No Conviction, No Courage: The GOP’s Treacherous Deal

By Alan Keyes. The GOP governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal has, as Bryan Fischer wrote “has vetoed a religious liberty bill which is about as mild a bill as you can imagine. It would have protected pastors from being forced to perform sodomy-based weddings, and protected churches and other faith-based organizations from being forced to rent out their facilities for wedding ceremonies which celebrate the infamous crime against nature.” Fischer see Deal’s actions as an example of “how we are losing America: one cowardly governor at a time.”

Fischer is understandably outraged by Gov. Deal’s brazen betrayal of the moral conservative voters who supported him trusting that “a Republican and self-identified Southern Baptist” would support the Georgia Legislature’s to thwart ongoing efforts by homosexuals to force Americans to abandon their Biblical faith in God’s benevolent will for human procreation. In this respect, Deal’s action is deeply treacherous. But is it cowardly?

Deal certainly appears to lack the courage of his convictions. But this is only if we assume that, on issues of Christian moral principle like gay marriage, he ever had the convictions ascribed to him. Georgians should be the last people to forget the fact that Jimmy Carter’s apparently sincere self-identification as a Southern Baptist did not prevent him from accepting the Democrat Party’s obdurate stand in support of the so-called “right” of parents to procure the murder of their nascent offspring. It has not prevented self-identified Christians of other denominations (including both Anglican and Roman Catholics) from rejecting God’s plainly stated Biblical prohibition against male homosexuality.

So, given the experience of at least forty years, it makes no sense to trust that an elected official will stand firm on issues of moral principle simply because he or she self-identifies as a Christian. Is the Republican Party label any more trustworthy in this regard? Then Governor Sarah Palin appointed former Planned Parenthood board member Morgan Christen to Alaska’s Supreme Court. Of the unrepentant pro-abortion Christen, Palin wrote, “I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.” (Read more from “No Conviction, No Courage: The GOP’s Treacherous Deal” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Ted Cruz: Anti-Gay Marriage Crusader? Not So Fast

By Heidi Przybyla. Senator Ted Cruz, who wants to be the Republican Party’s lead crusader against gay marriage, ducked the opportunity to play a critical role in turning back the movement in its infancy.

In 2003, the year Cruz became Texas’s top government litigator, the state lost a crucial case as the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws banning homosexual sex as illegal sodomy were unconstitutional. The decision in Lawrence v. Texas paved the way for the court’s consideration of gay marriage. “The final victory for gay rights was foreshadowed when the court decided Lawrence v Texas,” predicted Walter Dellinger, a former U.S. assistant attorney general and solicitor general who’s argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. . .

As Texas solicitor general when the Lawrence v. Texas case came before the Supreme Court, Cruz was “very much in the middle of all this drama,” said Mitchell Katine, who was local counsel to the two gay men at the center of the case, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. . .Yet “Cruz remained absolutely silent,” Katine said. The case remained assigned instead to a Harris County district attorney.

Through a spokesman, Cruz said he didn’t step in because the case was criminal in nature and his office primarily handled civil cases. Yet six of the nine cases Cruz argued before the nation’s highest court were criminal in nature. . .

Interviews with a dozen former fellow law students, professors, lawyers and government officials show that his lack of involvement in the Lawrence case is part of a broader narrative about the Texas senator’s relationship with the gay community: While he has consistently opposed gay rights, he has often stayed away from the front lines of the fight and even courted gay donors. (Read more from this article HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GRIDLOCK IN NYC SO HILLARY CAN GET A $1,200 HAIRCUT: A Female Reader Responds

Hillary Clinton’s oversized motorcade gridlocked Manhattan traffic this week so she could, eh, get a coiffe.

Looks like the cut and color cost a mere $1,200. But she’s for the little people!

Hillary Clinton’s entourage — four big black cars plus her top aide Huma Abedin — was spotted outside Bergdorf Goodman on Wednesday morning waiting as the presidential hopeful got her $600 haircut.

According to one witness, “Hillary’s entourage was blocking traffic early this morning, and waiting as Hillary got her hair done before heading up to do an event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.”

Clinton gets her hair done at the John Barrett Salon by John Barrett personally, who we previously reported charges $600 for a haircut, plus an extra $600 for color.

Reader Silby emailed us this, eh, unique reaction:

Not only is she a liar and a cheat, she’s a f***ing idiot!

Hillary has a $600 haircut yesterday at Bergdorfs in NYC and her limo and entourage blocked traffic for 4 blocks!! Put that f***ing ‘I’m working for the people’ bulls*** on your blog!!

Such a f***ing hypocrite. I despise her.

My haircut alone is $35. Roots and cut, $80. Roots and highlights and cut and blow-dry comes to $110.

My look kills hers.

If I spend $1,200, I better have hair that glows and has its own zip code.

F***ing $1,200 for a haircut and a color.

I guess $$$ is no object when you are in a quest for power!!

Why the hell doesn’t she spend $1,200 on Jenny Craig or Nutrisystems? How about a f***ing Zumba class? She can’t walk up the stairs without assistance, for f***’s sake!!

Or how about spending $1,200 on food for the homeless shelter in Harlem, where she can speak jive to pretend she cares about anyone other than herself?

She better not f***ing be my president. I’m going to have to go into a four-year hyper-sleep or something.

Which reminds me of what the late, great Dr. Bob once told me, presciently predicting the rise of Hillary Clinton, I guess. (For more from the author of “GRIDLOCK IN NYC SO HILLARY CAN GET A $1,200 HAIRCUT: A Female Reader Responds” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Hillary Clinton Blows Gasket When Confronted With the Truth About Fossil Fuel Donations

ANDERSON COOPER: Are you suggesting that she’s in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry?

BERNIE SANDERS: No, what I am suggesting is that we have a corrupt campaign finance system. And instead of standing up to that finance system, Secretary Clinton has a Super PAC which is raising a lot of money from Wall Street and from the fossil fuel industry . . .

See more videos from Western Journalism at https://w-j.co/videos

Posted by Western Journalism Video on Thursday, March 31, 2016

EVA RESNICK-DAY: Will you act on your word and reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?

HILLARY CLINTON: I do not have – I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I’m so sick, I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Blows Gasket When Confronted With the Truth About Fossil Fuel Donations” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Commutes Sentences of 61 Felons, Including Violent Gun Criminals

When Obama delegitimized our immigration laws and implemented executive amnesty back in November 2014, he harnessed the fallout from the lawlessness as a means of blackmailing Congress to pass legislative amnesty. He is now doing the same thing with executive jailbreak in order to allure Congress into passing legislative jailbreak. And much like with the immigration issue, Republican leaders are more than happy to give his jailbreak agenda tailwinds instead of opposing it with full vigor.

Earlier today, Obama announced the commutation of sentences for 61 drug traffickers who will be released from federal prison in July. According to the Associated Press, “The latest tranche of commutations brings to 248 the total number of inmates whose sentences Obama has commuted — more than the past six presidents combined.” As we’ve noted in a series of articles this past year, the federal prison population is actually relatively small, hovering at roughly 160,000. And most of those in federal prison, as opposed to state penitentiaries, are indeed violent criminals who likely committed other crimes but pleaded down to and were sentenced for drug trafficking. Also, up to 30% are non-citizens and should be deported instead of released into our population.

Republicans should have defunded these commutations during last year’s budget battle, but instead they have signaled to Obama that they will drop every other important issue and focus on enshrining his last remaining domestic policy agenda item for the remainder of his term. Paul Ryan has promised to bring to the floor a bill that will retroactively release thousands more from federal prisons, including MS-13 gang members who were convicted to up to 20 years in federal prison for violent crimes.

What is so appalling and ironic about Obama’s clemency program is that in addition to releasing drug dealers, he is commuting the sentences of those who committed crimes with firearms. At the same time, Obama is calling for tougher regulations on law abiding gun owners and dealers, he is releasing violent gun criminals into our communities. Yet, Republicans cannot hold him accountable and message this point to the media because they agree with his underlying policy.

Jailbreak, along with the Puerto Rico bailout, will likely be the biggest legislative battles of Spring 2016. This is something both conservatives and libertarians need to fight. There is nothing libertarian about this effort. It’s not as if Congress is prospectively reforming the drug laws by devolving them to the states. This is all about retroactively reducing prison population and handing more discretion to liberal judges; the same people who exacerbated the crime wave of last generation with their lenient sentences.

This is not rooted in a libertarian agenda and will not result in a libertarian outcome of getting the federal government out of drug enforcement. There is a reason the ACLU, La Raza, and the AFL-CIO are championing this bill with the same vigor as the Gang of Eight. It will result in chaos, more crime, and the ultimate goal of registering more Democrat voters.

Honest people can debate the utility of federal narcotics statutes going forward, but most of those already serving time in federal prison are heavy duty cocaine, meth or heroin dealers and have often committed other violent crimes and will commit violent crimes upon release. Let’s first deal with border security and stop the flow of both illegal immigrants and destructive narcotics and we will see a huge reduction in the federal prison population and proliferation of drugs.

Conservatives should spend the next few months embarrassing Obama on immigration, Cuba, Iran, religious liberty, and homeland security, not peddle the jailbreak agenda of the far left. (For more from the author of “Obama Commutes Sentences of 61 Felons, Including Violent Gun Criminals” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Turkey: Gulen ‘Islamic Cult’ May Be Coming to U.S. Military Bases

Charter schools that may soon be operating on military bases in the United States are linked to what the Turkish government describes as an Islamic cult run by Fethullah Gulen, a powerful cleric living in Pennsylvania.

The allegations come from lawyer Robert R. Amsterdam, founder of international law firm Amsterdam and Partners LLP, writing at The Hill.

As Amsterdam forthrightly discloses early in the piece, his firm has been “engaged by the Republic of Turkey – a key NATO ally in a hotbed region – to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into the operations and geopolitical influence of the Gülen organization, which is behind the Coral Academy of Science and over 140 other public charter schools scattered across 26 American states.”

This is a reference to the Muslim cleric Gulen, whom Amsterdam describes as “a reclusive but influential Imam living under self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania to avoid criminal prosecution in his native Turkey.” Gulen is a powerful and determined opponent of the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Coral Academy of Science in Las Vegas is negotiating with the United States Air Force to open a charter school at Nellis Air Force Base this fall. Amsterdam says his firm’s investigation revealed that the Gulen organization “uses charter schools and affiliated businesses in the U.S. to misappropriate and launder state and federal education dollars, which the organization then uses for its own benefit to develop political power in this country and globally.” (Read more from “Turkey: Gulen ‘Islamic Cult’ May Be Coming to U.S. Military Bases” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Horrendous Killing of Falsely Accused Afghan Woman Filmed, While Pakistan Keeps Capital Blasphemy Laws in Place [+video]

By Michael W. Chapman. As the police stood by and watched, a 27-year-old Muslim woman was brutally murdered by a mob in Kabul, Afghanistan after she was falsely accused of burning a Quran by an Islamic cleric.

The young Muslim woman, Farkhunda Malikzada, was viciously beaten, stoned, deliberately run over by a car, thrown into a dry river bed, crushed with larger stones, and then set on fire.

It was later determined by the Afghanistan Ministry of Hajj and Religious Affairs that Farkhunda Malikzada had not burned a Quran.

WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT:

Although the murder of Farkhunda occurred in March 2015, the New York Times in recent months was able to collect cell-phone videos and pictures of the lynching from sources in Afghanistan and online, and compiled a lengthy video of the horrific crime, which it published at nytimes.com on Dec. 26, 2015. (Read more from “Horrendous Killing of Falsely Accused Afghan Woman Filmed, While Pakistan Keeps Capital Blasphemy Laws in Place” HERE)

_________________________________

Pakistan Pledges Not to Amend Law That Imposes Death Penalty for Blasphemy

By Patrick Goodenough. Muslim radicals ended a four-day sit-in in a high-security “red zone” near Pakistan’s federal parliament, claiming victory after the government late Wednesday gave assurances it will not seek to amend the country’s notorious blasphemy laws or show leniency to anyone convicted under them.

The government’s pledge to the protesters came just days after a deadly Easter Sunday bombing in Pakistan’s second-biggest city underlined anew the threats faced by minority Christians both from terrorists and from Islamist extremists like those at the sit-in in the capital.

The protesters, estimated at 25,000-strong at the peak of their demonstration, are supporters of a police officer executed a month ago for the 2011 murder of a provincial governor he was paid to protect. Bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri became a hero to many fundamentalist Muslims after killing Punjab governor Salman Taseer, whom he had accused of blasphemy.

During the sit-in some protesters, members of radical Sunni groups known for their zeal for Mohammed and the Qur’an, clashed with police and set fire to buses and bus shelters.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had ordered that the protest be brought to an end, peacefully, by Wednesday. Pakistani media reported that protest leaders declared victory after talks with government officials netted them several of their listed demands. (Read more from “Pakistan Pledges Not to Amend Law That Imposes Death Penalty for Blasphemy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rove: Scrap Trump, Cruz and Kasich and Go With a ‘Fresh Face’

Karl Rove says that instead of nominating Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or John Kasich “a fresh face might be the thing that could give us a chance to turn this election and win in November against Hillary.”

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Thursday, Rove weighed in on the 2016 election and called on Trump to start “acting in a presidential manner” in order to turn his high unfavorable ratings around.

Hewitt asked Rove, “If Donald Trump is the nominee, how do you recover from a 30 percent favorable/63 percent unfavorable, as you note in your column today?”

Rove replied, “Look, I don’t think it’s possible. You know, he claims that he can be presidential when he needs to be. If he wants to change those numbers, he ought to start acting in a presidential manner, whatever he thinks that is, because right now, his numbers are abysmal. I mean, 30 percent, no one has ever been nominated for president with numbers this bad. And nobody has ever won the presidency with numbers anywhere near this bad by the time of the election. Now maybe the numbers are pliable for him. I doubt it. But he’d better show us some evidence by July 18th that he can change these numbers. He may be popular inside the Republican Party, though he has only gotten an average of 37 percent of the votes. But among general election voters, he’s more than 2-2-1 negative.” (Read more from “Rove: Scrap Trump, Cruz and Kasich and Go With a ‘Fresh Face'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Courts Are Even Worse Than Obama Administration on Immigration, Sovereignty

Once again, the unelected federal courts are violating Congressional authority over the most important societal question: who is allowed to become a member of our society?

As we’ve explored in detail in recent months, throughout our history the courts have always stayed away from questions of immigration and citizenship, with the understanding that a sovereign nation has the right to determine who enters its society and on what conditions a person is admitted to that society. In a representative democracy, those decisions are made by the elected branch of government. Unfortunately, the modern judiciary thinks otherwise, and as I warn in Stolen Sovereignty, the courts will completely take over immigration if they are not stripped of their ill-gotten powers.

Last July, the 2nd Circuit engaged in the ultimate usurpation of power and “struck down” (as if they have the power to do so) a longstanding statute governing citizenship of children born outside the country to an American father out of wedlock. Under existing law in place since 1952, it is easier for an unwed citizen mother to transfer citizenship to her child born abroad than an unwed citizen father. The mother must have been residing in the U.S. for only one year at any time prior to birthing the child abroad. On the other hand, the unwed father (if the mother is a non-citizen) must have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, with at least five of those years occurring after the age of fourteen (for those children born between 1952 and 1986).

In this case, Luis Ramon Morales-Santana was born in the Dominican Republic to a Dominican mother and an unwed father (at the time of birth) who was a U.S. citizen. However, his U.S. citizen father only satisfied the lenient residency requirements of a would-be unwed mother, not the stringent requirement for an unwed father. Now, Morales-Santana probably could have gotten away with claiming his father was transgender thereby being treated like a U.S. citizen mother, but I digress.

Morales-Santana sued for citizenship asserting that the statute violates… you guessed it… the Equal Protection Clause because it treats unwed fathers differently than unwed mothers. He was going to be deported in 2000 after he was convicted of various felonies, but were he entitled to citizenship he would obviously be spared from deportation.

Last year, the 2nd Circuit actually sided with Santana and struck down the statute. Why do I bring this up now? This was such an egregious power grab that, ironically, even the Obama administration just filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, noting that this is an area of law solely reserved for Congress. Now, it would be nice for the administration to recognize this power when it comes to DACA and DAPA but it tells you something that the courts are to the left of the Obama administration as it relates to citizenship and immigration.

The reality is that the people’s representatives have the right to set any residency criteria for parents of children born abroad. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1934 that Congress made citizenship of children born abroad transferable through the mother altogether. It is through this statute that people like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) are deemed automatic citizens at birth.

The fact that the courts would extend equal protection to foreign nationals and the conditions for citizenship thereof should leave no question as to how the courts would rule on birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants born in America. It also shows how this idea of amnesty without citizenship, peddled by some Republicans as a compromise amnesty arrangement, is a farce. Undoubtedly, the courts will grant them “equal protection” in no time and mandate judicial amnesty.

Judicial amnesty is a growing problem. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case or upholds the decision from the 2nd Circuit, another criminal alien will be allowed to remain in this country against our national will.

This is just another example of why Congress must act now to strip the courts of their illegitimate power over immigration. If America is going to become a nation without borders and a magnet for criminals from around the world, shouldn’t that decision at least be decided by the elected branch of government? (For more from the author of “The Courts Are Even Worse Than Obama Administration on Immigration, Sovereignty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Police: Anti-Trump Protester Wasn’t Sexually Assaulted

Police in Janesville, Wisconsin have determined a 15-year-old girl was not sexually assaulted at a rally against Republican candidate Donald Trump despite her claims.

The unidentified girl was maced in the face after punching a Trump supporter. She screamed about being sexually assaulted before being maced and as she was led out of the protest.

Originally police stated they were looking for a suspect after the girl was allegedly assaulted but they have now changed their tune.

Police used videos and eyewitnesses to determine that the girl’s claims were false, according to local NBC affiliate TMJ4. (Read more from “Police: Anti-Trump Protester Wasn’t Sexually Assaulted” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

At Least 50 ISIS Supporters Are Working as Baggage Handlers, Cleaners and Catering Staff at Brussels Airport

Police at Brussels airport have claimed at least 50 Islamic State supporters are working there as baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff.

In an astonishing open letter, the officers said they have warned about the terrorist sympathisers whose security badges give them access to planes, but they remain employed.

The airport police, who are threatening to go on strike because of security deficiencies, also said they have raised the issue of terrorists scouting the airport to plan possible attacks.

The extraordinary claims come after the Mail reported how the family of two of the bombers involved in the attacks last week said they had worked as cleaners at the airport.

‘Some people suspected of having fought in Syria came to the airport as “false tourists”. We reported their presence but we do not know if anything was done with that information,’ the airport police wrote in their letter. (Read more from “At Least FIFTY ISIS Supporters Are Working as Baggage Handlers, Cleaners and Catering Staff at Brussels Airport” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.