“Not Terrorism,” But Murder Spree Suspect’s Name is Muhammad, Shouted “Allahu Akbar”, and Had Pro-Muslim Rant on Social Media

Three people are dead in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno on Tuesday, and the suspect was wanted in connection to the Motel 6 killing last week, the Fresno Police Department said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, shouted “Allahu Akbar” as police tackled him to the ground after the shootings which were spread over four locations, Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

The victims appeared to be random, Dyer said.

“These individuals that were chosen today did not anything to deserve what they got,” Dyer said. “These were unprovoked attacks.”

Shot Spotter detected the first gunshots around 10:45 a.m. Muhammad shot into a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) vehicle killing the passenger. The driver sped away and drove to Fresno Police headquarters. (Read more from “Murder Suspect’s Name is Muhammad” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Police: Killings had “Nothing to Do With Terrorism”

A man wanted in the slaying of a security guard set out to kill as many white people as he could on Tuesday, gunning down three men on the streets of downtown Fresno before he was captured and admitted to the shootings, authorities said.

Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, was arrested shortly after the morning rampage that left three white men dead, police said. Muhammad, who is black, fired 16 rounds in less than two minutes at four places within a block, shooting men who appeared to be going about their day, authorities say.

During his arrest, Muhammad shouted “Allahu Akbar,” but Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the shootings had “nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the statement he made.” (Read more about the murder suspect whose name is Muhammad HERE)

Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?

The Republican Party has become one giant scam PAC. When they are out of power they boldly declare Democrat policies to be illegal and unconstitutional, yet when they get into power they continue the same policies. We’ve already seen this with the Iran treaty and Obama’s executive amnesty, which are still being recognized and enforced by this administration. Now we are facing the same dilemma with the illegal cost-sharing subsidies for Obamacare. It’s one thing to phase out harmful policies over time, but when it comes to illegal executive actions how can they continue administering them for even one day?

Obamacare’s regulations are so crippling and actuarily insolvent that the individual mandate and the open-needed subsidies given to consumers have done nothing to fix the health care problem. In fact, they have only further distorted the market and increased prices. To that end, the Obama administration, in one of the most lawless decisions of a lawless presidency, decided to create an additional layer of subsidies outside of statute to be given directly to insurers. One of those subsidies — referred to as cost-sharing reductions — reimbursed insurers for discounting co-payments and deductibles for low-income enrollees (the premiums were subsidized by the main Obamacare payouts).

The problem with this program, aside from further inflating the cost for those who aren’t subsidized, is that it’s completely unconstitutional. The Obama administration paid insurers billions of dollars outside of an appropriation from Congress. CBO projects that under current policy, this illegal program will cost $130 billion over 10 years.

Last year, in House v. Burwell, the GOP-led House sued Obama for creating his own slush fund without Congress. In a rare victory and through the prism of a legitimate exercise of judicial power — interpreting instead of nullifying a statute — Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with House Republicans in asserting that the cost-sharing subsidies were appropriated without consent of Congress.

One would expect that the minute Tom Price took over HHS, the unconstitutional subsidies would vanish. One would also expect Trump’s lawyers to immediately drop the previous administration’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the constitutionality of those subsidies, right?

Not so fast.

The administration has declined to drop the appeal of the district court’s ruling, and is in fact continuing to offer the subsidies. Thus, what Republican universally regarded as unconstitutional when they were out of power, they are now administering — much like they are illegally handing out work permits to illegal aliens amnestied under Obama.

Some might suggest that Trump is in a lose-lose situation because now that Obamacare is the law of the land, even more states will be without any insurers if he shuts off the subsidies. Trump himself recognized this predicament in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The president said that on the one hand he’d love to see the law collapse, but he fears he would be blamed for the collapse instead of the supporters of Obamacare. Even though he didn’t shut off the spigot immediately, he is entertaining the idea of threatening to suspend the cost-sharing as a means of getting the Democrats to the table.

This is a false dichotomy. The president needs to realize that there is a third option: actually repealing Obamacare and demanding that Republicans support him! As leader of the party, rather than bully conservatives into supporting Obamacare 2.0 he should demand that liberal Republicans get with the program and fully repeal the law and actually solve the health care problem. At that point, there won’t be a need for the illegal subsidies, and in fact, they would only further distort the market. Democrats will never have an incentive at this point to buy into any GOP bill. There is only one option.

Donald Trump must harness his populist appeal against big government and the health care industry by immediately suspending the kickbacks for insurers. It is hard to anticipate the actions of the private sector. But by repealing the coverage mandates of Obamacare with a reasonable transition period, and concurrently making it clear that all subsidies and kickbacks are permanently terminated, insurance companies will have no wiggle room other than to utilize the de-regulation to offer a multitude of market-based plans, including catastrophic and limited benefit plans. They would be forced to compete for consumer demand rather than have a monopoly over the small trough of regulated and subsidized plans.

His message should be unambiguous: “we will not regulate you and we will not subsidize you, go out and compete for consumer demand.” Then he should travel the country and rail against a crony socialist health care system that looks like a grocery shelf in Venezuela instead of one in America. He must demand that the liberal Republicans get onboard with full repeal of Obamacare or he risks violating one of his core campaign promises.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing with an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, New York Democrats are pushing the president in the other direction. Noted health care expert, Ivanka Trump, as well as President Kushner and Gary Cohen, are reportedly pushing to keep the subsidies, while Steve Bannon is arguing that we follow the Constitution. Liberal congressional Republicans, such as Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., are also pushing for a continuation of the subsidies.

Sensing blood in the water, Democrats are now demanding that the subsidies be codified by Congress in the budget bill. Now that Democrats successfully jettisoned all conservative riders from the budget, why not go on offense and demand their priorities? After all, we can’t have a government shutdown. Now, instead of the battle lines over the budget being drawn over defunding refugee resettlement, Planned Parenthood, and the border wall, we must play defense on the cost-sharing subsidies.

Caving on principle begets more capitulation. There is no way to get around not repealing Obamacare but somehow pretending we are repealing it. The path forward is and always was very simple: full repeal of Obamacare with reasonable transition to what GOP has promised in terms of free market health care — or permanent irrelevance and humiliating electoral defeat. (For more from the author of “Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment’

President Trump has been sucked into the abyss of the Washington “establishment” since his inauguration, prominent Republicans and Democrats charged Sunday morning, and whether that’s a positive development depends entirely on one’s political point of view.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on national security, flatly declared that he hopes establishment types have influenced the president’s shifts on China, Syria and other foreign policy matters.

Mr. Trump two weeks ago abandoned his noninterventionist campaign rhetoric and ordered military strikes in Syria, and last week said he no longer considers China a “currency manipulator.”

The latter is an attempt by Mr. Trump to enlist China’s help in dealing with North Korea, which over the weekend conducted another missile test that, while failing in spectacular fashion, still represented an aggressive, antagonistic move.

Mr. Trump in recent days also walked back his campaign claim that NATO is an obsolete organization. (Read more from “Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arkansas Judge Joined Death-Penalty Protests on Same Day He Blocked Executions

An Arkansas judge attended two death-penalty protests on the same day that he issued an order blocking the state’s multiple executions, at one point allowing himself to be strapped to a cot in a simulation of an inmate slated to die by lethal injection.

Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen “cannot be considered remotely impartial on issues related to the death penalty,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge in an emergency petition filed Saturday challenging his order.

She said Mr. Griffen attended a 2 p.m. Friday rally at the state capitol in Little Rock before issuing the temporary restraining order at about 4:25 p.m., then resurfaced at an evening protest outside the governor’s mansion.

“Within an hour of granting the TRO [temporary restraining order], Judge Griffen was photographed at a second anti-death penalty rally — this one at the Governor’s Mansion, where Judge Griffen lay strapped down to a cot to simulate the experience of a condemned prisoner on a gurney,” said the petition. “Judge Griffen was protesting the very executions he had just enjoined.”

The judge also spoke out against the executions in a blog post earlier this month, saying that “Arkansas officials plan to commit a series of homicides,”according to the petition. (Read more from “Arkansas Judge Joined Death-Penalty Protests on Same Day He Blocked Executions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Suspect in Facebook Video Killing Shoots Himself to Death

The man who randomly gunned down a Cleveland retiree and posted video of the crime on Facebook killed himself Tuesday during a police chase in Pennsylvania that began when a McDonald’s drive-thru attendant recognized him.

It marked a violent end to the nearly 48-hour multi-state manhunt for Steve Stephens, whose case brought another round of criticism down on Facebook over how responsibly it polices objectionable material posted by users.

Acting on a tip from the McDonald’s, state troopers spotted Stephens leaving the restaurant in Erie and went after him, bumping his car to try to get it to stop, authorities said. He shot himself in the head after the car spun and came to a stop, police said. (Read more from “Suspect in Facebook Video Killing Shoots Himself to Death” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

When Americans file their taxes, it’s natural to wonder, “Where do my tax dollars go? What do they fund? And what don’t they fund?”

According to the latest Congressional Budget Office report on the distribution of federal taxes, Washington collects about $20,000 from the average household. Yet the 2016 deficit was a whopping $587 billion.

The almost $3.3 trillion that the federal government taxes out of the economy each year isn’t enough to satiate its profligate spending.

So where do our tax dollars go?

Some believe most of it goes to welfare and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate welfare dominate the budget.

In reality, health entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare—and Social Security are the largest programs. These entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid in just over 20 years.

Social Security. The single largest federal program, Social Security accounts for roughly a quarter of all federal spending. Its trust funds are already paying out more than they take in, and as more people retire, the system will be under continued stress.

Without reform, the program’s trustees project benefits will need to be cut as much as 21 percent if nothing is done by 2034 (the Congressional Budget Office projects insolvency will come four years sooner).

Major health entitlements. Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies are also growing at an unsustainable trajectory. Currently consuming 28 percent of the budget, health spending continues to grow faster than the economy.

Income security. Other income security programs—veterans’ benefits, unemployment compensation, food and housing assistance, federal employee retirement, and disability—are 18 percent of the budget, surpassing national defense spending.

Defense. The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks, to operations overseas, to the research, development, and acquisition of new technologies and equipment.

At 16 percent of the federal budget, defense spending is the last major category of federal spending and has been falling as a percent of the budget for the last decade.

And the rest?

Interest. Over the coming decade, U.S. debt held by the public is projected to balloon to 89 percent of gross domestic product—driven primarily by health and Social Security spending.

Deficit spending does not come cheap. As the debt increases, so does the cost of the interest we must pay to those who hold the debt, the unfortunate result of excessive government spending.

Currently, 6 percent of the budget is spent on interest—money that takes away from other priorities. Over the next 10 years, net interest on the debt is projected to rise to almost 12 percent of the budget, more than is projected to be spent on national defense.

Without reforming America’s massive and growing federal programs, Washington will have to continue to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling debt onto younger generations and putting the nation on an unsustainable economic course.

Growing government spending threatens higher taxes on current and future taxpayers. Increasing taxes is not an option. Washington already takes too much of the money that Americans work hard to earn.

Congress must rethink how it is spending the people’s money. The Heritage Foundation’s recently released “Blueprint for Balance” provides a workable guide for spending reform, listing $10 trillion of spending cuts that balance the budget in seven years.

The tax code is also badly in need of an update to make it less of a burden on the American people, American businesses, and the economy. Pro-growth tax reforms can unleash private investment, encourage job creation, and fuel economic growth, increasing prosperity for all Americans.

The first step to putting the federal budget back on a sustainable path is fully accounting for how precious taxpayer dollars are being used. Are you getting your money’s worth? (For more from the author of “Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Eliminating DC’s Handgun Ban Had No Effect on Homicides, Report Says

Eliminating the District of Columbia’s comprehensive handgun ban had almost no effect on homicides committed with or without such firearms in the nation’s capital, according to an analysis by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

Nearly 80 percent of all D.C. homicide victims from 2000 through 2007 were killed with a gun, city and federal data compiled by The Washington Post and analyzed by The Daily Caller News Foundation found. That figure dropped to 74 percent after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that Washington’s handgun ban was unconstitutional in 2008.

…The post-Heller decrease in both the annual number of gun-related homicides and all homicides extended an overall trend that began in 2002 and continued through 2012.

The post-Heller decrease was observed despite a 2013 incident in which one man killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard. Attacker Aaron Alexis launched his attack with a shotgun.

“I expect murders to fall,” Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “How they fall is a different question. The people who generally obeyed the ban were law-abiding citizens and not the criminals.” (Read more from “Eliminating DC’s Handgun Ban Had No Effect on Homicides, Report Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Data Show That Ignorance of US Tax Policy Fuels Leftward Sentiments

With federal Tax Day now here, taxes have been on many people’s minds and have featured in a few recent public opinion studies.

A study released by Gallup this week found that Americans are more likely to say the income taxes they pay are fair, after a long downward trend since 2003.

Pew Research Center also released a study on taxes this week, but with a broader focus. It concluded that Americans are more likely now than they were 20 years ago to say they think the tax system as a whole is unfair, and that the main reason for the unfairness is that corporations and the wealthy are getting away with paying too little.

Yet in this Pew study as well, when asked about their own tax rates, respondents expressed a similar level of contentment as recorded in the Gallup study. Fifty-four percent told Pew they pay “about the right amount,” while 61 percent told Gallup the amount they pay is fair.

Taking these two studies together, Americans are more content with their own tax rates, yet tend to think the federal tax system as a whole is unfair.

Pew found that the top two irritants for Americans were that “some corporations don’t pay their fair share” (with 62 percent being bothered “a lot” by this), and that “some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share” (60 percent).

Less were bothered by the complexity of the tax system (43 percent). A similar proportion said they were not too much or not at all bothered by the amount they themselves pay (46 percent).

These are interesting insights, but in trying to relate them back to public policy, several issues crop up.

First off, “fair” is a very subjective term, and it raises a lot of questions: What would a more fair treatment of wealthy Americans and corporations look like in Americans’ minds? Higher rates? Fewer “loopholes”? (When we claim them ourselves, we call them “deductions.”) More auditing and enforcement?

And what is shaping Americans’ impressions of what is fair? Political rhetoric? Accusations of greed? An objective and informed understanding of who pays what in the U.S. tax system?

Research from The Heritage Foundation’s Center on Public Opinion suggests that it is definitely not the latter. Americans’ inaccurate understanding of who pays what taxes in this country likely drives their sense of unfairness.

When federal and state taxes are added together, the average corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39 percent. That’s the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

A recent study conducted March 17-27 among registered voters on corporate taxes found that on average, Americans guess that the corporate rate is 30 percent—nine points lower than reality. The most common answer was 35 percent (16 percent of respondents said this).

But most Americans guessed something lower: 30 percent, 25 percent, even 20, 15, or 10 percent.

Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes.

That year, the top 10 percent of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41 percent of all income, but paid 68 percent of all income taxes.

Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10 percent of Americans earned 41 percent of American money, when in fact they made 45 percent of American money.

But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10 percent pays 38 percent of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. The top 10 percent pays 68 percent of all U.S. taxes.

The results indicate that when it comes to actually working out the numbers in their heads, Americans don’t think the tax scale is as graduated as it is. In fact, they think it’s graduated in the wrong way, with the middle class paying a higher proportion of taxes than they earn and the top 10 percent getting off easy.

Not surprisingly, Americans’ attitudes toward tax policy proposals, like raising or lowering tax rates, change when they have accurate information.

When asked after hearing the true proportions of income earned and taxes paid, the proportion of Americans saying they think the top 10 percent of earners doesn’t pay enough in taxes decreased by 31 percent.

The proportion saying they pay about the right amount increased 20 percent, and more even said that they pay too much (+11 percent).

Similarly, 50 percent of Americans think the corporate tax rate is too high, based on an average federal and state corporate tax rate of 39 percent.

And when Americans are shown comparison rates from a range of 12 different developed countries around the world, demonstrating that the U.S. corporate rate is the highest in the developed world, 67 percent think the U.S. rate is too high, further illustrating the subjectivity and fluidity of “fairness” within the tax system.

Gallup and Pew’s studies leave little doubt that Americans are concerned about the fairness of the current U.S. tax system.

When those feelings are based on false assumptions and incorrect information, the proper response is not to shape public policy around the whim of the people, but to provide accurate information about the United States’ current system, so that the American people can make an informed decision moving forward. (For more from the author of “New Data Show That Ignorance of US Tax Policy Fuels Leftward Sentiments” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Three-Month-Old ‘Terrorist Baby’ Summoned to US Embassy in London for Interview

Yes, you read that headline right.

Because his grandfather accidentally checked the wrong box on a visa waiver form, a three-month-old boy was forced to appear at the US embassy in London for an interview.

From The Guardian:

Harvey Kenyon-Cairns had been due to fly to Orlando in Florida for his first overseas holiday, until his grandfather Paul Kenyon made the error on a visa waiver form.

On the part of the Esta form which reads “Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?” Kenyon ticked yes instead of no.

He only learned of his error when his grandson’s travel was refused. “I couldn’t believe that they couldn’t see it was a genuine mistake and that a three-month-old baby would be no harm to anyone,” said the 62-year-old.

Okay, first of all…how likely is it that an actual terrorist would answer YES to that question anyway?

Also – of all entities – government agencies should be VERY aware that clerical errors occur and humans do make mistakes. You’d think “someone in charge” would take that into consideration here.

But, no. Of course, common sense did not prevail. Baby and family had to make a 10-hour round trip to the embassy to be questioned by officials.

Kenyon said the mix-up cost him an extra £3,000 ($3,800), as the new visa didn’t arrive in time for the family’s flights:

“It was a very expensive mistake, but I was hoping the US embassy would realise that it was just a simple error without us having to jump through all the hoops.”

Regarding how the interview went, Kenyon said,

Baby Harvey was good as gold for the interview and never cried once. I thought about taking him along in an orange jumpsuit, but thought better of it. They didn’t appear to have a sense of humour over it at all and couldn’t see the funny side.

He’s obviously never engaged in genocide, or espionage, but he has sabotaged quite a few nappies in his time, though I didn’t tell them that at the US embassy.

Baby Harvey and his parents ended up being a few days late for their Florida vacation because of the error. (For more from the author of “Three-Month-Old ‘Terrorist Baby’ Summoned to US Embassy in London for Interview” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawsuit Attempts to Hold Foreign Governments Accountable for Spying on Americans

On Thursday April 13, the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked an appeals court to review a decision that will allow foreign governments to monitor the activities of Americans in America. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is calling on the court to reverse the decision made in a case involving an American living in Maryland and the Ethiopian government. The case, Kidane v. Ethiopia, relates to the Ethiopian government attaching a malware program known as FinSpy to Mr. Kidane’s computer. FinSpy is capable of copying every keystroke made by the user, as well as Skype calls, and sending all of the data back to Ethiopia.

In March, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Mr. Kidane and stated that foreign governments could not be held accountable for surveillance in American courts if they did not send a human agent to perform the spying. “In essence, this would mean governments around the world have immunity for spying, attacking, and even murdering Americans on American soil, as long as the activity is performed with software, robots, drones, or other digital tools,” the EFF writes.

“We already know about technology that will let attackers drive your car off the road, turn off your pacemaker, or watch every communication from your computer or your phone. As our lives become even more digital, the risks will only grow,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo. More than likely, her comments regarding driving cars off road is a reference to recent revelations from WikiLeaks’ Vault7, CIA leaks which show that, among other things, the agency can remotely control vehicles. Cardozo said the courts need to make it clear to governments around the world that “any illegal attack in the United States will be answered in court in the United States.”

The result of the court’s decision is that foreign governments are not expected to follow the same requirements for surveillance that the U.S. government is expected to. Of course, the reality is that the U.S. does not even follow its own rules on domestic surveillance or foreign surveillance.

“American citizens deserve to feel safe and secure in their own homes using their own computers,” EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn said. “The appeals court should vacate this decision, and ensure that the use of robots or remote controlled tools doesn’t prevent people who have been harmed by foreign government attacks from seeking justice.”

Whether or not this particular court reverses this particular decision, it should serve as a reminder of the ever growing, interconnecting nexus of surveillance programs, tools, and compliant courts. The only freedom and privacy left in America is what you are willing to stand up and fight for. We must organize on the local level to oppose and counter the State’s surveillance. (For more from the author of “Lawsuit Attempts to Hold Foreign Governments Accountable for Spying on Americans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.