The FBI “temporarily” halted efforts to process denial appeals on background checks, thereby leaving up to “7,100” Americans in limbo as to whether the federal government will allow them to buy a gun.
According to USA Today, FBI Assistant Director Stephen Morris said the halt in processing appeals, which went into effect on January 20, became necessary because the number of Americans buying guns has overwhelmed FBI background check examiners.
But the NRA-ILA says halting appeals on background checks is equivalent to halting 7,100 Americans’ rights to due process. They suggest the halt itself proves how little gun control groups really understand what actually goes into a background check for a gun purchase . . .
It is demonstrable that delays for gun purchases resulting from this halt are the inevitable fruit of trading freedom for false security in 1998, which is when the Clinton administration inserted government between the American people and the exercise of Second Amendment rights via background checks. (Read more from “FBI Declares Arbitrary Halt to Background Check Appeals” HERE)
“If he’ll cheat on her, he’ll cheat on you,” is what Southern mothers tell their daughters, warning them that stealing away a woman’s husband isn’t just gravely immoral. It also means you’re as dumb as a box of rocks. A man who proves that he’s willing to be unfaithful this time is pretty much promising you that he’ll be unfaithful next time, when you’re the victim. The only safe response to a man like this is Carrie Underwood’s: “The next time he cheats/it won’t be on me.”
And that’s what we’d like pro-life Americans to think about as they consider Donald Trump. Not Mr. Trump’s personal life [warning: graphic content] — the fact that he abandoned one aging wife (Ivana) to take up with a younger woman (Marla), then dumped her just shy of the date when their pre-nup would have expired, chivalrously breaking her the news by leaking it to a newspaper, and leaving a copy of the paper on her bed. No, that’s strictly personal stuff, and there’s no way we can learn about a man’s promise-keeping habits from irrelevant data like that. Instead, let’s think about Trump’s stated, public record on life issues, and what it means.
But first please walk on a little imaginative journey with us. Pretend, for just a second, that the pro-life movement acted as an effective pressure group, like the gun lobby. Imagine if in addition to its spiritual uplift mission, the pro-life movement were disciplined, rigorous and political. This would make sense on the face of it, since its stated goal is to change the laws of this country.
Yes, we do hope to change Americans’ hearts, and restore the dignity of sex, and build up a wholesome culture that sees life as meaningful and beautiful. But that is really a job for the churches, one which too many good-hearted people have piled onto the pro-life movement because their churches aren’t bothering with it. That sad fact makes it all too easy to lose our focus on the movement’s stated goal, which is to legally protect a whole class of abandoned Americans from lethal violence. Period. If that has the happy side effects of strengthening marriage, curing the “hook-up” culture, increasing respect for women, and helping souls to accept Jesus as Lord — and we think it will — then all the better.
But first the laws must change. There is no substitute. If we had never outlawed slavery, you can count on it people would own some. If segregation in restaurants had never been outlawed, it would still prevail in many places. The law is a great teacher. It tells citizens what is really, really important — important enough that if you flout the law, there are people in uniform who will come to your door. We wouldn’t settle for a nation that had changed its heart, but not its laws, on slavery or segregation, and we can’t when it comes to abortion.
The Margaret Sanger Argument Against Abortion
If you were pro-life in the same way that the head of the NRA is pro-gun rights, would you settle for a candidate who had spent most of his life as a radical anti-gun advocate, supporting the seizure of all private weapons? Well, Donald Trump favored abortion on demand until … some point after he decided to run for president. In 1999, he expressed support even for partial birth abortion, the destruction of near-newborns who could survive outside the womb. By 2011, Trump claimed to be pro-life, recalling that he knew “a friend had a child who they were going to abort, and now they have it, and the child is incredible.” In a GOP debate, Trump upped the ante, calling that lucky child a “superstar.” Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller, as a good journalist, asked Trump the obvious question:
Would Trump have changed his view on abortion if the child had become a total loser?
“I’ve never thought of it,” Trump said in our interview. “That’s an interesting question. I’ve never thought of it. Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it.”
Margaret Sanger couldn’t have said it any better. In fact, Trump’s view echoes her slogan: “More children from the fit, fewer from the unfit.” He would realize that if he ever took the time to think about it, which he admits he has not. That’s how important the deaths of a million American pre-born children each year are to Donald Trump: unworthy of two consecutive, logical thoughts, bridged by an inference. Would the NRA settle for this kind of callous “conversion” from a lifelong gun-grabber? Why should pro-lifers?
Perhaps it’s not surprising that when every pro-lifer in America was reeling from the gruesome footage obtained by journalistic hero David Daleiden, which proved that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just kill unborn babies, but cuts them up for parts, Donald Trump was one of the few Republicans to openly say that the government should go on funding that ghoulish group. He argued that the taxpayer should pay for all the non-abortion stuff (like imaginary mammograms) that Planned Parenthood is supposed to do — a distinction which he understands is meaningless. If your son is a heroin addict, you can’t make a deal with him that you will pay all his other bills, but will not pay for his drugs. Of course, you’re just freeing up his other money for … buying drugs! A man who has navigated four bankruptcies unscathed, while his investors lost tens of millions, surely understands basic accounting better than that.
We all know the way that abortion was legalized for all nine months, for any reason, in 50 states, against the wishes of voters — by unelected judges. In the same way, same-sex marriage and countless other evils have been foisted on us, and carved in stone out of voters’ reach. Trump knows this too. He knows that vast power has been seized from the citizens of this country by a cabal of judges, the presidents who appoint them, and the senators who confirm them.
This travesty of democracy which perverts and degrades our Constitution is one of the main complaints of the entire conservative movement — including immigration restrictionists, who note that “birthright citizenship” was only applied to illegal immigrants by virtue of a crackpot Supreme Court decision made in 1898. The greatest disappointment to social conservatives of three Republican presidents has been their mixed record of choosing Supreme Court appointees. Notice that Democratic presidents never, never disappoint the abortion lobby. Why do you think that is? Because they wouldn’t get away with it. Republican candidates know that they can, so they do. Since up to four Supreme Court seats might become vacant in the next presidential term, this issue matters more than ever, and more than most. The next four (or eight) years of presidential Court appointments could change America radically, revoking gun rights and gutting the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.
So you’d think that the fervent pro-life convert Donald Trump would be keenly attuned to the need for appointing solid Constitutionalists to federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. When asked about this issue, Trump didn’t offer some mealy-mouthed speech about avoiding “litmus tests,” as too many weak pro-life politicians do. No, he didn’t hint with a wink that he might betray us. He outright promised to. Trump cited as the kind of judge he’d appoint to the Court his left-wing, judicial activist sister, who in the Trump tradition supports partial birth abortion. Some were tempted to write this statement off, even excuse it, as a mere example of charming, roguish nepotism. Really? Would Wayne LaPierre of the NRA settle for such an excuse? So why should we?
Lately, it seems that someone who knows the pro-life movement has gotten to Mr. Trump, and helped him to hire a ghostwriter. We’re glad that writer found work, but it’s hard to take seriously an op-ed like Trump’s recent piece in the Washington Examiner, which flies in the face not only of what he was saying in recent years, but in recent months. Given what he has said over many years, and in unguarded moments when there was no ghostwriter at hand, we must take Trump’s pro-life promises no more seriously than he took his business debts, or “till death do us part.”
If pro-lifers accept at face value Donald Trump’s half-hearted, fingers-crossed, nod-and-a-wink conversion, then they really are as clueless as Donald Trump thinks all Republican voters are. He boasted just this weekend that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” If voters choose such a man as the legal champion of innocent unborn life, then they deserve to be betrayed. But those unborn babies don’t.
Or maybe some “pro-lifers” just don’t care. They are so concerned with winning, with sidling up to the big dog, with walling off the border or stopping goods from China, that a fig leaf’s enough for them. Ann Coulter, with her famous good taste, responded to Trump’s vague immigration plan by Tweeting:
Pro-lifers who share her priorities will nod at Trump’s empty promises, and pretend that they believe them. Then they’ll bat their eyes, sign the prenup, and give The Donald what he wants.’ (For more from the author of “Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:47:332016-04-11 10:53:24Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?
Identical Pastor Protection Acts introduced this legislative session by Soldotna Sen. Peter Micciche (SB120) and Healy Rep. Dave Talerico (HB236) would do the following three things generally covered by the First Amendment but not spelled out in statute:
Affirm the rights of clergy, rabbis and religious congregations to decline participation in same-sex marriages
Ensure that neither clergy nor religious congregations must provide services or accommodation for same-sex marriages
Protect clergy and religious congregations from any criminal or civil liability for refusing to perform or offer services or accommodations for same-sex marriages
A similar bill was signed into law last June in Texas, has passed the House in Florida and is moving toward Governor desks in Georgia, Tennessee and other states.
Why this bill? It specifies religious freedom rights implied, but not spelled out, in current statute. Today’s legal and cultural environment is absolutely different than in times past. Additional protections are justified and should be welcomed. Even Texas Equality, an LGBT advocacy group, supported the Pastor Protection Act in that state.
Is this bill necessary? Definitely. First Amendment Freedoms are under attack. LGBT advocates have been successful in framing their argument as discrimination. Religious freedom and sexual freedom are pitted against each other on many levels in today’s culture. This law levels the playing field to a certain degree.
Examples abound as to why this bill is justified:
Anchorage Assembly members recently forced a sexual orientation, gender identity, non-discrimination ordinance upon residents that prevents faith-based schools, churches and other religious organizations from making their own hiring decisions.
Officials in Idaho threatened to punish a senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they declined to officiate same-sex ceremonies.
A proposed national Equality Act seeks to “authoritatively set the morals of a community.” This makes the state the arbitrator of morality, not a person’s conscience.
The ACLU recently decided to withdraw its support from religious freedom laws to support ‘same-sex’ marriage.
The Cincinnati City Council recently passed an ordinance banning mental health professionals (including pastors who are licensed) from counseling people experiencing unwanted, same-sex attraction. A pastor reports threats of fines of up to $73,000 per year for using Scripture to counsel youth.
In other countries, LGBT pressures reveal a disturbing erosion of freedom of speech, association, and religion.
A gay couple in the UK sued the Church of England to force the church to perform a same-sex wedding less than two weeks after England passed its gay ‘marriage’ bill.
Canadian Dawn Stefanowicz is one of six adult children of gay parents who filed an amicus brief with US Supreme Court prior to the Obergefell decision. She warns of the sharp decline in freedoms since same-sex marriage was federally mandated in Canada in 2005. Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals can prosecute against discriminatory “hate speech”- written or spoken. The government pays all the plaintiff’s legal fees, but does not reimburse the defendant even if found innocent.
SB120 and HB236 are both sensible measures needed now to keep Alaska pluralistic. Allowing everyone to live their lives consistent with their deeply held convictions is something we should all get behind.
For the second time in four months, researchers have reported autopsy results that suggest Alzheimer’s disease might occasionally be transmitted to people during certain medical treatments — although scientists say that neither set of findings is conclusive.
The latest autopsies, described in the Swiss Medical Weekly on [the] 26th [of] January, were conducted on the brains of seven people who died of the rare, brain-wasting Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD). Decades before their deaths, the individuals had all received surgical grafts of dura mater — the membrane that covers the brain and spinal cord. These grafts had been prepared from human cadavers and were contaminated with the prion protein that causes CJD.
But in addition to the damage caused by the prions, five of the brains displayed some of the pathological signs that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease, researchers from Switzerland and Austria report. Plaques formed from amyloid-β protein were discovered in the grey matter and blood vessels. The individuals, aged between 28 and 63, were unusually young to have developed such plaques. A set of 21 controls, who had not had surgical grafts of dura mater but died of sporadic CJD at similar ages, did not have this amyloid signature.
Transplant trouble
According to the authors, it is possible that the transplanted dura mater was contaminated with small ‘seeds’ of amyloid-β protein — which some scientists think could be a trigger for Alzheimer’s — along with the prion protein that gave the recipients CJD. (Read more from “Is Alzheimer’s Transmittable?” HERE)
“A revolution,” Wikipedia says, “is a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that take place in a relatively short period of time when the population rises up in revolt against the current authorities.”
In Europe and America, revolutions are brewing. They are peaceful and democratic, but they are going to send the elites home that are running our nations into the ground.
I have just reread Ronald Reagan’s 1982 Westminster speech, in which he predicted that freedom and democracy would soon send the communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe and Russia to “the ash heap of history.”
Reagan spoke of “Poland’s struggle to be Poland.” And today, three decades later, history is about to repeat itself in the United States and in several West European countries. Of course, I am not comparing our current political elite with the Communist dictatorships with their prison cells for dissidents, but the fight of a nation to be itself, remain itself and defend its identity, that fight is also being waged today.
We are witnessing America’s struggle to be America, and the struggle of several European nations, among them the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany and many others to preserve their identity and liberty, to remain the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany. Everywhere, patriots are on the march. We are living the Patriot Spring. (Read more from “Geert Wilders: The Patriot Spring” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:45:042016-04-11 10:53:25Geert Wilders: The Patriot Spring
A couple who hosts occasional wedding ceremonies on their New York farm have lost an appeal to overturn the $13,000 in fines levied against them by the state’s human rights agency, which ruled that their refusal to host a wedding for two women was discriminatory.
On Jan. 14, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the agency’s order and the fines, a decision the Alliance Defending Freedom – which represented Robert and Cynthia Gifford – said amounted to confirming, “that the government can punish the Giffords for declining to coordinate a ceremony that conflicts with their conscience.”
The couple lives in a barn they built on their farm and have occasionally hosted weddings on the first floor and the surrounding backyard area, according to ADF.
“After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ it fined them $10,000, plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” a press release issued following the court decision stated.
In order to comply with the order, the couple will have to attend those “re-training” classes or have a “trainer” come to them, according to ADF. (Read more from “NY Court: Farmers to Be Re-Educated, Pay Fines for Not Hosting Homosexual Wedding” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-01-26 23:43:402016-04-11 10:53:25NY Court: Farmers to Be Re-Educated, Pay Fines for Not Hosting Homosexual Wedding
Photo Credit: Twitter By Tammy Vigil. The victim of an armed robbery in his home could face criminal charges.
The homeowner shot and killed a man Sunday morning who came into his home in the 5400 block of South Taft Court after responding to a Craigslist ad.
The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office are weighing the evidence in deciding whether charges are appropriate.
But the homeowner’s neighbors and others question whether he’s protected by the state’s “Make My Day” or self-defense laws.
The man went from being the victim of an armed robbery inside his home to being a possible suspect for killing one of the men who tied him up at gunpoint and robbed him. (Read more from “Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber… What’s Happening Next Will Outrage You” HERE)
_____________________________
Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber Who Answered Craigslist Ad: Cops
By Shamar Walters and Alastair Jamieson. A homeowner fatally shot one of two men who tried to rob him after responding to a Craigslist “for sale” ad, police in Colorado said . . .
The drama unfolded early Sunday when the two Hispanic men arrived at the house, in the southwestern suburbs of Denver, to see collectibles and household items advertised for sale online.
“At some point during the interaction, the males produced a gun, restrained the homeowner, and robbed him,” the sheriff’s department said in a news release.
The homeowner was able to free himself, and ran outside to find one of the suspects in the process of stealing his SUV. He fired several shots, and the stolen vehicle stopped in a neighbor’s yard, the statement said. (Read more from “Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber Who Answered Craigslist Ad: Cops” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:43:122016-04-11 10:53:25Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber… What’s Happening Next Will Outrage You
The NFL says it is conducting a comprehensive review of allegations that Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning had human growth hormone delivered to his house.
There’s no timetable to complete the investigation, but it’s not expected before the Denver plays Carolina in the Super Bowl on Feb. 7 . . .
Al Jazeera reported last month that an intern at an Indianapolis anti-aging clinic was secretly recorded suggesting that Manning’s wife received deliveries of HGH, which is banned by the league. Manning, then with the Colts, was rehabbing from shoulder surgeries. (Read more from “NFL Conducting Comprehensive Investigation of Peyton Manning” HERE)
Donald Trump, when asked to define a conservative, responded first by saying it is someone who is risk averse, then adding it is someone who wants to conserve.
While a guest on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, the candidate went on to liken his evolution to being more conservative politically on many issues to the journey former President Ronald Reagan took.
Face the Nation host John Dickerson asked Trump how he responds to the charge GOP rival Sen. Ted Cruz and others level that the businessman has not been a consistent conservative. “Usually, I just invoke the name Ronald Reagan,” Trump replied.
“I mean, Ronald Reagan was a fairly liberal Democrat, and he evolved over years and he became more and more conservative. And he was not a very conservative person, but he was pretty conservative. And he ended up being a great president,” the candidate added.
Cruz does not believe Trump’s comparison to Reagan is accurate. “I would note that Ronald Reagan spent decades as a principled conservative, spent decades traveling the country sharing his conservative, free-market views [and] defending the Constitution,” Cruz said.
“Ronald Reagan did not spend the first 60 years of his life supporting Democratic politicians, advocating for big government politics, supporting things like the big bank bailouts, supporting things like expanding Obamacare to turn it into socialized medicine,” the Texas senator added. (Read more from “Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-25 23:53:362016-04-11 10:53:25Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried
By Jon Street. Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a very blunt answer Monday night when asked at the CNN town hall in Des Moines, Iowa, if he would raise taxes if elected president.
CNN anchor and town hall moderator Chris Cuomo had asked Sanders if he would raise taxes to help pay for his “Medicare for all” program, also commonly referred to as a single-payer program.
(Read more from “Bernie Sanders Gives Blunt Answer When Asked If He Will Raise Taxes” HERE)
______________________
Sanders: ‘We Will Raise Taxes, Yes We Will’
By Jonathan Easley. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders may have provided Hillary Clinton with campaign advertisement fodder at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Iowa, acknowledging that his healthcare plan will require raising taxes . . .
“We will raise taxes, yes we will,” Sanders declared, calling criticim of his plan “disingenuous.”
But Clinton allies were already taking to Twitter to hammer Sanders for the remarks.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-25 23:53:042016-04-11 10:53:26Watch: Bernie Sanders Gives Blunt Answer When Asked If He Will Raise Taxes
