Trump Now Calls Debate ‘Rigged’ Due to Antagonistic Moderator

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the wake of extensive criticism of presidential debate moderator Lester Holt for aggressively confronting Republican candidate Donald Trump and lobbing softballs at Democrat Hillary Clinton, Trump is changing his verdict of how the debate was conducted.

“And then I had to put up with the anchor and fight the anchor all the time on everything I said. What a rigged deal,” Trump told a New Hampshire crowd Thursday.

“I tell you, we are in such a rigged — it is terrible. What’s going on in this country is so sad. But it will change. Remember Nov. 8th,” he added.

The word “rigged” has become part of the standard Trump campaign vocabulary. For example, elsewhere in his speech Monday, he noted, “The people getting rich off the rigged system are the people throwing their money at Hillary Clinton.

He also stated, “We are going to take on the special interests, the lobbyists, and the corrupt corporate media that have rigged the system against everyday Americans.”

When Trump finished Monday night’s debate, he had no complaints. He said Holt did a “great job” and the questions were “very fair.”

When reflection set in, and he could see the different ways the candidates were treated, he revised his opinion.

“When I first did it, I thought he was fine, I wasn’t thinking about it, but when I reviewed it and when I saw all of the commentary — because a lot of people thought he was terrible — and I looked at all of the commentary, I realized he was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary, it was like day and night,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Wednesday night.

“Nobody tuned in to hear what Lester Holt had to say,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “Nobody wants Lester Holt to be a fact-checker.”

Holt’s disparity in handling the candidates was also commented upon by Kelly Riddell in the Washington Times, who gave Holt an “F” for her performance.

“Mr. Trump got the most pointed questions all night, on racist stop-and-frisk, birtherism, his tax returns, Mrs. Clinton’s ‘stamina’ and being the first woman president. Mrs. Clinton’s email server? Not so much. FBI investigation? Nada. Pay for play allegations with the Clinton Foundation? Not worth it. Nearly all of Mr. Holt’s follow-up questions were directed at Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Clinton. Most of his interruptions were of Mr. Trump,” she wrote.

Clinton and Trump debate again Oct. 9, where ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper will moderate. The final debate is Oct. 19 and Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel will be the moderator. (For more from the author of “Trump Now Calls Debate ‘Rigged’ Due to Antagonistic Moderator” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressional Bank Robbery: Republicans Cave on Everything and Leave Town

/0 Comments/in , /by

What a way for the GOP-controlled Congress to end the legislative mandate given to them in 2014. It can truly be said that whereas Democrats are the Navy SEALs of political combat, Republicans are the NAVY SEALs of political capitulation. They managed to give Democrats everything they wanted in both houses, got it all passed by violating their own rules, and left town to campaign for re-election so they can … er … well … ahh … beat Democrats and … er … well … enact some more Democrat policies.

The Senate voted first Wednesday afternoon and passed the budget continuing resolution (CR) 72-26. Only 14 of the 54 Republicans voted no, and presumably, not all for conservative reasons. The 14 GOP noes were as follows:

Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%)
Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%)
Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 49%)
Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%)
Heller, R-Nev. (F, 57%)
Inhofe, R-Okla. (C, 72%)
Lankford, R-Okla. (D, 69%)
Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%)
Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%)
Perdue, R,-Ga. (C, 73%)
Risch, R-Idaho (C, 76%)
Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%)
Scott, R-S.C. (B, 89%)
Sessions, R-ala. (C, 78%)

This bill funded every major Democratic policy priority with no meaningful limitations on a single illegal, abusive, or harmful executive action taken by the president. It contained no limitations or reforms to Obamacare, Planned Parenthood funding, Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate on the states, sanctuary cities, or DACA amnesty. What was particularly disturbing about this blank check is that the timing of the budget deadline coincided with two new harmful unilateral policies of the Obama administration: the giveaway of oversight over internet IP addresses to a foreign entity and a net increase in refugee admission for the new fiscal year — all on top of the existing increase in refugees from the Middle East during a time of grave homeland security concerns.

The budget bill also reflected Obama’s spending priorities instead of the spending figures reflected in the Republican budget. It wasted $1.1 billion on Zika funding that was unnecessary and funded Planned Parenthood with those extra funds. While one expects compromise with divided government, this blank check was truly breathtaking in completely reflecting Democrat values — as if Republicans had no control over Congress.

And in fact, things have gotten worse since Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014. Whereas before 2015 Harry Reid only controlled the Senate, now he controls both the Senate and the House. At least when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House had to pretend to put up a fight. Now they just follow McConnell’s, R-Ky. (F, 42%) lead, which is Reid’s command.

Thus, the House rolled over and slammed the bill on the floor without three days to consult with the members. Rather than working with conservatives to craft a Republican bill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 53%) and Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. (F, 38%) sandbagged their members with Reid’s, D-Nev. (F, 2%) steaming pile. The CR passed the House by a 342-85 margin. Only 75 Republicans voted no, a mere 30 percent of the House GOP Conference.

Adding insult to injury, House Republicans also gave in to the final demand of Democrats by passing a massive federalized water bill, which added new programs without cutting existing ineffective programs or devolving programs that are not national in scope to the states. Over 100 Republicans joined with Democrats to add a bailout for Flint, Michigan to the water bill, even though there is already ample state and federal funding to fix Flint’s water problems.

Then, the Congresscritters summarily got out of town before the night ended. As if to say, “our work is done.”

In some sense it would be a saving grace if this was the end of the 114th Congress. If they will not use their power to check and balance the other two branches, at least do no harm. Unfortunately, by having this bill expire in December, Republicans gave Harry Reid one more election-year present — a lame-duck session with massive spending bills and jailbreak legislation. And with December being his last month before retirement, one could only imagine Reid’s demands of Republicans in order to afford them the privilege of his acceptance of their capitulation.

Republicans will now campaign in their respective states and districts by inveighing against the broken system in Washington and a Democrat Party that is dangerous for our national security, spends too much money, and grows government. Time will tell if their constituents fall for it. (For more from the author of “Congressional Bank Robbery: Republicans Cave on Everything and Leave Town” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States Congress delivered a stinging blow to the president this week when they voted to override his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), marking the first time Congress rebuked Obama’s veto.

JASTA is legislation pushed by the families of the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001. In particular, the legislation weakens sovereign immunity laws to allow victims of terrorism to sue countries that were involved in the funding of those events. In this case, 9/11 survivors have, for the past 15 years, tried to sue the Saudi government for its presumed role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although both chambers of Congress overwhelming defeated Obama’s veto — in the Senate, 97-1 and in the House, 348-77 — the law is controversial. Concerns have been raised that it will weaken sovereign immunity laws in a way that will violate international law. Perhaps the greatest concern, however, is the backlash this new law will have on the U.S.

The possibility for backlash is predicated on the U.S.’ ability to claim sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries. As the New York Times writes,

A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law. This tenet is based on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit in judgment of one another … international law continues to guarantee immunity, even for alleged egregious crimes.

The NYT then argues, perhaps accurately, that few nations benefit as much from sovereign immunity than the U.S., especially given our status as the most active player in diplomatic, economic, and military endeavors around the world.

Examples that help illustrate the hazards of this bill would include Iran and Cuba. Both nations have sued the U.S. and hold billions of dollars in judgments against us. (Although, hopefully we haven’t actually paid those off.) More so, lawyers are also uncertain how to view foreign aid — particularly military foreign aid — for example, to Israel. In the event military aid could be traced to deaths, say in the West Bank, the U.S. could be subject to a litany of lawsuits.

In all fairness, the bill certainly raises a number legitimate questions. But the fear mongers — and, well, it’s just about every news outlet and blog — need to calm down.

First, as much as Obama hates this bill, in the end, the new law grants the executive considerable power over suing foreign nations. That power allows the attorney general to request a court to halt a lawsuit proceeding against the foreign nation for 180 days if the U.S. government is “engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state.”

Since the bill provides the option to extend the stay by an additional 180 days if more time is needed, in theory, the government could thwart a lawsuit indefinitely.

And really, there’s nothing stopping Obama from assisting the Saudis over the 9/11 families.

I wouldn’t put it past him.

Second, this bill is all about seeking justice for 9/11 families against the Saudi government’s involvement. It’s hard to argue against that. The role Saudi Arabia played in the worst terrorist attack on American soil is increasingly obvious as the U.S. government offers additional transparency into U.S. intelligence reports.

In July, The Washington Times reported that based on the “28 pages” — classified pages from a congressional report on the 9/11 hijackings — that Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the country’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time, was funneling cash to one particular individual who had ties to the hijackers. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, including terrorist mastermind too, Osama bin Laden. Yet, after all these years, Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, mostly thanks to our dependence on oil and its strategic location in the Middle East accessible to U.S. military assets.

Nevertheless, the Saudi government, just as any nation’s, should be held accountable for its participation in the murder of 3,000 Americans. Period.

Finally, this is merely a law that is aimed at terrorism. Lawyers Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue in their op-ed, How to Limit JASTA’s adverse impact”:

It also will create a broad precedent that can be used against the United States and its allies as an excuse for “reciprocal” or “analogous” reductions in immunity even if no suit is brought against those countries in the United States.

However, there will be limited instances in which foreign nations directly contribute to terrorism in the U.S. Those that may are certainly not countries that should cause the U.S. significant alarm in any reciprocal actions. Even if other nations decide to follow America’s lead in reducing sovereign immunity clauses regarding terrorism, it should be expected that again, there would be only a few nations we would have to worry about.

In the end, this bill represents the voices of thousands of families who feel that for too long politics has outweighed justice for the tragedies on September 11. Sometimes it’s better to do what is right than it is to do what is easiest. Victims of terrorism deserve justice, and this is but one small step. (For more from the author of “Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Teen Told He’d Never Stand Again, Stands for First Time During National Anthem

/0 Comments/in , /by

While football players all across America — from Pop Warner up through to the NFL — are kneeling in protest of the national anthem, South Carolina teen Wesley Baker stood up for America.

Doctors were sure he would never stand again — possibly relegated to a permanent vegetative state.

In 2013, the high school football player was walking along the highway when he was hit by an 18-wheeler. Though he survived, miraculously, Baker lost a leg and sustained heavy brain trauma, among other injuries.

But after three years of medical attention, therapy, and peerless persistence, 19-year-old Wesley Baker stood for Old Glory and the Star-Spangled Banner during Friday night’s football game at his former Conway High School.

It was the first time he’s been able to stand since his accident.

“It feels like a dream. I’ve asked God for three years… when his accident took place I said, ‘God please let my son walk again and talk again,’ and day by day, he’s shown me miracles,” his mother, Debra Phipps, told WKRC.

“Wesley, he’s worked hard, he’s lost his leg and he had a right to sit down, but now God is giving him the strength to stand up, and we all need to stand up for America,” she said. (For more from the author of “Teen Told He’d Never Stand Again, Stands for First Time During National Anthem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Hands Obama Huge Loss, Gives 9/11 Victims’ Families Big Victory

/0 Comments/in , /by

Families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks moved one step closer to being able to sue Saudi Arabia after the Senate overrode President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill allowing those lawsuits.

The vote on the override was 97-1.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was the only one in the chamber to support Obama.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, would provide an exception to the Obama-supported doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” in which countries are not sued in one another’s courts.

Obama has insisted that although the bill does give 9/11 families the chance they have wanted to sue Saudi Arabia, the U.S. might lose the immunity from lawsuits it currently has in other nations.

Senators who opposed Obama said the risk was worth taking.

“This legislation is really about pursuing justice,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas. “The families have already suffered too much. They’ve already suffered untold tragedy, of course, and they deserve to find a path to closure that only justice can provide.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., another strong supporter of the legislation, said, “Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly. But it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice. Even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts.”

The bill was vetoed by Obama on Friday after the president sought to find supporters who would take his side against the families of 9/11 victims who pushed for the bill.

Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

The Senate was the first to act to override. House action is now pending and may take place this week.

JASTA’s override came as some lawmakers expressed concerns that they still don’t know the full extent of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

“We are still learning the facts, but there is mounting evidence that the Saudi government – or at least operations and operatives within the Saudi government – aided and abetted one of the most massive crimes in the United States,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “In our system, the truth behind those facts deserves to be presented in court – a court of law where fairness and justice will be assured.” (For more from the author of “Senate Hands Obama Huge Loss, Gives 9/11 Victims’ Families Big Victory” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left’s Decivilization Agenda Comes to Ohio

/0 Comments/in , /by

If a person can become transgender, why can’t a state or another branch of government become trans-judicial?

Our Founders never envisioned that states would remain obsequious to judicial power grabs. But they could never have anticipated, in their wildest nightmares, a day when federal judges would require states to treat boys like girls. Yet, that is exactly what happened in Ohio when Judge Algenon Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ordered Highland Local School District to treat a boy who thinks he’s a girl “as the girl she is”!

Just like North Carolina, Ohio can’t seem to catch a break from the tentacles of the radical courts. Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals prevented Ohio’s Secretary of State from cleaning its voter registration lists of dead voters. Now a district judge is ordering a school district outside of Akron to treat a boy in Highland Elementary School like a girl for all official school business.

After the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, prompted by a complaint from the boy’s family, ordered the school district to allow him in female bathrooms and locker rooms, the school officials sued the DOE in federal court for grossly misinterpreting the 1972 Title IX statute as absurdly applying to those suffering from transgender illness. Threatened with the loss of $1 million in Title IX funding, the school district argued that they already went out of their way to accommodate that individual student by allowing him to use a bathroom in the school office. But the parents argued that the boy, who they say had previously attempted suicide, would suffer mental health breakdowns from such an accommodation.

In Monday’s order, Judge Marbley, a Clinton appointee, required the Highland Local School District to allow the child (absurdly referred to as “Jane Doe”) into the girl’s bathrooms and locker rooms. “The Court orders School District officials to treat Jane Doe as the girl she is, including referring to her by female pronouns and her female name and allowing her to use the girls’ restroom at Highland Elementary School,” wrote an irate Judge Marbley.

The judge went on a mind-blowing polemic about how … you guessed it … the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment likely protects this individual and creates a right to use the opposite gender’s bathroom. “[A]s a tiny minority of the population, whose members are stigmatized for their gender non-conformity in a variety of settings, transgender people are a politically powerless minority group.”

Sadly, this is no April Fool’s joke. The unelected judges and bureaucrats at the DOE are using a 1972 statute and an 1868 amendment that was designed to stop real discrimination against fundamental rights to codify the most absurd distortion of natural law — the very source of fundamental rights.

There is no end to the absurdity of this de-civilization agenda. There are all sorts of unfortunate mental disorders in the world that deserve treatment and compassion from the society. But nobody would ever suggest that we codify the hallucinatory behavior of those stricken with the disorders into practice, law, the Constitution, and inalienable rights. What if a schizophrenic student who legitimately exhibited suicidal behavior demanded to be treated as a killer whale and asked for the school district to allow him to sit in a water tank during class? Or what if the student demanded to be referred to as “it” in all documentation? Would this stigmatized super-minority not be entitled to the same degree of “privacy” and “equal protection?”

The Ohio case is a quintessential example when states must simply say no and refuse to comply with the most ludicrous debasements of fundamental rights and the worst usurpations of power by the two unelected branches of the federal government. Even the elected branch of the federal government could never order a state to engage in such absurdity. How can the DOE and the courts be taken seriously for a minute?

Folks, we are like frogs in boiling water who become desensitized to the sharp increase in the temperature of cultural licentiousness. Even those on our side are beginning to adopt much of the Left’s premise and use the absurd and illogical parlance about sexual identity mental disorders. What is it going to take to arouse the states and the people from their slumber as the federal judiciary initiates the most outrageous societal transformation imaginable? Why are the federally elected representative of states like Ohio and North Carolina not fighting to defund the DOE transgender mandate in the budget bill? Why are they not countering the stolen sovereignty from the courts with congressional powers?

It’s time for a new Tea Party, a new movement within the states to fight back against judicial and executive reach. After all, if a boy with male plumbing can be deemed a girl, why can’t a state self-identify as a Supreme Court and control its own destiny? (For more from the author of “The Left’s Decivilization Agenda Comes to Ohio” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

James Comey Promises FBI Database to Track Race-Based Police Activity

/0 Comments/in , /by

Never let a serious crisis go to waste, goes the old axiom. And in the context of America’s ongoing tension regarding race and policing, it would appear that the crisis has provided a ripe opportunity to further centralize policing in the United States by mining data from state and local law enforcement agencies.

At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey promised a panel of senators that he would spend the remaining seven years of his 10-year term to build a national database to monitor the role of race in use of force by police across the country.

“We simply must collect data that is reliable nationwide about police use of deadly force in altercations, encounters, with civilians,” Comey said, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., (F, 11%). “If there is anything more inherently governmental than that, I can’t imagine what it is.”

During the hearing, Comey said that the need for the database is due to the fact that the only available information that the public has about policing incidents and the use of force comes from newspapers, whose “data isn’t comprehensive”:

“We will build a nationwide database that the FBI will collect that shows us what happened, when, who was involved, what were they like, what were the circumstances so we can have informed conversations.”

Furthermore, this is a project that Comey said could span through the next two presidential administrations.

“We are going to do this,” the FBI director continued, “One of the beauties of a 10-year term is I am not going to shut up about this. I have seven years to go.”

Ultimately, the goal of James Comey’s proposed policing data project would be to definitively answer questions about whether or not deadly force is applied disproportionately against minorities by police, he says:

“No one in this country knows whether the use of deadly force against any particular group — African-Americans most particularly — is up, down, or sideways over the last 10 years,” Comey told the committee. “Do we have an epidemic of violence? No one knows that. We could, we might not — we simply must gather the information so we can care deeply and solve these problems.”

James Comey’s testimony does sound good at first blush. And had the director’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of the law not been botched over the summer by the bureau’s handling of the Clinton email scandal investigation, there might even be a greater danger of congressmen joining hands to slap the all-powerful “bipartisan” label on this effort and push it forward in the name of “transparency.”

While the narrative of police disproportionately and indiscriminately gunning down unarmed black men is a popular one — and individual incidents generate easy, eye-grabbing headlines for media outlets — the statistics currently available would say otherwise.

A 2015 Washington Post study of police shootings — one of the newspaper pieces that Comey disparaged in the hearing — revealed that incidents of white law enforcement officers shooting unarmed black men accounted for less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Furthermore, multiple criminology studies have found that police were actually more hesitant to shoot black suspects who posed a credible threat (versus white suspects).

Giving the FBI and Department of Justice a federally-mandated periscope to look over the shoulder of every beat cop in the country will likely only exacerbate the phenomenon and put more police lives in danger by forcing them to second-guess themselves every time a suspect poses a credible threat.

While this might be an adequate diagnosis of the problem that popular racial policing narrative is, at best, poorly-informed, Comey’s solution is just another means of contributing to the Obama administration’s years-long efforts to centralize everyday policing in the United States.

Past proposals include the president’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and the host of grants that serve as dangling carrots for local law enforcement to hand over more authority to the feds in exchange for funds.

Contrary to the “Hope and Change” narrative that the president sold voters, the Obama years have seen an unquestionable resurgence in racial tension in the United States. And this tension has been used as excuse at nearly every single instance as a vehicle to increase federal oversight and control over law enforcement — which, by nature, should be a local undertaking.

While James Comey’s FBI database may seem like a benign solution to questions about racial impetus in police shootings, it has to be viewed as part of a greater pattern to increase the DOJ’s presence over local law enforcement. (For more from the author of “James Comey Promises FBI Database to Track Race-Based Police Activity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Lawmakers Pressure Administration Over Obamacare ‘Bailout’ for Insurers

/0 Comments/in , /by

GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate are pressuring the Obama administration for additional information on whether it plans to settle with insurance companies suing the government over a program written into Obamacare, which they warn would serve as a “multibillion dollar bailout” of those insurers.

Republicans in the House and Senate sent separate letters to top officials with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services raising concerns over the possibility of the Justice Department tapping into the Judgment Fund to settle lawsuits filed by insurance companies over Obamacare’s risk corridor program.

The risk corridor program was written into the Affordable Care Act and designed to provide insurers with stability during the first few years of the law’s implementation.

“This program was originally intended to be implemented in a budget neutral manner,” Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Andy Slavitt.

“This intention was confirmed when Congress passed, with presidential approval, two separate provisions of appropriations law confirming its budget neutrality,” the letter continued. “It now appears the administration is preparing to circumvent these actions.”

The Republican senators said they have “grave concerns” about the potential for settlements with insurers.

Insurance companies filed lawsuits earlier this year after learning they would receive a small fraction of the money requested from the risk corridor program.

But Rubio and Senate Republicans included an amendment in 2015 and 2016 government spending bills prohibiting the government from using any taxpayer dollars to fund payments requested by insurers through the program. Under Rubio’s provision, the federal government could only use money collected from insurers to make those payments.

Because of those restrictions, insurance companies participating in Obamacare’s exchanges received just 12.6 percent of the money they intended to get from the risk corridor program—a collective $2.5 billion less than originally anticipated.

Many smaller insurers, including at least four of 23 consumer operated and oriented plans, ended up closing their doors because of lower-than-expected risk corridor payments.

Congressional Republicans began to sound the alarm over use of the Judgment Fund after insurers filed the lawsuit. Settling with insurers, they warned, would give the White House a way to provide the companies with their full risk corridor payments, effectively circumventing Congress.

“Any attempt to settle these cases out of court as a backdoor way to direct taxpayer dollars to insurance companies through the Judgment Fund will be met with the strictest scrutiny from Congress,” more than 40 GOP lawmakers wrote in one of the letters, sent to Burwell last week.

The Republicans go on to signal they would be willing to file their own lawsuit against the administration.

“Should the administration seek to make settlements in any pending lawsuit regarding risk corridor payments, we remain committed to exhausting all legislative and judicial options to ensure the power of the purse vested in Congress under the Constitution is respected and maintained,” the letter continues.

Republicans further stepped up their pressure on the Obama administration regarding potential use of the Judgment Fund following the release of a Sept. 9 memo from the Department of Health and Human Services on risk corridor payments for the 2015 benefit year.

In its memo, the agency addressed the lawsuit filed by insurers over the risk corridor payments for 2014 and said it would be “open to discussing resolution of those claims.”

Then, in a hearing before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee earlier this month, Slavitt indicated officials from his agency had discussed with the Justice Department a potential settlement with insurers over the risk corridor program.

Nicole Navas, spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the agency declines to comment because of pending litigation.

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, a co-op, filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration over the risk corridor program in February. The nonprofit is seeking class-action status.

Highmark Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina followed, filing their own individual lawsuits in May and June, respectively.

The insurers allege that the federal government violated the Affordable Care Act and the risk corridor payment obligations outlined in the health care law.

Though the Obama administration has signaled it would be willing to use the Judgment Fund to settle insurers lawsuits against the government, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued two separate memorandums to Rubio and Barrasso on the legality of the use of the Judgment Fund.

In a memo sent to Rubio in January, the Congressional Research Service said the administration wouldn’t be able to use the Judgment Fund to award payments to insurers who filed suit.

Congress, the memo concluded, would have to appropriate additional funds for “any payment to satisfy a judgment secured by plaintiffs seeking recovery of amounts owed under the risk corridors program.”

In a separate memo to Barrasso, the Congressional Research Service said that even if the insurance companies won their case, either insurers would need to pay additional money into the risk corridor program or Congress would need to appropriate additional money for companies involved in the litigation to recover additional funds.

“Consequently, it would be inappropriate for the Judgment Fund to be used to settle any litigation stemming from the risk corridor program,” the letter from Barrasso, Lee, Rubio, and Sasse continues. (For more from the author of “GOP Lawmakers Pressure Administration Over Obamacare ‘Bailout’ for Insurers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed

/0 Comments/in , , /by

At last night’s debate, there was one issue that Hillary Clinton really exposed herself on: gun control. With her talk of the “no fly list,” discussion of a “gun epidemic,” and a “plague of gun violence,” it became evident that Hillary has many ideas of how to impose comprehensive gun control.

According to the Washington Post transcript of the first presidential debate, Hillary said of guns:

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.

The term “epidemic” and “plague” are medical terms used to describe illnesses. This is language intended to communicate the idea that gun violence is a health problem like cancer or the Zika virus. When one makes the ownership of guns akin to a sickness, it becomes easier to sell the American people the idea of mandatory gun confiscation.

Violence isn’t caused by guns, it is caused by people with guns, and knives and bombs. An issue that receives far less attention is the fact the violence is a societal problem made worse by rampant glorification in movies, cable shows, music, and violent video games. In other words, guns are not the problem. The people holding the guns are the problem because we, as a society, have been desensitized to violence through entertainment that glorifies violence.

Movies like Hostel to Reservoir Dogs to Natural Born Killers all glorify violence and make it acceptable to see death. Video games like Grand Theft Auto and the many military style games teach kids how to kill and allow kids to go on killing rampages. Violence in entertainment impacts the attitudes of people towards real life situations.

No liberal would dare to call these movies and video games an “epidemic” or a “plague” because that might lead to a chipping away of what many consider a First Amendment right. Yet, no similar treatment is given to the Second Amendment that resides in that same Bill of Rights.

According to the Washington Post transcript, Hillary argued:

And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we’ve got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.

Here Hillary called for a widespread gun confiscation, the closing of gun shows, and ending face-to-face sales of guns by requiring background checks on private sales. Hillary is an anti-gun extremist who does not respect the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Clinton closed that segment with a false equivalency:

And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

Trump, along with the NRA, supports the idea of imposing some due process when somebody is pinged as being on a watch list so they can challenge the removal of the right to purchase a gun. The NRA position is that if somebody tries to purchase a gun and they are on the “no fly list” then they have the opportunity to go into court and challenge the action.

Hillary supports legislation that process rights from those that end up, intentionally or unintentionally, on the no fly list. Trump and Clinton do not support the same idea on how to treat individuals who are on the “no fly list” who try to purchase a gun, because Hillary does not support due process protections in the legislation being supported by Trump, the NRA, and other Republicans.

The noise of “who won and who lost the debate,” Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s tax returns, and Rosie O’Donnell don’t really matter to most voters. Having their guns confiscated and does matter.

On the issue of guns, Hillary lost the debate with Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night’s debate was a reflection of the Kim Kardashian culture and the fake two-party system that has destroyed our Constitution.

There were sharp rhetorical barbs tossed at one another in this reality TV show, but over what exactly did they debate? Where was the major point of contention on the actual issues that matter?

For all of the talk about how this election is so new, exciting, and consequential, this debate merely reflected a typical day in Washington. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) toss rhetorical barbs at one another every day, but they fundamentally agree on so many issues. They engage in confrontation just to entertain the political class with a fake WWE-style bout.

Many of us have been pining for years to watch a general election debate in which the GOP candidate would deracinate the entire premise of socialism and pin the high cost of living, loss of jobs, and lethargic growth on the Democrats’ liberal policies. Yet, the beginning of the first presidential debate was an astounding display of “me too” socialism whereby Trump made his entire plan for economic growth centered around protectionism. Even if one subscribes to some degree of protectionism, the notion that this is a proactive tool for growth is absurd. Trump didn’t pitch his tax plan until Hillary brought it up and when she did, Trump spent more time focusing on “preventing” companies from leaving the country — whatever that means.

Trump got back on message for a few minutes when he finally defended his tax plan and spoke about onerous regulations. But fundamentally, the economic side of this debate sounded more one-sided than any presidential debate in memory, and that includes the debates with liberals like John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) and Bob Dole. It was further astounding that Trump did not mention the 800-pound gorilla on fiscal policy —Obamacare —a single time. Then again, for someone who loves expansion of Medicaid, it’s hard to articulate what exactly is wrong with Obama’s signature legislation.

The most disappointing part of the debate was when Trump enthusiastically agreed with Hillary on universal child care and maternity leave. Trump uttered a line that embodies the pale-pastel nature of the oligarchy since 1988. He asserted that while he agrees with Hillary’s program, they “probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts.”

Freeze frame right there.

This is the perfect summation of the GOP since 1988, excepting for the brief aberration of the 1995 House Republicans. They agree with whatever Democrats are doing at any given time, albeit disagree over the numbers and amounts. Trump should have retorted by listing all of the Democrat policies that make it impossible for women to stay home with their children if they choose to do so because the cost of living through socialism forces both parents to work every year of their lives. Of the 14 winning issues we’ve outlined, he barely touched on a few of them and none of them in a meaningful way.

Somehow Donald Trump managed to (finally) hit Hillary on the debt, but never explained how he will end deficit spending given that he will not repeal a single program, will continue to add programs, and sign a massive stimulus bill on infrastructure projects, an idea that should be pursued by state governments.

When Hillary asserted that Trump referred to global warming as a hoax, instead of embracing the opportunity to discuss how this hoax is decimating the economy in swing states, he retreated by denying he ever said it. I think we all remember a candidate in the primary who would have relished a debate over global warming.

And while fiscal conservatism was dead in this debate, social conservatism — even social libertarianism, private property rights, religious liberty, and inalienable rights — never made an appearance.

But most of the debate wasn’t about issues — liberal or otherwise. To debate moderator Lester Holt’s credit, he let the candidates banter back and forth for most of the debate — you might even call it a debate for once. But that is the point. Given the nature of these two candidates — a tired, old Great Society culture warrior at one podium and her donor at the other — the meat of the debate was about personality. At the beginning, it was Trump’s personality who knocked Hillary off her game, but over time Hillary engaged in jujitsu by leading Trump into his own rabbit holes and in a defensive posture about his personal life and prior statements.

We already know Trump is a social and fiscal liberal on many issues, but the one saving grace has long been his strong views on immigration and national security. Yet, when given a fast-ball up the plate to talk about his solution to homegrown terror, Trump didn’t mention immigration or the Muslim Brotherhood once or body slam Hillary for increasing refugees by 550 percent. Rather, he went off on a tangent about NATO, got caught on his past statements on Iraq, and was ensnared in a lengthy discussion about birtherism.

When Hillary brought up the issue of gun control and the terror watch list, Trump could have destroyed her on bringing in assault people while foolishly focusing on the inanimate object. He could have exposed her hypocrisy of confiscating guns from innocent people on the list (a prominent journalist wound up on the list) while vigorously clamoring to let violent gun felons out of jail. He could have demonstrated how Hillary wants to go after guns without due process but opposes stripping individuals of citizenship after being convicted through due process of joining a terror group. Instead, he chose the age-old milquetoast GOP approach, the same strategy he employs on so many fiscal issues; he “strongly” agreed with Hillary, thereby throwing the NRA under the bus.

The one area of strength for Trump, however, was the discussion on law and order and how Hillary’s pro criminal policies will hurt inner cities. Trump was also on message when discussing Hillary’s failures in the Middle East, but that line of attack was overshadowed when he got trapped in his past statements on Iraq and his support for the Libya intervention. Furthermore, his answer to the question on nuclear weapons and North Korea was literally incomprehensible…as in weapons-grade stupid.

I couldn’t help but reflect with sorrow of how 52 years after Phyllis Schlafly called for “a choice, not an echo” in our political system. Today, we still hear the faint echo on policy from Republicans — yes, even this new and exciting one — drowned out by the raucous noise of the personal insults. When you strip away the WWE smack-down, there is no choice there.

For those who still desire to beat Hillary at all costs, I don’t blame you. But don’t kid yourselves: if Trump wins on November 8, the work would have only begun. We will have his incoherent luggage piled on top of the existing GOP establishment, which is more empowered than ever before. Blindly cheering everything we fought against for years – without immediately charting a new path for conservatism – won’t end well.

Until Americans return to the values that made this country great in the first place and seize the monopoly away from the oligarchy, we will continue to get the same failed leadership and the same indistinguishable choices every four years. And we deserve it. (For more from the author of “Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.