Miller Applauds Senators for Filibuster to Stop Obamacare, Calls on Alaskans to Join the Cause

/9 Comments/in , , /by

joe_millerFairbanks, Alaska. September 24, 2013 — Joe Miller today applauded Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for their filibuster to stop funding for Obamacare.

“I applaud Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for standing up for the American people,” said Miller. “This is the moment of truth. Most Republicans ran on opposition to this “train wreck,” and now we’ll have an opportunity to see if they did so in good faith.”

Senator Mark Begich was the 60th and deciding vote on Obamacare, and has laughed off the question of whether he would vote to defund it. We’ll see if he’s laughing in November of 2014.

Miller’s declared primary opponent claims to support defunding Obamacare. But when asked by a Politico reporter whether he would “risk shutting down the government to defund the Affordable Care Act,” Mr. Treadwell responded:

“Do I like this kind of tactic? No, I believe that you need to have bipartisan conversation and sit down.”

As Senator Ted Cruz has reminded us, it took a whole lot of bipartisanship to get us $17 trillion into debt. “The need of the hour is to have more Senators and Representatives in Washington committed to holding Barack Obama accountable and offering real solutions to our nation’s daunting fiscal challenges, not to send reinforcing statist enablers and diplomats bent on negotiating our terms of surrender,” said Miller.

While others offer the charade of meaningless online petitions, Joe Miller is the only candidate who is willing to embrace the accountability of signing the Senate Conservatives Fund pledge to Defund Obamacare. Joe is calling on all Alaskans who stand in opposition to Obamacare to contact their senators and urge them to stand with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in this important time. Senator Mark Begich: (877) 501-6275/Senator Lisa Murkowski: 202-224-6665

With No Good Options, US Should Stay Out of Syrian Civil War

/12 Comments/in , /by

US Military NCO Opposes Syrian InvolvmentThe United States has no business involving itself in the Syrian civil war. President Obama’s push for a military strike is the most recent example of a Middle Eastern foreign policy that lacks any clear sense of direction or purpose.

Consider his tenure in office. After declining to offer even a hint of moral support on behalf of organic popular uprisings against hostile regimes in Syria and Iran, the President chose to intervene in Libya and Egypt only to see secular regimes replaced by more radical Islamic ones.

Why would the President decline involvement in an organic Syrian democracy movement, only to intervene militarily just two years later in support of Al Qaeda militants?

The Obama Administration argues that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its citizens, but there is no strong consensus this assertion is true. The Russians and other sources claim the rebels are responsible.

If we accept the US intelligence assessment that the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, does that justify military intervention?

At least three criteria must be considered:

1. Is there a vital national security interest of the United States of America at stake?

There is no discernible, direct threat posed to our country by Syria, and neither combatant is an ally.

Although the Assad regimes have been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades, seven out of nine rebel groups opposing the government are believed to have ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Many of those rebels are foreign fighters who have no stake in Syria. In short, there are virtually no ‘good guys’ in the Syrian conflict.

Furthermore, given our current fiscal inability to properly fund our military, involvement in yet another foreign conflict would actually harm national security by gutting our capacity to respond to vital threats elsewhere. It would also degrade morale and readiness among our uniformed personnel who have already been stretched to a breaking point by endless deployments.

Just a few short years ago, Barack Obama argued in clear, unequivocal terms that the United States should not act against Saddam Hussein in the absence of a direct and imminent threat to the United States, despite the fact that the dictator had admittedly used chemical weapons against his own people and engaged in atrocities on a scale that make the Assad regime pale by comparison.

2. If we determine a vital national security interest is at stake, have we identified a clear, obtainable military objective?

The Obama Administration has stated no clear military objective for a strike against Syria, much less an attainable one. The President’s vague doctrine of retributive justice, or deterrence articulated thus far is neither definable nor attainable.

Even if President Obama could identify such an objective, the task of attaining a favorable outcome appears impossible when none of the combatants is an ally nor shares our values. The United States has no good options in Syria.

Nevertheless, the New York Times reports that our Israeli friends now back a limited US military strike on the grounds that continued instability in Syria works to their benefit. But this may only be a temporary benefit. And there is an equally compelling case to be made that intervention could end in further destabilization and ultimately descend into a broader regional conflict.

Moreover, with Al Qaeda factions in the rebel opposition pledging to cleanse the land, the fallout from regime change could be devastating to Syria’s Christian community. Shamefully, this kind of persecution has been the result of US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Egypt.

3. Has a military act-of-war been authorized by Congress?

While this criterion is last chronologically, it should be the first logical hurdle for any administration weighing possible military action. For now, it appears the President will not win congressional approval. If so, the people’s representatives will reflect the will of the American people, who by a vast majority oppose a military strike: a recent poll finds only 9 percent support such an action.

The Administration argues it has the constitutional authority for a military strike in Syria even without congressional approval. However in 2007, then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated, “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

With no vital national security interest at stake coupled with no attainable military objective, I would vote to oppose a military strike against Syria.

Restoring Liberty is Now in the Top 50 Conservative Websites in the Nation

/10 Comments/in , /by

According to the July 4, 2013, “Official Top 100 Conservative Websites for 2013,” Red Flag reports that Restoring Liberty is now ranked 49th* in the nation.

The report reflects that websites such as Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, American Conservative, Ann Coulter, TeaParty.Net, Family Research Council, PJ TV, Laura Ingraham, World Magazine, and others have lower rankings than Restoring Liberty, reflecting lower Internet traffic.

As always, our success is due to your faithful readership, loyal volunteers, and staff (especially Katy). Joe and Kathleen Miller thank every one of you for making Restoring Liberty one the nation’s top political websites.

_________________________________
*Red Flag periodically updates its rankings. Restoring Liberty’s ranking at that site will fluctuate with its worldwide Alexa ranking.

Amnesty: Another Ruling Class Effort to Destroy America?

/6 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: David McNew

Photo Credit: David McNew

As I’ve listened to the immigration debate over the last several weeks, I’ve struggled with a number of thoughts, most of them negative.

First, some of our supposed liberty-minded allies in the Congress are embracing the pending amnesty bill, suggesting that it is the only way forward for the Republican Party. They maintain that we must show genuine empathy for Hispanics, or we will lose them as a voting bloc forever to the Democrats.

The reality is that many of these “allies” are simply shilling for multinational corporatist interests that are looking to ensure a long term low-cost labor pool, all on the backs of American workers who will suffer lower and lower wages as a result.

Many of these “allies” were the same ones who, in 2010 and 2012, counted on our votes and campaign contributions, promising no amnesty, no reward for illegal aliens. Now that they’re in power, the Ruling Class has infected or compromised them, making them no better than the RINO’s they replaced.

Why? Perhaps their true intent is to continue to destroy the America our Founders died for, one based on states’ rights and individual liberties, all guaranteed under the Constitution. These are not ideals generally embraced by those who snuck across the border for work or benefits.

As Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has recently observed, making such individuals citizens will hasten the demise of the Second Amendment, a concept wholly foreign to many illegals who came here not for constitutional freedoms, but for the dollar.

I utterly reject the idea that we must find a pathway to citizenship for the millions that are in the United States illegally. The argument that we have de facto amnesty already and that we might as well give citizenship away to illegals is repugnant to the millions that are waiting for citizenship the right way.

An example of this is my son-in-law who is a Mexican citizen. Rather than jumping the border and to the front of the line, he’s working hard to achieve citizenship through the proper channels. Why should we be bending over backward to reward lawbreakers while continuing to frustrate those who are trying to abide by our laws and become citizens the right way?

Why is it that people think we have to give citizenship to people that are in our country illegally? This senseless, globalist-inspired approach should be rejected.

What does rejecting amnesty leave us with? Mass deportation? Of course not. The compromise answer is to give the illegals what they came here for: permission to work. Grant work visas but NOT citizenship just because they’ve been here illegally for years.

So don’t buy off on the mantra adopted by many conservatives that granting citizenship is the only answer to long-time illegal residents. That approach will only lead to another wave of illegals in the future, just as the Reagan-era amnesty has created the current predicament. Rewarding lawbreaking just encourages more of the same.

The Senate will have a vote on the Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill on Monday. Remember, whether false promises of border security are made or not, citizenship for illegals is NOT the answer. And anything other than amnesty will not be accepted by the Ruling Class. In short, there is no fix to the Amnesty Bill. The grassroots must kill it, just like in 2007. Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121, now!

Joe Miller Welcomes ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ to Alaska Senate Race

/8 Comments/in , /by

P1020045Anchorage, AK – Earlier today, Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell declared his intent to run for the Republican nomination for Alaska’s US Senate seat currently occupied by former Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

“I welcome Mr. Treadwell to the race,” said Miller. “Competition is a good thing. I look forward to a vigorous debate on the issues facing the country, and the great state of Alaska.”

Meanwhile, in an interview with CNBC yesterday, Mr. Begich stated that he was “more of a Rockefeller Republican” than a Pelosi Democrat. This despite the fact that he has voted with Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid 92% of the time in the 112th Congress.

One has to wonder whether this says more about Mark Begich or Rockefeller Republicans. But the senator’s fascination with a privileged, uber-rich, big government, big spending corporate shill from the Northeast is pretty curious.

Nonetheless, Joe Miller wishes to congratulate Mr. Begich on his induction into the Rockefeller Republican Club. “Mr. Treadwell will appreciate some company,” said Miller. “Given Alaska’s demographics, I’m sure it probably gets lonely over at the country club.”

Joe Miller is a husband, father, war veteran, businessman, and Constitutional conservative who believes in limited government, the Right to life, individual liberty, private property, and free markets.

Why I Am Considering a 2014 US Senate Run

/80 Comments/in , , /by

Serious times call for bold measures. With the re-election of Barack Obama, our very way of self-government is in peril. The Constitution is under attack, the value of human life degraded, religious liberties are threatened, the Second Amendment is increasingly in jeopardy, and the right to protection from unlawful search and seizure is giving way to a virtual surveillance State.

In 2010, I was one of the first candidates to warn of a looming debt crisis and predict the coming downgrade of America’s credit rating. My campaign championed the prerogatives of State governments under the 10th Amendment, and pointed out the massive threat to our individual liberties coming out of Washington.

In October of 2010, I predicted that regardless of who represented Alaska in DC, “the era of earmarks is dead.” And we were ahead of the curve on entitlement reform.

Though I was labeled an “extremist” by the likes of Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich for telling the truth, both of our sitting senators now routinely engage in such “extremist” rhetoric with respect to federal overreach, government spending, and entitlement reform. Yet they are still unwilling to tackle the tough issues.

Much of what was so shocking to the sensibilities of Alaskans who had grown accustomed to federal largesse has now been assimilated as conventional wisdom. We all know that one can only borrow against the future for so long. Yesterday’s “extremes” are today’s realities.

The choice before Alaskans in 2014 will be stark. Voters must choose between the easy lies of an insider politician and the hard truth of a reformer.

As of the writing of this article, I am unaware of another potential candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the status quo, and confront the culture of corruption that reaches to the highest levels of American government.

We need a candidate in 2014 who will join reformers like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz to confront President Obama, not one who will cut a deal to negotiate the terms of our surrender to his radical socialist agenda.

I have been a Republican for most of my adult life. But I am under no illusions about the Republican Establishment’s failure to confront the problems facing the country. The status quo is not a viable option.

Let’s be honest. The partisan frame of reference is outmoded. We now live under a duopoly which serves corporate and special interests, rather than the interests of the individual citizen. It’s the insiders versus the outsiders.

While many in my party prattle on and on about their desperate desire to “defeat Mark Begich,” that is not my singular object. Yes, Mark Begich is part of the problem in Washington. But for me, the 2014 election is not merely about beating Mark Begich. It’s about saving the country!

I have the same dreams and desires in my heart as most Alaskans have. And, we’re asking the same questions about the America we love: will our children inherit a country where life is valued, individual liberty cherished, and private property respected? Will they ever have the opportunity to engage in free enterprise and build a future for themselves and for their children? Will they be free to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience?

The choice before us is clear: liberty or tyranny?

There are three questions that I still need to answer:

(1) Are grassroots conservatives willing to step up and join us in the fight for freedom?
(2) Can we raise the necessary funds to spread our message of liberty and successfully compete?
(3) Can our message of liberty and grassroots support propel us to electoral victory?

Thank you for your prayers and support as we launch our exploratory committee for a campaign for the United States Senate. We will continue to update you as we move forward.

Obama Screwing Up in North Korea

/10 Comments/in , , , /by

photo credit: petersnoopy

After the Obama Administration publicly blamed the U.S. Military for “amping up” North Korea’s boy-leader last week, it is continuing its deferential posture toward the reclusive country.

Today, the Pentagon announced that it is canceling a previously planned Minuteman III ballistic missile test to avoid upsetting ‘Supreme Leader’ Kim Jong Un.

Despite the arrival of B-2’s and other significant U.S. assets over the last week, sources are continuing to report that North Korea is not only prepping for another missile launch but may also be preparing for another nuclear detonation.

Additionally, the Chinese have now reported live-fire maneuvers near the border.

If Obama wishes to put an end to North Korea’s games, he’s certainly going about it the wrong way. Publicly blaming your own military and interrupting long-planned tests upon which our national security depends plays directly into the little dictator’s hands.

Kim Jong Un now has bragging rights that he forced the world’s superpower to blink, something that has likely earned his hard-line military’s respect. Obama has almost certainly guaranteed that we’ll see the same type of scenario play out, yet again, in the not-so-distant future.

Restoring Liberty Passes Another Milestone: Over Two Million Views in March

/5 Comments/in , , /by

The second-most popular news site in Alaska, Restoring Liberty, passed another milestone in March, garnering well over 2,000,000 page views during that month. And its YouTube channel now has over 1.75 million views.

Since Restoring Liberty started its new format on July 4, last year, the site has seen explosive growth in pageview readership of almost 3000%.

As of the date of this article, the only Alaska online news source ranked higher in readership than Restoring Liberty is the ADN. Other major sites such as the Alaska Dispatch, Fairbanks News-Miner, Juneau Empire, and KTUU, have rankings far below this news site.

We remain Alaska’s primary conservative news outlet.

The staff of Restoring Liberty wishes to thank every one of you that has led to this extraordinary success. Your loyal readership has expanded our reach so that we are able to compete with the desperately biased media in the Alaska market. We also wish to thank our advertisers for helping to make this effort possible.

And I, Joe Miller, wish to thank our loyal, mostly-volunteer staff for their sacrifices in making this online publication a success.

If you wish to help us in our goal to hire reporters and produce more original content, please advertise with us or encourage the businesses you frequent to do so. And encourage your friends to sign up for our FREE daily news update.

Finally, please continue to send us your tips and advice. It is your help and readership that has made this success possible.

DHS Finally Responds to Senate Demand for Ammo Info but its Numbers Don't Pencil Out

/31 Comments/in , , /by

Last fall, Senator Coburn sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding an explanation by the end of November for the agency’s reported purchase of massive quantities of ammunition. Yesterday, Dr. Coburn released correspondence that he finally received from DHS purporting to explain the purchases.

First, here’s what was disclosed by DHS: As of November 2012, it had over 263 million rounds of ammunition on hand. The agency said it was purchasing an additional $37 million of ammunition in this fiscal year, but did not give the actual number of rounds. Using the prior year’s cost per round of approximately 35 cents, it appears that DHS is adding another 105 million rounds on top of the 263 million on hand, minus rounds consumed in training and operations this fiscal year.

Using this 363 million round figure, the agency’s explanation for its large purchases can be assessed. For Immigration (ICE), DHS claims that 1,000 rounds per firearm per year are necessary for training. Assuming training of 250 rounds per quarter, this estimate seems reasonable.

The Federal Protective Service or “FPS” (the agency charged with protecting federal facilities owned or leased by the General Services Administration) also uses “1000 rounds of ammunition per firearm per year for quarterly qualifications and training.” Again, another reasonable number.

Curiously, no average training rounds per firearm for any other component agency of DHS is provided. For US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), DHS gives a percentage, stating that 70% of all CBP ammo is used for training. The remaining 30% of CBP’s ammo stock is purportedly maintained for operational needs (20%) and reserves (10%). For USSS (the Secret Service), 60% of its ammo is used for training.

Another quirk in DHS’s explanation is that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), whose mission is to “train those who protect our homeland” by training personnel from 91 federal agencies, has another approximately 35 million training rounds (almost 19 million on hand in November 2012 plus the estimated 16.6 million purchased this fiscal year) that are supposedly in addition to training rounds maintained by the other individual DHS component agencies like ICE, CPB, and FPS.

So, really, the only way to properly assess the numbers from DHS – assuming that the agency has actually come clean on its inventories and future purchases – is to divide the ammunition stocks by the number of armed personnel.

Let’s start with FPS. According to the DHS website, FPS has approximately 900 armed agents. Supposedly, the FPS has an available stock of approximately 3.8 million rounds this year (2.5 million on hand in November plus the estimated 1.3 million purchased this fiscal year) . DHS claims its stock is explained by the 1000 rounds per firearm training requirement. No operational inventory is disclosed. Dividing the FPS stock of 3.8 million rounds by 900, provides well over 4,000 rounds per armed FPS employee, over four times the ammo necessary for annual training.

The ICE numbers give us a similar result. This agency has about 56.9 million rounds for this fiscal year (42.3 million on-hand as of November plus an estimated purchase of 14.68 million this fiscal year). ICE has about 20,000 employees of which 12,446 carry firearms. This DHS agency has also armed itself to the tune of well over 4,000 rounds per gun-toting ICE employee, well over the 1,000 rounds need for annual training and far in excess of any peace-time operational requirements.

CBP’s is almost as bad. This agency has about 129.7 million rounds for this fiscal year (94.4 million on-hand as of November plus an estimated purchase of over 35.3 million rounds this fiscal year). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, CBP agency has about 37,000 armed employees. That equates into approximately 3,500 rounds per firearm-carrying CBP officer, well in excess of the 1,000 rounds necessary for annual training.

Looking at the entire DHS, the DOJ’s 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that the DHS had approximately 55,000 armed officers (relying on 2008 data). Although one newspaper claimed last month that DHS now has 65,000 armed personnel, DHS is claiming it has at least 100,000 armed agents. (This is an enormous increase, perhaps even more troubling than federal agencies’ ammunition purchases.)

Taking the DHS ammunition on hand in November (263.7 million rounds) plus the estimated purchases of 105 million this fiscal year, provides a rough estimate of over 3,500 rounds per armed DHS federal agent. This is well over three times the training needs for DHS personnel and over ten times what’s necessary for operational needs (using CPB’s 30% figure for operational and reserve needs).

Read more from this story HERE.

Begich and Murkowski’s Support for Obama’s Radical Anti-Gun Appellate Court Nominee Ends in Defeat

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, the Obama Administration admitted defeat in withdrawing its left-wing nominee, Caitlin Halligan, for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination, pointing out that Halligan had argued as New York’s solicitor general that firearms manufacturers should be held liable for violent crimes committed with their guns.

The National Rifle Association vigorously opposed Halligan’s nomination. Curiously, the NRA’s darling in the senate, Lisa Murkowski, was the only Republican to support Obama’s nominee. All other Republicans joined the filibuster effort. Begich, of course, joined with the other gun control advocates in the Senate.

Halligan isn’t just known as an anti-gunner, she also is marked by her pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, open border, radical environmental, and affirmative action views.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Alaska’s senior senator has backed a leftist judge. Last February, Murkowski joined with other RINO’s and Begich to confirm Jesse Furman to the Federal Court of Appeals. Furman infamously blamed America’s violence on its “fascination with guns.”

The first test of how Alaskans will embrace the anti-gun votes of their elected federal officials will come in 2014 with Mark Begich’s reelection efforts. But Murkowski will face the same test just two years later. Both should be sent packing.