meanwhile, the Foreign Relations Committee introduced a bill in July that extends the Iran Sanctions Act and adds new sanctions related to ballistic missiles, terrorism, and cybersecurity.

The Obama administration has expressed openness to extend the Iran Sanctions Act, a core element of U.S. sanctions on Tehran that punishes foreign entities supporting Iran’s energy sector and purchase of advanced conventional weapons.

But it views other means of punishment as undermining the nuclear agreement, meaning Iran may have less incentive to comply with the deal. (For more from the author of “Republicans Consider Next Steps After News of Obama Administration Cash Transfer to Iran” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is How Facebook ‘Accidentally’ Blocked DNC Email Leak Scandal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once again, the impartiality of Facebook’s news feature is being called into question. This time, the social network claims it “accidentally” obstructed all links to the leaked Democratic National Committee emails published by Wikileaks just ahead of the party’s convention.

This past Friday morning, the infamous publisher of anonymous leaks released nearly 20,000 internal emails between members of the formal governing body of the Democratic Party. The news, where it was seen, provoked outrage, especially among supporters of Bernie Sanders, who was shown to have received unfair treatment by officially impartial party operators.

While social media outlets have helped facilitate the spread of uncovered information in the past, Facebook is no trusted ally of Wikileaks.

“@Facebook is blocking #DNCLeak email links,” Wikileaks tweeted Saturday evening, following other individual reports of Facebook suppressing the documents hours earlier.“Monday is the Democratic National Convention.”

In a reply about three hours later, Twitter user @SwiftOnSecurity said,“@wikileaks Facebook has an automated system for detecting spam/malicious links, that sometimes have false positives. /cc @alexstamos”

Then, without elaborating, Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos replied to both tweets: “It’s been fixed,” Stamos said.

Wikileaks later tweeted that Facebook explained it all away as an“accident.”

A Facebook representative attempted to clarify, telling Gizmodo, “Like other services, our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe. We quickly corrected this error on Saturday evening.”

But tech blogs aren’t just letting this go. The Next Web said Facebook’s correction “is great — but also not really the point,” adding that there seems to be a “very tight reign on what’s allowed on Facebook.”

Complaining about Facebook is nothing new, but this episode of newswire censorship amounts to more than ignored demands for a Dislike button.

More recently, Facebook took down and re-uploaded a Facebook Live video showing the immediate aftermath of the police shooting death of Philando Castile — an anomaly the site chalked up to a “technical glitch,” TechCrunch reported.

One of the more peculiar cases of Facebook post policing occurred in November 2015, when U.K. student Roua Naboulsi had a lengthy status update removed. Her criticism of the selective sentimentality over the terrorist mass shooting attack in Paris, France, asking why the same response didn’t come for brown-skinned victims of terror, garnered 9,000 shares and 12,000 likes before Facebook took it down, RT reported.

In a twist, Facebook also faced harsh criticism for what it refused to censor earlier this month; it shared a graphic Instagram video of victims in the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France, proving that as egregious as Facebook’s latest censorship campaign may be, it is merely yet another expression of the same pattern. (For more from the author of “This Is How Facebook ‘Accidentally’ Blocked DNC Email Leak Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Information on Khizr Khan Sheds Light on His Opposition to Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Featured at the Democratic National Convention as an ardent critic of Donald Trump, Khizr Khan — the father of a Muslim-American U.S. soldier killed in Iraq — has been hailed as a hero as he continues to speak out against the Republican presidential nominee.

However, details about Khan’s background are emerging that might at least partially explain the motivation behind his dislike of Trump, the Washington Times reports.

According to his website, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies.

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21.

In addition to complaints about the pay-to-play nature of these visas, there have also been instances where immigrant investors are scammed out of their money.

While there is no indication that Khan has been involved in any shady business dealings, some individuals might see Trump’s stance on immigration as a threat to such lawyers, who undoubtedly stand to profit from our current immigration system.

Furthermore, Khan’s background in Islamic law has raised several questions pertaining to his ideological motivations. Writing in 1983 for the Houston Journal of International Law, Khan said that all judicial systems must be subordinate to Sharia law, otherwise known as Islamic law.

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims,” wrote Khan in his work, “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law.”

In other words, all legal systems and juridical works should be open to reconsideration by Muslims and must be subordinate to the law of Islam, including the U.S. Constitution.

To make matters worse, Khan credits Said Ramadan — the head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major figure within the Muslim Brotherhood — as a contributor to his writings.

Considering this background, it is interesting that he would question Trump’s support for, or knowledge of, the Constitution. (For more from the author of “New Information on Khizr Khan Sheds Light on His Opposition to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gingrich: ‘How Come Hillary Doesn’t Owe the Whole Country an Apology?’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Newt Gingrich reacted to heavy negative media coverage of Donald Trump in recent days while giving Hillary Clinton a pass for “deliberately lying” during her interview on Fox News Sunday, saying it showed a double standard.

“Anybody watching this campaign knows that at least 80 percent of the elite media is in the tank for Hillary,” Gingrich said.

“Now she’s lying about 50-some thousand emails. She’s lying about national security. Why shouldn’t she apologize? If Donald Trump owes anybody an apology, how come Hillary doesn’t owe the whole country an apology?”

Gingrich said Trump would be better off apologizing to the Khans and getting it behind him, “but he’s a stubborn guy” and he has a point, which is that Khizr Khan “went to a political convention and said some very nasty things” about Trump.

“So, Trump’s stubborn. But he didn’t delete 33,000 emails. Trump didn’t send out secret information. Trump didn’t lie about the FBI. Hillary did all that stuff.” (Read more from “Gingrich: ‘How Come Hillary Doesn’t Owe the Whole Country an Apology?'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Will Not Endorse Two Major Republicans for Reelection

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has not yet decided whether he will endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan in his bid for re-election.

During an interview, Trump said, “I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country. We need…very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet…”

His statement seemed to intentionally mimic Ryan himself who once said he was “just not ready” to endorse Trump.

In the Wisconsin election scheduled for August 9, Ryan is fighting to retain his seat in the House against his opponent, Paul Nehlen.

Trump has commended Nehlen for running “a very good campaign,” but says that, as for endorsing Ryan, he is “giving it very serious consideration.”

The decision by Trump to withhold his support from Ryan has been called “an extraordinary breach of political decorum,” and is further evidence the Republican Party still lacks unity.

Ryan withheld his endorsement of Trump until June, when he was named the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

A few weeks prior to Ryan announcing his endorsement, Ryan spoke to CNN’s Jake Tapper and said he was not ready to give Trump his support.

The two men have found themselves on opposite sides of several issues recently.

Ryan criticized Trump for remarks he made about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in service to his country.

Calling Captain Khan a brave example of the sacrifice made by many Muslim Americans, Ryan said, “His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

Ryan’s spokesman Zack Roday issued a statement which said, “Neither Speaker Ryan nor anyone on his team has ever asked for Donald Trump’s endorsement. And we are confident in a victory next week regardless.”

Another top Republican is also lacking a Trump endorsement.

Senator John McCain, R-Ariz, issued a statement Monday, in which he too rebuked Trump for his remarks about the Khans.

Responding to McCain’s statement, Trump said, “I haven’t endorsed John McCain.”

Trump asserts he takes issue with McCain because of his failure to do more for veterans. Trump said, “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets…. They’re not being treated fairly.”

McCain has not responded to Trump’s remarks. (For more from the author of “Trump Will Not Endorse Two Major Republicans for Reelection” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Say What? After Trump Has Crying Infant Removed, Planned Parenthood Says Babies Are Welcomed at His Rallies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, chastised Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for booting a wailing infant from a Virginia rally Tuesday. Trump, not one to suffer interruptions during his rallies, initially acknowledged the outburst with grace. “I love babies,” he said. “I hear that baby crying, I like it.”

“What a baby. What a beautiful baby, don’t worry,” he continued.

His patience was exhausted in short order.

“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here,” he said moments later. “I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking,” he added.

(Read more from “Say What? After Trump Has Crying Infant Removed, Planned Parenthood Says Babies Are Welcomed at His Rallies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Catholic Warns Politicians Who Back Abortion, Oppose Religious Liberty

/0 Comments/in , /by

Catholics cannot support politicians who support abortion, the head of the international Knights of Columbus told members and almost 100 Catholic bishops today. The group, known as “the Knights,” is the largest Catholic men’s service organization in the world, with almost 2 million members who in 2014 gave $175 million and 73 million volunteer hours to charity.

“It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion politicians,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson at the Knights’ 134th annual convention, according to a copy of his address given to The Stream. Abortion, he said, is not “just another political issue.” It is “a legal regime that resulted in more than 40 million deaths.”

Anderson’s comments echoed his 2008 open letter to Catholic Sen. Joseph Biden,Sen. Obama’s choice for vice president. Like Hillary Clinton’s choice Tim Kaine, also Catholic, Biden said he was personally opposed to abortion but supported it as public policy. Anderson explained how Biden had misrepresented the Catholic teaching and finished his letter by telling him: “You have a choice: you can listen to your conscience and work to secure the rights of the unborn to share in the fruits of our hard-won liberty, or you can choose to turn your back on them.”

The Knights recently commissioned a poll by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion that found most Americans oppose public funding of abortion and support raising standards on abortion clinics. However, most Americans also support legalized abortion in the first trimester, which is when the pro-abortion research group Guttmacher reports 88 percent of abortions take place.

On Tuesday, he asked: “What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation?” Abortion, he said, “is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale. We need to end the political manipulation of Catholic voters by abortion advocates. It is time to end the entanglement of Catholic people with abortion killing. It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion politicians. We will never succeed in building a culture of life if we continue to vote for politicians who support a culture of death.”

A spokesperson for the Knights did not respond to The Stream’s questions about what advice the Anderson would give to Catholic voters this fall, especially related to the support for abortion by both major party nominees and the nominees for the Green Party and Libertarian Party. The Knights also did not respond to whether pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be permitted to receive Communion.

The Knights’ Charity

In addition to tackling abortion and the controversial issue of religious liberty, Anderson’s speech noted charitable activities funded by the Knights, such as tens of thousands of donated wheelchairs and more than 300,000 new coats for children the group has given out in recent years. He also highlighted the plight of Christians in the Middle East, who have been targeted by Islamic extremists. (Anderson speaks about this more in this Crux interview.)

“Christians and other religious minorities are facing extinction,” said Anderson. “Many receive no support from their governments or from the United Nations. They have had to rely on their fellow Christians, and they have been able to rely on the Knights of Columbus.” The Knights have raised more than $11 million for Christian refugees in the last two years, and was a major player in the U.S. State Department’s decision to declare that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians. (For more from the author of “Top Catholic Warns Politicians Who Back Abortion, Oppose Religious Liberty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran in January at the same time Tehran was releasing four jailed Americans, payment that a top congressional Republican is calling “ransom.”

The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional sources, reported that the administration procured the money from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The money was stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in an unmarked cargo plane.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement that the administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old failed arms deal signed before the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Journal reported.

The settlement came at the same time as formal implementation of the historic nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other world powers.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Obama said at the time, without revealing the $400 million payment. (Read more from “Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.