Clarifying his position against abortion even in cases of rape, GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio told ABC This Week, “I believe a human being, an unborn child, has a right to live irrespective of the circumstances by which they were conceived.”
This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Rubio about his lack of support for rape exceptions in abortion legislation, quoting Jeb Bush’s statement to CNN that, “It’s a tough sell to tell a pro-life mother that her daughter has been raped, that she would just have to accept that as a sad fact. This is not an easy decision. But Marco will have to explain that position.”
Rubio told Stephanopoulos, “Abortion to me is not a political issue, it’s a human rights issue. I have supported laws that have exceptions, the 20-week abortion ban.”
“I do require an exception for life of the mother because I’m pro-life,” Rubio continued. “If they pass a law in Congress that has exceptions, I’ll sign it because I want to save lives.”
“The broader point I’ve made, however, is I believe all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws,” said Rubio. “That’s what I deeply and personally believe. And I’m not going to change my position on something of — that is so deep in me in order to win an election.” (Read more from “Rubio: Babies Have ‘Right to Live Irrespective of Circumstances by Which They Were Conceived'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24512624181_9a78c9b520_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-10 00:01:092016-04-11 10:52:53Rubio: Babies Have ‘Right to Live Irrespective of Circumstances by Which They Were Conceived’ [+video]
The US intelligence chief has acknowledged for the first time that agencies might use a new generation of smart household devices to increase their surveillance capabilities.
As increasing numbers of devices connect to the internet and to one another, the so-called internet of things promises consumers increased convenience – the remotely operated thermostat from Google-owned Nest is a leading example. But as home computing migrates away from the laptop, the tablet and the smartphone, experts warn that the security features on the coming wave of automobiles, dishwashers and alarm systems lag far behind.
In an appearance at a Washington thinktank last month, the director of the National Security Agency, Adm Michael Rogers, said that it was time to consider making the home devices “more defensible”, but did not address the opportunities that increased numbers and even categories of connected devices provide to his surveillance agency.
However, James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, was more direct in testimony submitted to the Senate on Tuesday as part of an assessment of threats facing the United States. (Read more from “US Intelligence Chief: We Might Use the Internet of Things to Spy on You” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Computer_keyboard.png198300Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-10 00:00:422016-04-11 10:52:53US Intelligence Chief: We Might Use the Internet of Things to Spy on You
The mayor of Hawaii’s Big Island declared a state of emergency on Monday to deal with a growing outbreak of dengue fever, spread by infected mosquitoes, with 250 cases confirmed over the past four months.
As a result of Hawaii County Mayor Billy Kenoi’s order people on the Big Island will be allowed to resume disposing of old tires in landfills, since tires which are left lying around are a known breeding spot for mosquitoes.
There have been 250 confirmed cases of dengue fever on the island since Oct. 29, making it the largest outbreak in the state since the 1940s, according to the mayor’s declaration and Hawaii health officials . . .
Hawaii Governor David Ige said in a statement he supported the efforts on the Big Island but would not issue a statewide emergency declaration unless the outbreak spread to other islands or expanded to include other diseases, such as the Zika virus. (Read more from “Hawaii’s Big Island Declares Emergency Over Dengue Fever Infections” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Black_Sand_Beach_big_island_Hawaii_1959.jpg10871800Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-10 00:00:092016-04-11 10:52:54Hawaii’s Big Island Declares Emergency Over Dengue Fever Infections
By Pete Williams. In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.
Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.” (Read more from “Huge: FBI Makes It Official, Hillary Is Under Investigation” HERE)
____________________________________
FBI Confirms Its ‘Ongoing’ Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Previous Use of a Private Email Server
By Associated Press. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reaffirming that the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state is free of outside political influence.
She told The Associated Press on Monday that the FBI investigation is independent and is being conducted by career lawyers looking at the facts and evidence.
Republicans have been critical of Clinton’s use of personal email during her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. (Read more from “FBI Confirms Its ‘Ongoing’ Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Previous Use of a Private Email Server” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/13968689382_23b707d915_b.jpg504720Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-09 00:51:412016-04-11 10:52:54Huge: FBI Makes It Official, Hillary Is Under Investigation
By Gerry Urbanek. During the eighth Republican debate, a question directed to Donald Trump regarding his support for eminent domain turned into a nasty argument with Jeb Bush and resulted in the audience booing.
“A lot of the big conservatives that tell me how conservative they are, I think I’m more [conservative] than they are, they all want the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, without eminent domain, it wouldn’t go ten feet. You need eminent domain. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” said Trump . . .
After a back and forth,Trump was given an opportunity to respond, and that’s when things got heated.
“He wants to be a tough guy… and it doesn’t work very well,” Trump began. “How tough is it to take property from an elderly woman?” Jeb interjected. “Let me talk, quiet,” Trump said raising his finger to his mouth.
At this the audience erupted into booing of Trump as he was trying to make his point.
“That’s all of his donors and special interests out there,” Trump said, visibly irritated. “That’s what it is, and by the way, let me just tell you, we needed tickets, you can’t get them. You know who has the tickets to the television audience? Donors, special interests, the people that are putting up the money. That’s who it is,” Trump said, shrugging as he continued to be booed. (Read more from “Watch: Debate Crowd Viciously Turns Against Trump, Then He Drops a Bombshell” HERE)
_________________________________
Poll: Trump, Sanders Lead Ahead of New Hampshire’s Vote
By Jennifer Agiesta. Donald Trump continues to lead the Republican race in New Hampshire on the eve of the vote, the final CNN/WMUR tracking poll finds.
On the Democratic side of the race, it remains Bernie Sanders’ primary to lose, with the Vermont senator holding a 26-point lead over Hillary Clinton.
The field of candidates vying for a second place finish behind him is finally beginning to separate, according to the survey.
Trump holds 31%, down two points from the February 3-6 release, but within the poll’s margin of sampling error. (Read more from “Poll: Trump, Sanders Lead Ahead of New Hampshire’s Vote” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/hqdefault-19.jpg360480Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:52:462016-04-11 10:52:54Watch: Debate Crowd Viciously Turns Against Trump, Then He Drops a Bombshell
The first votes of the 2016 race have officially been cast.
Three small towns in New Hampshire — Dixville Notch, Millsfield and Hart’s Location — voted at midnight to kick off Tuesday’s primary.
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich were the early winners on the Republican side, each receiving a total of nine votes across the three towns. On the other side of the aisle, Bernie Sanders won handily, defeating Hillary Clinton with a vote count of 17 to nine . . .
In Dixville Notch, a town of 12, according to the 2010 census, three votes were cast for Kasich and two for Trump.
Dixville is first. R Kasich 3 Bush Rubio Trump 2 Christie D Clinton Sanders 4 Squares will start lighting up soon.#NHPrimary#DDHQ
Sanders received all four on the Democratic side, with Clinton failing to earn one vote. (Read more from “The First Votes of the New Hampshire Primary Have Been Cast – Here’s Who Won in Midnight Voting” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-20.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:52:142016-04-11 10:52:54The First Votes of the New Hampshire Primary Have Been Cast – Here’s Who Won in Midnight Voting
Feeling the heat that his only accomplishment in the Senate was promoting Obama’s immigration policy, Rubio told a group of New Hampshire voters that his experience as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee qualifies him to be president.
Here is the relevant quote from the New York Times:
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have access to the most classified information in this government — equal basically to what the president sees except not at the same time. No one else in the race has access to that. I’ve had it for four or five years.
This declaration from Rubio begs a more discerning question. If Rubio sat on the Intel Committee during his Senate tenure and was privy to information on the national security threats we face, how could he have simultaneously pushed the Gang of Eight immigration bill?
During the January 14 Fox Business debate, Rubio defended his support of open borders in 2013 by asserting that, “[T]wenty-four months ago, 36 months ago, you did not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS who were burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally.” He concluded that “the entire system of legal immigration must now be reexamined for security first and foremost, with an eye on ISIS.”
This is part of the general McCain/Rubio/neo-conservative philosophy to limit the threat of Islamic supremacism to ISIS and ignore the broader subversive threat of Islamic immigration and the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s as if Islamic terror never existed before 2014. As Cruz retorted, “[R]adical Islamic terrorism was not invented 24 months ago; 24 months ago, we had Al Qaida. We had Boko Haram. We had Hamas. We had Hezbollah. We had Iran putting operatives in South America and Central America.”
In fact, it was the attacks on the CIA building and the World Trade Center in 1993, both perpetrated by Islamic immigrants connected with Muslim Brotherhood mosques, that prompted Harry Reid to introduce his famous immigration enforcement bill. Harry Reid had more common sense on this issue 20 years before the more severe threat we already faced in 2013. Certainly, Senator Rubio could have seen the harm of his bill to our national security from his perch on the much-vaunted Senate intel panel. Senators Cruz and Sessions have identified over 72 suspected terrorists with questionable immigration histories dating back two decades.
Yet, Rubio relentlessly promoted his bill, which would have invited back a number of illegal aliens who were already deported, granted executive officials broad waiver authority, massively expanded legal immigration and refugee/asylum loopholes, and accelerated immigration from the Middle East. Also, millions would have been granted immediate provisional legal status without interviews with DHS officials. And even among future legal immigrants, the bill would have given John Kerry authority to waive the requirement for in-person visas [p. 881, S.744]! We already see how Kerry has waived the requirement for in-person interviews for Iranian nationals living in Europe, even though Congress tried to stop it. Had Rubio succeeded in seeing is signature accomplishment become law, could you imagine how many additional security risks the Obama administration would have admitted?
It’s quite evident that either Marco Rubio was not very attentive during those intel briefings or if he was, he exhibited bad judgment, overlooking the national security concerns many of us voiced about his bill at the time.
This is one of those examples when no experience is better than bad judgement. (For more from the author of “Why Did Rubio Push Gang of Eight If He Was Aware of Security Risks?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Rubio-Shaking-Hands.jpg9001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:50:152016-04-11 10:52:54Why Did Rubio Push Gang of Eight If He Was Aware of Security Risks?
For conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh, a political discussion can often dovetail with his passion for professional football. Following a controversial halftime show during Sunday’s Super Bowl, Limbaugh had the opportunity to merge the two subjects for a segment of his program on Monday.
“I’ll tell you, the observation is this,” Limbaugh said. “You have in the Super Bowl, you have the pregame, which features the anthem with a giant American flag spread out over the entire field. You have the military, uniformed military all over the place. You have an Air Force or Navy, not sure which, fly by after the anthem” . . .
In stark contrast to that opening program, he argued, was a halftime performance by Beyonce that some critics found to be politically charged and anti-police. This dichotomy, however, has been present in Super Bowls past, according to Limbaugh’s theory on the matter.
“So you have the traditional pro-America, patriotic, out-of-this world pregame show,” he said, “and then you get to the halftime of the Super Bowl. And what the halftime show of the Super Bowl is, to me anyway, is representative of the cultural decay and the political decay and the social rot that is befalling our country.” (Read more from “Rush Limbaugh Just Nailed What the REAL Problem With the Super Bowl Halftime Show Was” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-19.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:49:102016-04-11 10:52:54Rush Limbaugh Just Nailed What the REAL Problem With the Super Bowl Halftime Show Was
Iranian authorities have seized a cargo shipment bound for Islamic State-held territory containing multiple guillotines, the semi-official Iranian news agency FARS reported Feb. 7.
Vahid Dashtbani, director-general of Iran’s Customs Office for Transit Affairs, told an Iranian daily newspaper Sunday that the devices were “designed for efficiently carrying out executions by beheading.”
The tools, however, were likely not guillotines in the traditional sense (such as those used during the French Revolution), but instead industrial-strength paper cutters capable of removing heads and arms swiftly and with surgical precision.
A recently published video (edited to remove the most graphic content) showed ISIS pronouncing sentence over a thief before a crowd of townspeople. The thief then had has hand sliced off with the paper cutter, referred to in the ISIS video as a “guillotine.”
In another video (not linked here because it is too graphic), the heavy blade of the instrument was shown detached from the paper cutter and wielded like a sword to behead six captives with a single stroke for qisas or retaliation. The men were reportedly Syrian soldiers linked to a car bombing which killed “innocent” ISIS soldiers and supporters. (Read more from “Shipment of ‘Guillotines’ Bound for ISIS Seized” HERE)
There is ubiquitous sense of betrayal among Republican voters. They went to the polls in 2014 to elect a Republican Senate and out popped a Senate controlled by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Nowhere is this identity crisis more evident than within the Senate Judiciary Committee under the stewardship of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
Grassley is, by all accounts, an incredibly nice man. People in Washington and his home state of Iowa speak very highly of him.
Grassley was a fresh-faced conservative in 1980. But he has served 36 years in the Senate, and is seeking a seventh term (which, if he were to complete it, would mean he would serve in the Senate for 42 years). It’s possible that Grassley is still the same conservative warrior he was in 1980 in his heart, but his “leadership” of the Senate Judiciary Committee raises serious questions about whether he is the right person to lead that all-too-important committee.
As we note in his profile, Grassley is “perhaps one of the most ideologically complex members of the Senate.” Coupled with his weak grasp of judicial issues, Grassley’s inconsistent foundation has proven a disaster as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. After being term limited as Chairman of the Finance Committee, Grassley, who has no formal legal training, shoved Jeff Sessions aside for the lead spot on Judiciary in 2011, even though Sessions was eminently more qualified.
Beyond these general concerns, there are recent, more specific reasons why Grassley might not be the right standard-bearer for Republicans on this committee.
Jail Break
Grassley has spent the first half of this allegedly Republican-led Congress catering to a laundry list of leftist legislative items and policy preferences. But one example predominates: A longtime and vocal opponent of the Smarter Sentencing Act and other misguided bills aiming to release dangerous drug traffickers and drug dealers, he is now the leader of a bipartisan effort to release not only drug traffickers and drug dealers, but traffickers and dealers who possessed firearms while committing their crimes.
This bill was a horrific idea a year ago, but as police blotters across the nation reveal the new crimes being committed each and every day by federal drug felons who were released from prison early, the legislation is becoming downright insane. And of course, we have not heard a peep from Grassley in terms of oversight of the DOJ’s war on police and its role in rising crime rates.
Judges
On judges, Grassley’s record is equally disappointing. Notwithstanding the fact that President Obama has appointed roughly 31% of all federal circuit court judges and 37% of all district court judges in the United States, Grassley seems to be tripping over himself to help Obama fill every last remaining judicial seat before Obama walks out the door on January 20, 2017. The actions are akin to a senator that actively wants Obama’s Constitution-mangling judges on the bench, since such judges make it easier for his fellow senators to avoid leadership by shirking decision-making to a leftist bench.
Raw numbers aside, Grassley has also let more than a few radical judges move through the committee to confirmation, forgetting that his role is to prevent the names of such radical judges from ever making it onto the Senate floor. The most recent (but certainly not the only) example is new federal district court judge Wilhelmina Wright, who helped publish an article in law school where she openly discussed the “whiteness” of private property and the belief that people living in poor neighborhoods might have a substantive right to move into wealthy neighborhoods. Grassley was asleep at the switch with this nominee. Wright was unfortunately confirmed, but many Republican senators woke up at the last minute to prevent her confirmation from being unanimous. Grassley failed in his constitutionally required gatekeeping role.
And of course, as the power of the judiciary continues to grow beyond even the worst nightmares of the Warren era, Grassley has not used the committee to hold hearings on judicial tyranny or propose judicial reform ideas.
Hearings
What about hearings? Surely, Grassley has thrown some punches on hearings? Planned Parenthood harvesting of fetal tissue, rampant IRS targeting and abuses, the war on immigration enforcement, a broken and racist Department of Justice, the administration’s blind eye toward domestic terrorism threats, Hillary Clinton’s private server, which exposed intelligence assets and collection methods… there is almost no end to the significant damage done to this Republic by the administration or to how its actions have breached the public trust. Surely, Grassley has looked into each of these with an aggressive desire to find the truth?
The reality will disappoint. Check out the lineup of hearings that Grassley has conducted at the full committee level. In the final days of what is perhaps the most corrupt administration this nation has ever seen, the Senate Judiciary Committee it tackling weak-sauce topics like the transparency of asbestos trusts and ensuring a right to counsel for federal misdemeanor offenders. It is almost like they made a deal with the administration to avoid any and all topics that would even remotely make the president uncomfortable. This is a failure of the committee’s function and a disservice to the American people.
In fairness to Grassley, he has held some important hearings this Congress, including one examining the life-and-death nature of the sanctuary cities that are violating federal law, and another on the job-killing qualities of the H-1B visa program. But even in these instances, good legislation that was written in the wake of these hearings has stagnated, including sanctuary city defunding legislation and H-1B reform legislation. One might almost get the impression that these hearings and their resultant bills were done for show, to create the illusion of listening to the American people.
Grassley spends lot of his time during committee hearings and business meetings (seemingly, most of his time) talking about his “good friend from Vermont.” His good friend from Vermont, in case you didn’t know, is the extreme leftist senator and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). Based on the contours of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s actions this Congress, it is arguable that Grassley’s “good friend from Vermont” is dictating the agenda of the committee. Americans did not turn out to the polls in record numbers in 2014 to allow Patrick Leahy to finish Obama’s legislative agenda and push through as many radical leftist judges as time would allow.
Moreover, the committee hearings are often full of Democrat witnesses, including the former Iowa state Supreme Court justice who struck down the state’s marriage law, with the entire tenor and direction of the meetings rooted in far-left, anti-law enforcement premises. How about having a hearing with victims of anti-religious bigotry, such as the Kline family in Oregon?
The Judiciary Committee is not a JV panel. The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Senate Judiciary Committee that is happy just “being there.” Those days are gone, if they were ever here. Grassley’s dedication to the people of the state of Iowa is admirable, but the time has come for a more forceful, leftist-opposing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. No one can be sure what the future holds for the Republican Party, especially in its current dynamic, but the one thing that probably is a guarantee is that continued weak leadership by Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee will give Democrats back the Senate starting in 2017. Based on how the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently being run, we might not even notice when the changeover happens. (For more from the author of “Time to Remove RINO Grassley From Chairman of Senate Judiciary” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/charles-grassley.jpg6751200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:45:082016-04-11 10:52:55Time To Remove RINO Grassley From Chairman of Senate Judiciary