The Pro-Life Women’s Clinic That Wants to ‘Replace Planned Parenthood’ — and Might Do It

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2006, Brandi Swindell opened her first pro-life pregnancy care clinic. Ten years later, Stanton Healthcare has clinics in multiple U.S. states, one in Northern Ireland, and more on the way. It’s even caught the eye of Cosmopolitan. The abortion-supporting publication recently published a generally positive profile of Swindell’s clinics and business model, including her goal to “Replace Planned Parenthood.”

Swindell spoke with The Stream on Thursday about how Stanton — named for famed abolitionist and women’s suffrage advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose rejection of abortion is quoted on the company’s site — services women, and her expectation that it will have affiliates in Alabama, Washington, D.C., and other places within the next two years.

Beating Planned Parenthood At Its Own Game

“One of the things that Planned Parenthood tries to do — and they spend millions of dollars in marketing and advertising this — is to bill themselves, to present themselves, to women as the only choice in women’s healthcare and in unexpected pregnancy care,” said Swindell.

“Part of our idea with Stanton Healthcare is to go where the women are that are facing an unexpected pregnancy and that are trying to determine what they should do in that situation. So for us, it makes perfect sense: ‘Why don’t we go to where the women are. Abortion-vulnerable, or abortion-minded, women are often seeking out the services of Planned Parenthood because that’s what they’re told — that Planned Parenthood is the only place to go to.’”

Stanton’s strategy, she continued, “is to set up shop and open clinics right next door to Planned Parenthood. And we’ve trialed this in Idaho, and then our other affiliate locations, and it works. We have walk-ins every week who are on their way to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion or to have a consultation from Planned Parenthood.”

Calling Planned Parenthood “the largest abortion vendor chain in the world, in the nation, and right here in Idaho,” Swindell described Stanton locations as “state-of-the-art clinics that provide quality care [and] solutions to unexpected pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives.”

That appeals to women who need a clinic, she said. “Women see our signs that say, ‘Walk-ins Welcome,’ ‘Unexpected Pregnancy Solutions At No Charge,’ ‘Pregnancy Verification At No Cost To Our Clients,’ they come in. Because they’re looking for hope, and they’re looking for a professional, confidential setting that will provide them true alternatives. We see walk-ins every week, of women who have said, ‘I’m so glad I found this place, I’m so glad that there’s resources, I’m so glad I’m not alone.”

According to Swindell, the “Stanton Revolution” is totally privately funded, and all services — including, but not limited to, ultrasounds, housing assistance, counseling and adoption — are free. And unlike Planned Parenthood, which gets approximately $540 million annually from various government sources across the U.S., “we are completely and totally 100 percent privately funded,” explains Swindell.

“We rely on people who believe in our work, they believe in our mission, they believe in our strategy. We rely on people’s goodwill – if you want to help us reach women facing unexpected pregnancies, who want to help us with the message of embracing human rights for all.”

“A Very Holistic Approach” That Avoids Birth Control

“We are advocates of empowering women, informing women, and giving them information that helps them make positive decisions,” Stanton told The Stream. “Our nurses have very real discussions with all of the women who walk through our doors. Each and every one of our clients has a very real discussion with our nurse about sexual integrity, what that looks like, what choices that are healthy for women physically, emotionally and spiritually. We have a very holistic approach.”

“We do not support any type of birth control that is an abortifacient. We also aren’t in the business of handing out condoms or whatever type of barrier method to anybody and everybody. That’s what Planned Parenthood does, they give out condoms to 12-year olds.”

“We don’t believe in giving out condoms like it’s candy. We’re into value-based sexual integrity; we’re filling a niche that women in this emerging generation aren’t going to find at Planned Parenthood. When they come to us, they’re going to get a holistic approach on sexual integrity. And they’re going to get fully informed.” (For more from the author of “The Pro-Life Women’s Clinic That Wants to ‘Replace Planned Parenthood’ — and Might Do It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump’s record on the Second Amendment has been mixed. Trump has supported the so-called “assault weapons” ban and favors a longer waiting period to buy a gun. Now he has taken it one step further and has come out in favor of banning weapons sales to people put on a no-fly list with no due process.

This is something that even the ACLU is against. That’s right, Trump is now to the left of the ACLU on guns.

Here’s what Trump said yesterday via tweet.

This is something that liberals have been pushing since the attacks in San Bernardino last year. At the time of the attack, the ACLU came out strongly against this position.

Last night, in response to last week’s tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said.

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

That’s right. The liberal ACLU has come out against using the no-fly list, with its lack of due process, as a means to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to own a gun. Donald Trump is now officially to the left of the ACLU in that regard.

He has also been endorsed by the NRA. Who is still steadfastly against Trump’s suggestion.

Will the NRA rescind that endorsement? (For more from the author of “Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is the Senate GOP Leadership Helping Obama Pass Job-Killing Treaties?

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Barack Obama becomes the lamest of lame ducks, you can count on him to take every opportunity to aim a parting shot at what’s left of the American economy and the U.S. Constitution. In recent weeks he has abused his executive authority on guns, overtime pay, gender-bending bathroom rules on states and parents, and U.S. “boots on the ground” in Libya, Yemen and Syria.

Unsurprisingly, the GOP leadership in Congress is utterly ineffective in blocking him.

Even worse, on some matters top Congressional Republicans have shown their readiness to carry Obama’s water for him. The best-known examples are the 2014 $1.1 trillion “Cromnibus” abomination (which funded Obama’s illegal actions on immigration) and approval of “Obamatrade” authority last year to expedite horrible deals like TTIP (the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” with the European Union) and TPP (the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”), which Donald Trump rightly has called “insanity.”

Now there’s yet another monstrosity waiting in the wings. Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew are trying to shoehorn the United States into a global financial reporting scheme that would trash American sovereignty, suck money out of the U.S. economy, and violate constitutional principles, such as respecting the Senate’s advice and consent to treaties and requiring warrants for searches of personal data.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate is lining up to help Obama and Lew do it.

At issue are seven obscure tax treaties being held up by Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) is trying to pry loose Paul’s and Lee’s “hold” on the treaties and to rubber stamp them without fixing data reporting standards that violate the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The two Senators are happy to quit blocking the pacts, which are otherwise acceptable, if they are amended to remedy that defect.

A Dear Colleague letter signed by Corker – but clearly drafted by Lew’s Treasury Department – claims to debunk Paul’s and Lee’s objections in what amounts to a rehash of Obama administration talking points. For example, the letter (evidently prompted by my recent commentary opposing the treaties) claims blocking them won’t prevent operation of a little-known 2010 law called the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (FATCA), which the Obama administration has sought to implement using a series of unauthorized and unratified “intergovernmental agreements.” With all due respect to Chairman Corker, this claim is inaccurate. For example, Article 5(1) of the relevant agreement with Switzerland says in so many words that FATCA requests ‘shall not be made prior to the entry into force’ of a treaty the two Senators have a hold on. If that’s not blocking, what is?

From the standpoint of American jobs and foreign investment in the U.S., there is even more at stake. Since the “Panama Papers” story broke, foreign officials have accused the United States of acting as a tax haven as well as permitting states like Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming not to disclose “beneficial ownership” of corporations. There have been calls to blacklist the United States, and even to apply sanctions against us.

Barack Obama has invited these attacks on America by his administration’s practice over the past five years of subjecting our trading partners to one-sided, costly and humiliating FATCA demands under threat of financial sanctions. They have capitulated, in part because Obama – as noted above, with no legal authority – has promised foreign governments the U.S. would provide reciprocal data under the FATCA agreements he refuses to submit to the Senate as treaties. Now he expects Congress to make good on his imprudent and legally deficient pledges.

It’s important to keep in mind the seven tax treaties are themselves innocuous and even desirable from the standpoint of avoiding double taxation for Americans doing business overseas. But contrary to Chairman Corker’s letter, ratifying them without fixing their constitutional defects facilitates their use as vehicles for data reporting under the legally dubious FATCA “intergovernmental agreements,” many of which also require “reciprocal reporting” from domestic U.S. institutions to foreign governments. This would hit U.S. banks, credit unions, insurance companies, mutual funds, etc. with costs comparable to those FATCA imposes on foreign institutions, which run into the millions per financial institution (for example, Canada’s Bank of Nova Scotia alone already had spent $100 million as of 2013). Imposing the same burdens here in the U.S. would mean billions of dollars extracted from American consumers and taxpayers, spurring massive capital flight from the United States and lost jobs. That’s why U.S. credit unions have written to the Congressional leadership to oppose domestic expansion of FATCA, which would “increase regulatory burdens on American credit unions and banks without resulting in a single dollar of new tax revenue to the Treasury.”

Finally, the seven treaties are a stalking horse for another item on Obama’s and Lew’s political bucket list: a so-called “Protocol amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters” that would lock in a FATCA-like international “common reporting standard” as treaty obligation. The result would be essentially FATCA gone global—sometimes called GATCA – which in would be set for a global tax under United Nations auspices, pressure on the U.S. to raise our domestic tax rates and subjecting our country to the oversight of bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other international organizations.

Republican leaders should not provide ex post facto authority for Obama’s and Lew’s reciprocal FATCA and GATCA schemes, which would also hand embattled IRS Commissioner John Koskinen sweeping new regulatory powers. It comes as no surprise that President Obama seeks to impose these burdens on America as his parting gift. What is deplorable is that any Republican leader would help him do it. Instead of promoting Obama’s global regime, it’s time for Senate Republicans to put America first. They should join Senators Paul and Lee in ensuring these treaties are not ratified until Obama leaves office, and get ready to send President Donald Trump a FATCA repeal bill early next year if President Obama succeeds. (For more from the author of “Why Is the Senate GOP Leadership Helping Obama Pass Job-Killing Treaties?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MARXIST “CONSTITUTIONAL” SCHOLAR ATTACKS 2nd AMENDMENT, Demands Repeal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Aha! Someone is finally actually taking up the debate that, if you wish to disrespect the Second Amendment, you actually need to repeal it.

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

In other words, when the Constitution furthers a “progressive”, “social-justice” end, it is to be revered. When it does not it is to be reviled. Well, so be it — at least this douche declares his intent up front in the first paragraph.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Ah, now we get to it.

Good. Unlike all the other jackwads who have talked about “gun control” (and managed to pass over 50,000 blatantly unconstitutional laws), this one wants to talk about the lawful means by which one can infringe the Second Amendment — simply write it out of the Constitution itself!

However, in the process of attempting to make his argument he lies — repeatedly. Let’s go through the lies, because virtually the entire argument he makes is a lie.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Oh really?

Well, don’t tell Jefferson that, who armed a private militia with a couple dozen cannon. Or, for that matter, anyone who owned a Blunderbus back then, which were a crude form of shotgun that was often loaded (as were cannon) with grape — named for it’s rough shape and size. Grapeshot was the preferred anti-personnel load because like a shotgun it spread out and covered a lot of people, but unlike a shotgun each piece was deadly on its own, and in a cannon each piece wasn’t much different in size than a musket ball.

Incidentally, The Founders also didn’t have military weapons that murdered millions with one button push, nor “remote weapons” that could be fired without personal risk. Today we have both, and yet the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent any sort of tyrant from using any of their weapons against the people at-large without the risk of the people firing back with equally-effective weapons.

We have spent close to 70 years under the premise in this world that if one party has really horrible weapons then others must develop and keep them because the risk of retaliation is too high and that deterrent effect will inhibit their first use. You can disagree with the premise but not the result; 70 years hence beyond the point at which only one party has had those weapons they have not been used.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that such a policy and capability is ineffective; the overwhelming evidence is that it is. That’s one reason that I have repeatedly advocated that the United States must declare as formal policy that if a weapon of mass destruction is used on our territory by Muslim Nutjobs we will immediate nuke both Mecca and Medina at ground level, rendering both impassible to humans for 1,000 years. Since these nutjobs also believe that you cannot go to heaven without having made said pilgrimage in your lifetime the continuation of the principle of MAD, which has served the world quite well on the manifest weight of the evidence for 70 years, would be promulgated to said Muslim nutjobs quite effectively.

Second, at a more-micro level, the worst rates of crime are where the most onerous gun laws exist. Chicago is just one big fat example; the entire State of Illinois requires a registration with the State Police for any purchase of a gun or ammunition and the bearing of an FOID card, and until recently (when the Supreme Court struck said law as unconstitutional) the mere ownership of a pistol was a crime anywhere in the city itself since the 1960s. Yet the gang-bangers don’t seem to care about such things; they buy, own and use guns and ammunition all the time, every one of them illegally. Unfortunately since those guns are illegal to own and possess they also don’t practice with them so their use tends to be inaccurate and thus they often shoot someone other than their intended victim by accident. Gangbangers and their violence are horrible, but what’s even more-horrible is when they wind up shooting a 3 year old accidentally because they’re a terrible shot.

Third, again at a more-micro level, in states where gun laws have been liberalized violent crime rates have gone DOWN at a rate that exceeds that where such changes in the law have not been made. It appears that “MAD” works on both a macro, international level and at a micro level, in that thugs actually consider the possibility that they may wind up with a bunch of extra holes in their body in unpleasant places if they attempt their crimes. Where that possibility is higher, they are deterred and choose either non-violent, non-personal criminal acts or no crime at all.

In point of fact so far in Chicago (as of 6/15) this year there have been 1451 people shot and 259 killed, or more than five times Orlando. Chicago remains a place where it is basically impossible for a citizen to lawfully own and possess a firearm for self-defense, and the gang-bangers know it. They are also not deterred by lots of cops who cower instead of respond.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

That’s certainly true. But before you repeal the Second Amendment you must first show that doing so will prevent someone who wants to kill you from doing it — and not just with a gun either, instead of increasing the risk that you will fall victim to said violence.

Of course there’s that wee problem; recent history says that the Unicorn-fart utopia this “professor” believes in doesn’t exist. In France, for example, less than a year ago a bunch of Islamic Nutjobs shot up a theater and killed a lot of people — more than double the number of dead in Orlando were accrued. France not only has no Second Amendment it is unlawful for civilians to possess semi-automatic weapons of any sort on a virtually impenetrable basis. Yet these Muslim Whackjobs had no trouble managing to obtain and use both the weapons and their ammunition. I remind you that there are no EU nations with a strong Second Amendment-like part of their governing documents, which means that the common statement that places such as Chicago have a lot of gun violence “because other states that are nearby have loose restrictions” is a flat-out lie.

What France showed us, and what Orlando showed us, is that in the gravest extreme the cops will not help you either because they cannot get there fast enough to matter or will literally cower in the corner despite their superior numbers and firepower while the bastard kills you instead of taking him on. You either have the ability to help yourself or you die. And that leads to the next point:

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

Oh really? It appears that one third of the people who were in that building were either shot or killed. The terrorist expended over 200 rounds unanswered (there was one off-duty cop who tried to engage the shooter at the outset but failed) and the cops sat outside for three hours despite the murderous bastard’s proud declaration at the onset of violence via his own 911 call that he was a follower of ISIS and intended to kill everyone.

Rather than storm the building immediately, which incidentally was the lesson that Columbine supposedly taught, the cops cowered outside and let that murderous beast slaughter everyone he wished, literally taking his sweet time to execute the wounded!

If 10% of the 300 people inside had been armed odds are that within seconds the assailant would have turned his back on one or more of them at close range. While there might have been collateral damage from the resulting returned fire it is incomprehensible that the death toll would have been anywhere near the 50 who died and the 3-hour delay would not have occurred — thus more of those who were shot would have received immediate and effective medical attention instead of bleeding out on the floor while the cops refused to do their damned job.

Further let me remind you that Florida Statutes, 790.06 explicitly prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon into any place where the primary sale is the licensed dispensation of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption — such as Pulse. That law is blatantly unconstitutional as “Shall not be infringed” is not followed by “except where alcohol is commonly sold under license for immediate consumption.

Therefore, the manifest weight of the evidence is that it was the outrageous and unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment that was directly responsible for a large number of the people who were assaulted at Pulse meeting their demise, and a second level of direct responsibility lies with the intentional dereliction of duty on the part of the police who despite knowing that the shooter intended to kill everyone there because the shooter had made exactly that threat refused to immediately storm the building in an attempt to end the assault.

Next, I’d like to direct this blowhard professor’s attention to Oklahoma City, where a man with a bomb made out of common materials (fertilizer and diesel fuel) blew up a building and killed far more than in Orlando (168, to be exact, not including himself as he didn’t blow himself up in the explosion); in addition he injured something like 600 more people. There is no place in this country where you can go to the “bomb store”, obviously, yet that didn’t stop him from executing his murderous plan.

Finally, please list all the mass-shootings and where they have taken place. I would like you to separate them into two groups; places that are “gun free” zones by law or policy such as schools, bars, movie theaters, military bases (except at the gatehouses) and similar, including those where concealed carry is virtually impossible such as California, and those that were gun-rich zones such as police stations, courtrooms and the like.

You will note that in virtually every single one of these assaults, including but not limited to Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Aurora and now Orlando it was unlawful or prohibited by the policy of the establishment for anyone other than a uniformed officer — and in some cases even for uniformed officers (e.g. Chattanooga) — to possess a firearm.

You will not find said jackwads assaulting police stations, biker bars (where despite policy or even law a material percentage of the people are carrying!) or similar. Gee, might it be that while said murderous nutjobs are willing to die they are not interested in dying as soon as they declare their intentions — and before they can inflict material harm on others?

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear:

Virtually every mass-shooting incident has taken place where the Second Amendment is disrespected. Said incidents do not tend to take place where the Second Amendment is respected.

Conclusion:

This “professor” ought to be stripped of his credentials and any degree granted by his institution burned when presented by a graduate, as he clearly cannot manage to logically analyze basic facts and thus it must be assumed that neither can his students.

The manifest weight of the evidence is clear: The Second Amendment must be restored to its original intent and meaning if we are to effectively deter these sorts of attacks. (For more from the author of “MARXIST “CONSTITUTIONAL” SCHOLAR ATTACKS 2nd AMENDMENT: Suffers Near-Fatal Self-Beclownment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Audit Shows Majority of North Carolina Bathroom Bill Protest Petitions Were From out of State

/0 Comments/in , /by

Petitions delivered by LGBT activists to the North Carolina governor’s office, calling for a repeal of the state’s “bathroom bill,” were mostly signed by out-of-state individuals, the North State Journal reported.

In March, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed House Bill 2 that established public restroom facility accessibility be based on biological sex.

A joint project of the Human Rights Campaign, the Campaign for Southern Equality, the ACLU of North Carolina, and Equality North Carolina, called Turn Out! NC, organized a drive in which the groups say they delivered 190,000 opposing petitions to McCrory’s office on April 25.

Media reports showed the groups delivering numerous boxes of petitions to McCrory’s office. A local TV anchor and reporter with WRAL-TV in Raleigh tweeted a photo that shows at least a couple dozen boxes stacked up:

An Associated Press photo shows Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, along with others, delivering boxes to McCrory’s office. The photo is credited to Jason E. Miczek with AP Images for Human Rights Campaign.

“While they made for a compelling visual, the boxes themselves and the signature boasting that followed painted a misleading picture of the public opinion in North Carolina, as was affirmed by a recent analysis of the petitions,” Sister Toldjah wrote in an op-ed for Independent Journal Review.

The governor’s office claimed on Twitter that the groups delivered enough petitions to fill two boxes. McCrory’s office tweeted a photo showing a much larger stack of out-of-state petitions next to a smaller pile of petitions:

Sandy Rios, director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association and host of “Sandy Rios in the Morning” on American Family Radio, says LGBT activists created illusions with empty boxes.

“LGBT activists are masters of PR and public manipulation,” Rios told The Daily Signal. “With the help of the media, they mold public opinion by skewing poll questions and results, masterfully creating inevitability as they did on gay marriage.”

“The truth is, this is a movement fueled by smoke and mirrors…and empty boxes,” Rios added.

The North State Journal obtained an audit of the petitions through a public information request and found that 85 percent of the petitions came from out of state.

“We had so many signatures on the petitions, we printed only the list of names rather than more than 185,000 pages of individually signed petitions. And contrary to what Gov. McCrory has suggested, thousands of these signatories are North Carolinians,” The Human Rights Campaign said in a statement, WRAL.com reported.

The Human Rights Campaign did not respond to request for comment by email or phone.

“House Bill 2 is bad for North Carolina; it’s bad for our reputation and it needs to be repealed,” Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina, told The Daily Signal. Sgro said:

Gov. McCrory and legislative leaders have heard from both tens of thousands of North Carolinians, poll after poll that shows that a majority of North Carolinians oppose House Bill 2, and hundreds of thousands of people across the United States that House Bill 2 is detrimental to our civil rights and to our economy.

Under North Carolina’s law, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson wrote that private schools and business are free to establish whatever bathroom policies they would like.

Retail giant Target implemented an “inclusive” bathroom policy in April, allowing individuals to use the bathroom of their choice, based on gender identity.

Over 1.3 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target that was started by the American Family Association, a nonprofit that supports Christians values.

“With its profits in the gender-free toilet, Target CEO Brian Cornell was on the hot seat with investors for the decision, which analysts say has cost the retailer more than $4.5 billion—and counting,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ Washington Update from Thursday says.

“As everyone on Wall Street knows, Target’s stocks have taken a nearly 20-percent nosedive since April 19, when the change was announced,” the Washington Update added. (For more from the author of “Audit Shows Majority of North Carolina Bathroom Bill Protest Petitions Were From out of State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

Using the phrase “radical Islam” to describe the Islamic State or other jihadist groups will not win the war, but is nonetheless relevant in identifying the ideology—not the religion—that America is fighting, experts said.

“I don’t believe the phrase “Islamist extremism” or “Islamist terrorism” is some sort of incantation that’s going to fix everything,” Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“In fact, I don’t even think it’s the most important thing in this whole issue set. What’s most important are the policies that we pursue and the action that we take to defeat it, whatever you want to call it. But it does matter because we—Muslims, as much as other Americans—are engaged in a war of ideas as well as a war on terrorism.”

In a speech Tuesday, President Barack Obama roundly criticized Republicans who have insisted he use the words “radical Islam,” or “Islamist,” to describe the Islamic State.

“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama said after meeting with his national security team. “The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

Lohman, who last December hosted a forum, “Muslim Voices Against the Islamic State and Islamist Extremism,” said the point is to understand the ideology.

“Islamism is a political ideology and it has to be taken on,” Lohman continued in the email. “If we physically dissuade terrorists from hurting people, we still have to stop Islamists from coercing people into their way of thinking by other means. Actually identifying the ideology is key to that, and unfortunately, that ideology is cast in religious terms. It’s like a Muslim civil society leader in Indonesia told me one time talking about the much more serious threat in her own country, ‘What difference does it make whether they are terrorists or not. They (Islamists) all want the same thing.’”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest later added that, “It is not uncommon on cable TV to see some GOP congressman I’ve never heard of demand to know why the president doesn’t say ‘radical Islam.’”

During his remarks, Obama said, “Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around.’” The president added that the United States doesn’t want to feed the Islamic State’s narrative that the militant group represents true Islam.

“Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism,” Obama said. “As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.”

But the “radical” in “radical Islam” is an obvious distinction from mainstream Islam, and it’s Obama that doesn’t seem to recognize that, said James Carafano, vice president for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

“A label may seem superficial. American soldiers in Normandy didn’t care whether they were fighting Germans or Nazis,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The real fear is that the president is not prosecuting the war to win. It’s horrible to imply using the word ‘Islam’ is racist. ‘Radical Islam’ refers to an Islamist ideology, and is by definition a distinction from Islam.” (For more from the author of “‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Republicans Cave to Democrats, Agree to Vote on Gun Control Bills

/0 Comments/in , /by

After waging a nearly 15-hour-long filibuster, Senate Democrats succeeding in persuading Republican lawmakers to vote on gun control proposals this coming Monday, The Hill reported.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scheduled the four proposals to be heard, two from Republicans and two from Democrats, which could potentially amend the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.

Democrats have rallied behind a bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would give the attorney general discretion to block the sale of firearms in cases where “reasonable suspicion” exists that an individual has or will commit a terrorist attack.

Critics of Feinstein’s proposal argue authority granted under the bill would be too broad and could impact innocent Americans.

Instead, Republicans have opted to support a proposal from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would allow the attorney general to temporarily suspend the purchase of a firearm, up to 72 hours, with a court order required for anything longer.

Furthermore, a suspension could be approved for individuals who have been the subject of a terror investigation within a five-year period.

Cornyn put forward a similar proposal last year, but it was shot down because of an attached amendment that would have placed penalties on sanctuary cities.

In addition, the Senate will hold votes for expanded background check proposals, including one by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would authorize and fund the National Instant Background Check System and provide incentives to share mental health records and federal record sharing.

Democrats have put forward their own proposal that would expand background checks across the board for the sale or transfer of any firearm, as well as impose penalties on states that do not cooperate. (For more from the author of “Senate Republicans Cave to Democrats, Agree to Vote on Gun Control Bills” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Father of Orlando Victim Wishes Son Had Been Armed

/0 Comments/in , /by

A common refrain from gun-rights activists following any kind of mass shooting is that if somebody else had been armed during the shooting, the shooter could have been stopped much earlier.

In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando that killed 49 and wounded 53, one of the people coming forward to make this claim is Mark Allen Bando, whose son was one of the victims.

Calling into Sean Hannity’s radio show show Monday, Bando, who is a retired Detroit police officer said, “His mom talked to him on the phone that evening before he went to the club, so she knew he was going. When she woke up Sunday morning and heard there’d been a massacre there, she went over there — she hadn’t heard from him so she feared the worst — and just today they finally told us that he was one of the victims that was killed at the scene. He never even made it to the hospital.”

Bando went on to say that he wishes more Americans would arm themselves to protect against madmen like Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter.

“There is a simpler solution, as Donald Trump has said many times, if you have somebody shooting back, the game’s over,” he said. “When the shooting started there wasn’t one person in there that wouldn’t have traded everything he owned in the world to have a loaded gun. But these people don’t realize it until they’re in a situation that’s far too late.”

Bando’s son, who lived in Orlando, had just turned 32 on June 1.

“He lived down there and I lived up here and I never got a chance to teach him how to handle firearms,” Bando said. “I think if we’d have lived in closer proximity, he would have become proficient. He probably would’ve gotten a [concealed pistol license] and carried a gun and that could’ve made a difference last night.” (For more from the author of “Father of Orlando Victim Wishes Son Had Been Armed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hackers Who Stole DNC Research On Trump Make A Massive Move

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It didn’t take long for opposition research on Donald Trump to be leaked to the public.

A man calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” — which is a tribute to the Romanian hacker who exposed Hillary Clinton’s private email server — released the documents to the far-left site Gawker.

Thev documents were stolen from the Democratic National Committee last week by Russian government hackers. The research includes detailed accounts of Trump’s record and attacks on his personal character. The presumptive Republican nominee’s marriages are also discussed in detail.

The 200-page document, which was compiled before the start of the presidential primaries, tries to make the case that Trump is without a core and lacks any solid principles:

One thing is clear about Donald Trump, there is only one person he has ever looked out for and that’s himself. Whether it’s American workers, the Republican Party, or his wives, Trump’s only fidelity has been to himself and with that he has shown that he has no problem lying to the American people. Trump will say anything and do anything to get what he wants without regard for those he harms.

Others pages includes details on when Trump has switched his position or said something that could be “offensive.”

People commenting on Gawker were worried that the leaked document might take the wind out of Clinton’s sails, especially since there isn’t a lot of new information about Trump in the report.

One of the top rated comments said, “Happening this early, I think it’s a bad thing. Also opens up to lots of jokes about insecure files and emails.”

The hacker also claimed he has an extensive amount of data which includes donor lists, personal mail, and finanical reports, but said he was holding onto that for the time being. (For more from the author of “Hackers Who Stole DNC Research on Trump Make a Massive Move” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Orlando Shooting Witness Explains Why He Held Club’s Door Shut During Escape

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the first witnesses interviewed after the shooting in Orlando Sunday said he and another witness held closed a small exit door in an apparent attempt to prevent the shooter from following their group into an alleyway.

Luis Burbano, an actor based in Orlando, explained the scene of the crime in two interviews with Fox News Channel and ABC News. Burbano said he was in the club while the shooting was ongoing for “no more than a minute, minute and a half.”

Burbano claimed he and a group of around 20 people were able to escape through a small side alley for employees just outside the main building. As the sounds of gunshots began to get closer and closer, Burbano and another witness held closed a small door. Burbano said the entire group was “crammed” in the alley while trying to escape through a hole in a fence.

“We went to this alleyway which led for only employees and … me and this random guy tried blocking the door, cause at that point, like I said, the bullets were getting louder and closer so we blocked this door,” Burbano told ABC News.

“And we did hear banging, and I pray it wasn’t anyone trying to escape, because I would forever feel guilty, but at that point there was about 20 people in front of us crammed in this little alleyway with a big hole in one of the fences and just trying to topple over, just trying to … escape, just run.” (Read more from “Orlando Shooting Witness Explains Why He Held Club’s Door Shut During Escape” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.