House, Senate Republicans Jockey to Advance Short-Term Spending Measure

/0 Comments/in , /by

The chairman of the largest conservative caucus in Congress is pushing House Republicans to pass a stopgap spending package before the Senate can finish work on its version.

The government’s authority to spend money expires at the end of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is racing ahead on the upper chamber’s version of the spending package before that deadline.

But the House is stuck in neutral.

Pointing to that inactivity, Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, introduced a continuing resolution that would put federal spending on autopilot until Dec. 9, advance a Zika aid package, and fully fund veterans affairs and military infrastructure programs.

“What our CR does is try to advance a responsible spending program for the federal government that has a few key conservative riders and has no leftist riders on it,” Flores told The Daily Signal, referring to the short-term budget measure and “policy riders” that lawmakers often attach to spending bills.

Those policy provisions would require tougher vetting for refugees who are “from areas dominated by radical Islamic terrorists.”

It also would halt the White House plan to relinquish control of ICANN, the global nonprofit that functions as the phonebook of the internet by curating website domain names. Flores described the administration’s move as “Obama’s internet giveaway.”

The package is more compromise than conservative wish list, Flores admits. Since the beginning of the year, RSC has spearheaded the effort to reduce spending and avoid legislating during a lame-duck session of Congress—the period after the election but before the next Congress convenes.

Though the plan concedes both priorities, Flores said it’s the best possibility in the current political climate.

“Look, I don’t like [continuing resolutions].” Flores said. “I don’t think it’s a responsible way to fund the government. However, when you get put in a position where the government is going to be held hostage—particularly troop pay—then we’ve got to do this in a responsible manner.”

The Texas representative blames McConnell, the Senate majority leader, for caving to Democrats and creating the current debacle.

Before House Republicans could agree on a unified position on spending, McConnell announced he would negotiate the details of a continuing resolution with Senate Democrats and the White House.

Though by law spending bills must originate in the House, the Senate has repurposed a bill from the lower chamber as a “legislative shell.” But while that procedure gave the upper chamber a head start, it still hasn’t been able to agree on what will be in the final package.

Democrats insist they won’t vote for any bill that includes conservative policy riders that they call “poison pills.” And Flores said he is worried that Senate Republicans, eager to skip Washington for the campaign trail, are willing to oblige.

“The way Mitch McConnell has conducted these negotiations,” Flores said, “we were afraid that too many conservative priorities would be thrown into the ditch and liberal priorities would be attached.”

McConnell’s office did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The spending plan also excludes some Democrat priorities. Flores said it would prevent revival of the Export-Import Bank, stop renewable energy initiatives, and prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving any funds to fight the Zika virus.

The Zika issue has caused consternation among conservatives, who don’t want money appropriated to fight the virus to be used by Planned Parenthood. It’s not clear that the absence of an earmark alone is enough to stop money from flowing to the nation’s largest abortion provider, though.

The Flores proposal has attracted backing from the more conservative corners of Congress. Tuesday night, several members of the House Freedom Caucus expressed initial support for the Flores bill and frustration at the current situation.

“We want regular order. Speaker [Paul] Ryan talked about regular order. Well, by golly, let’s have regular order,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., before launching into an explanation of how the House is supposed to pass spending bills before the Senate.

“But they don’t want to do regular order,” Duncan said. “They want to work out all the differences in the front end, then drop this big bill in front of us and say this is all you have a chance to vote on.”

Flores said he has pitched the idea to leadership. But when asked by The Daily Signal, a Ryan aide would say only: “House Republicans continue to work with our Senate colleagues on a continuing resolution.”

The plan didn’t come up during a Republican conference Wednesday morning, however, a source inside the closed-door meeting told The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “House, Senate Republicans Jockey to Advance Short-Term Spending Measure” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration opposes states verifying citizenship status of registered voters. Inquiries into voter fraud are typically met with derision from both government and the media—and in at least one instance with prosecution. Prosecutors don’t prioritize voter fraud, while convictions only garner light sentences.

These are among the voter fraud problems facing the United States, experts noted this week, even as prominent voices on the left say such fraud is a myth.

The left’s opposition to voter integrity laws or even inquiry can be simply explained, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“Why on earth would you not want to make sure that only citizens are registered and voting?” Fitton, author of “Clean House: Exposing Our Government’s Secrets and Lies,” said at a forum at The Heritage Foundation Tuesday. “That to me shows that the Obama administration and the left generally, which is behind this, wants to be able to steal elections if necessary. To me, that’s a crisis.”

A 2014 study by Old Dominion University found that 6.4 percent of all noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm elections. The study concludes this likely put Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat, over the top in the race in his 312-vote statewide victory over Republican Norm Coleman in 2008.

Fitton said this is approaching 15 percent of all noncitizens voting.

In the past, opponents have argued that ID requirements hurt minority participation. Meanwhile, studies have found minority voting has increased after voter ID was implemented.

“If you think your vote is going to be stolen, especially in urban areas where you have political machines controlling the voting process or the perception that they control the voting process, you may not bother to vote,” Fitton said. “But, if you think your vote will be counted, of course you’re going to be more likely to turn out.”

Some recent cases cited by the panelists demonstrate the reality of voter fraud.

In August, in St. Louis, a court ordered a do-over in a Democratic primary for a Missouri state legislative seats after finding absentee voter fraud.

Last year in Bridgeport, Connecticut, a state legislator was convicted of voter fraud and given a suspended sentence.

Still, some commentators contend there is no voter fraud problem in the United States. For example, this week a New York Times editorial called voter fraud a “myth” and “fake”:

As study after study has shown, there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the country. The most comprehensive investigation to date found that out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud. Other violations—like absentee ballot fraud, multiple voting and registration fraud—are also exceedingly rare. So why do so many people continue to believe this falsehood?

Credit for this mass deception goes to Republican lawmakers, who have for years pushed a fake story about voter fraud, and thus the necessity of voter ID laws, in an effort to reduce voting among specific groups of Democratic-leaning voters.

However, it was in New York City where the city’s Department of Investigation (DOI) determined the city’s Board of Elections (BOE) was doing a poor job of preventing ineligible voters from voting. During the 2013 mayor’s race, 63 city investigators went to polling places impersonating someone who was either dead, moved outside the city, or was in jail. Of those, 61 were cleared to vote. The department’s report stated:

The 60 investigators, among other investigative activities, conducted quality assurance surveys of voters at poll sites throughout the five boroughs, logging complaints from 596 of 1,438 voters relating to subjects such as ballot readability, poll workers, and poll site locations. DOI’s operations also revealed that there are names of ineligible voters (e.g. felons and people no longer City residents), and deceased voters, on the BOE voter rolls, some for periods of up to four years.

Accordingly, DOI investigators posing as a number of those ineligible or deceased individuals, were permitted to obtain, mark, and submit ballots in the scanners or in the lever voting booths in 61 cases, with no challenge or question by BOE poll workers. Investigators were turned away in 2 other cases. No votes were cast for any actual candidate or on any proposal during the course of the DOI operation.

Interestingly, the result was not to demand more accountability from the city’s Board of Elections. Rather, the New York City Council voted to prosecute the investigators for impersonating voters, said John Fund, a National Review columnist, previously with The Wall Street Journal, during the panel.

Progressive critics reference the rarity of voter fraud prosecutions as evidence of a “myth.” Fund said it is actually because such cases can be politically disadvantageous to elected district attorneys.

“Most prosecutors run for election. Most prosecutors want to have higher election,” Fund said. “The last thing you want to do is take on voter fraud cases which are highly politicized and infuriate half the people in your community on partisan basis. Judges require incredible standards of proof and often the sentences of the few people who are convicted of voter fraud are community service.”

Maintaining clean voter rolls from ineligible voters is also important and required by law, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. And New York isn’t the only place with a problem. In Indiana, 16 counties had more registered voters than voting-age adults based on U.S. Census Bureau data, he said.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the “Motor Voter Law” allows people to register to vote when they get their driver’s license law. But it also requires local governments to maintain clean voter rolls, which the federal government can enforce. The Obama administration has never enforced this provision, von Spakovsky said at the forum.

“There has been a war being waged against election integrity for the past decade,” von Spakovsky said. “The leader in this has been the U.S. Justice Department. Instead of making sure every voter can vote and that no one’s vote is stolen through fraud, they have been on the other side of that, waging war against any efforts to prove election integrity.” (For more from the author of “Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harry Reid’s Senate Tirade Against Trump Looks Like Another Violation of Senate Ethics Rules

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went on a tirade on the Senate floor blasting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. He referred to him as a “spoiled brat,” “a con artist” and a “human leech who will bleed the country.”

His speech likely violated Senate ethics rules. Members of both the Senate and the House are prohibited from conducting political campaign activity in a federal building. The applicable ethics rule states, “The General Appropriations statute, 31 U.S.C § 1301, provides that official funds are to be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated. No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities.”

This wouldn’t be the first time Reid has attacked the Republican presidential nominee from the Senate floor right before the election. In 2012, he accused Mitt Romney in a speech of not paying taxes for most of the past 12 years, and directly addressed his campaign for president, “This week we learned Mitt Romney only wants to be president of half of the United States. If Mitt Romney were president, he wouldn’t waste time worrying about the 47 percent of Americans who he believes are victims, who Romney believes are unwilling to take personal responsibility.”

A senior Senate Republican aide told The Hill, “He’s campaigning on the Senate floor. It’s the taxpayer-funded Senate floor. The speech had nothing to do with the Senate. It was a pure campaign speech. You couldn’t give it in the rotunda. You couldn’t give it in my office. It’s a taxpayer-funded building.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on after Reid’s speech, continuing the criticism of Romney.

Selective enforcement

Unfortunately, no one seems willing to enforce this ethics rule when it comes to members of Congress. According to The Hill, the ethics rules have been narrowly “interpreted as a ban on receiving or soliciting campaign contributions in Senate buildings,” ignoring the overall prohibition against campaigning generally. Yet they aren’t even the same statute. While 31 U.S.C § 1301 generally prohibits political campaign activities, 18 U.S.C § 607 specifically prohibits soliciting campaign funds on federal property. There is also another narrow ethics rule that is enforced, a prohibition on using video of congressional proceedings in a campaign video. Consequently, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was found to have violated this rule, and he took down the offending video.

The laws appear to be selectively enforced — against underlings not so fortunate to be members of Congress. Federal employees and appointees of the executive branch have similar restrictions under the Hatch Act, which prohibits them from engaging in partisan political activity on federal property or while on duty. The Office of Special Counsel found in July that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act when he promoted Hillary Clinton for president during an interview with Katie Couric in April. He was considered to be on Clinton’s short list for a possible presidential running mate at the time, and he even said on air that his statement was made in his personal capacity, but it didn’t matter.

If allowed to continue, Reid’s speeches against Trump will no doubt influence the election. A powerful Senate majority leader using his bully pulpit to denounce the presidential candidate, which is broadcast on C-SPAN and repeated throughout the news, will carry significant weight with American voters — the precise thing the Hatch Act and congressional ethics rules were drafted to prohibit.

Time for an investigation

Senator Reid should not be above the law. Castro’s actions were far less egregious than Reid’s, yet he was found in violation of the Hatch Act while almost no one other than Megyn Kelly of Fox News has questioned the propriety of Reid’s speeches. It is long overdue for Congress to start policing itself, instead of protecting fellow members in some kind of good old boys’ club. This contributes to why Americans have such a low approval rating of Congress. There needs to be an investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into Reid’s speeches and he must be prohibited from making any more campaign speeches against Trump prior to the election. Otherwise, what’s to stop Republican members of Congress from giving speeches against Hillary Clinton? Clinton would be wise to condemn Reid’s actions. (For more from the author of “Harry Reid’s Senate Tirade Against Trump Looks Like Another Violation of Senate Ethics Rules” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Protests Turn Violent, the Truth Gets Torched

/0 Comments/in , /by

The riots are back again. Tuesday night, at least 16 police officers were injured in Charlotte, N.C., as people once again turned to violence and looting in the wake of a police shooting.

These riots, which appear to be the result of agitators perverting peaceful protests, are doing far more than injuring law enforcement officers and trashing the communities for which they ostensibly seek justice; they kill any hope of accomplishing anything but exacerbating an already balkanized society.

Over the course of the few hours following the police-involved shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott, locals swarmed the scene, animated by the prevailing narrative that officers shot an unarmed man who was simply reading a book in his car and waiting for his son — despite reports to the contrary.

Initially, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts said in a tweet that “the community deserves” answers:

But — just as in countless cases like Ferguson, Baltimore, and Milwaukee before — facts take too long to come out and the desire to channel ill-informed rage into destruction wins out over reason.

What started as lawful demonstrations, according to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, quickly devolved into chaos and destruction as the result of violent “agitators”:

More details here from CR’s Chris Pandolfo.

Wednesday morning, CMPD Chief Kerr Putney, reemphasized that Scott was indeed armed, corroborating earlier reports that a gun was recovered at the scene.

And the popular narrative that Scott was “reading a book” has also been called into question, as Putney also claimed that there was no book found at the scene.

Furthermore, police reportedly gave Scott multiple warnings to drop his handgun before the shooting:

But this was yet another situation where facts proved to be inconvenient to a popular narrative — and therefore ignored.

It’s very clear that these weren’t protests. It definitely appears that they started out that way, according to the CMPD, but they eventually escalated, once “agitators” came on the scene. But media still referred to them as protestors, despite their clear wanton destruction and threat to public safety.

At best, these were riots. At worst, they would fit the definition of terrorism committed in the name of cultural Marxism, considering multiple calls came out for the rioters to visit their destruction and havoc on white neighborhoods (because this is apparently how you fight racism, right?).

It’s appropriate that rioters and protestors used the “Hands up, don’t shoot” call Monday night, because it appears that the initial story that fomented the evening’s chaos were about as truthful as the narrative behind Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson over two years ago.

Yet, here we are again. Property was set ablaze, chaos reigned, and American streets were turned into a war zone over an at-best-incomplete narrative.

Once again, one side will use the political hagiography of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Freddie Gray, regardless of the facts of these respective narratives, while those on the other side of the discussion will address those preceptions and feelings with numbers on black-on-black crime and police shootings that show that these actual incidents are numerically insignificant … while the other side will once again call for an end to [the myth of] systematic racism, despite the fact that no other demographic in America has been given such firm control over representation at the local level as black Americans thanks to the Democrat Party’s death grip on America’s inner-cities (or granted the same level of supposedly remedial super-rights in the legal system … cases in point: affirmative action and the recent slew of supposedly “racist” voter ID laws being struck down).

Make no mistake, Americans naturally have a right to protest. More importantly, they have a moral duty to speak up when their conscience perceives injustice and compels them. But the moment that impulse becomes violent, the moment innocent people are forced to fear for their safety and property, it’s no longer a protest.

Yes, rioters destroy private property, and they erode law and order. But more than that, they destroy any chance of actually addressing the point that the actual peaceful protesters are trying to make — and the justice they are trying to seek. Rather than contribute to the kind of mutual dialogue that would address the incredulity of both sides of the debate, these rioters in Charlotte have once again stunted and severely hindered any real hope of community progress.

When demonstrations devolve into desolation, truth goes out the window, and the mob gets to scream nonsensically into an uncaring abyss. Any legitimate truth-seekers in the streets of Charlotte Tuesday night have to suffer from the havoc and vitriol of those who only care about sowing discord, rather than seeking answers.

Chief Kerr Putney says that the “voiceless majority” in the community can rise above the kind of madness his city saw last night; we can only hope that they actually will. (For more from the author of “When Protests Turn Violent, the Truth Gets Torched” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway

/0 Comments/in , /by

In his final address to the United Nations as president of the United States, President Obama said “we have to open our hearts” in welcoming refugees all around the world, and that “we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard.” Further, Obama said that “we have to have the empathy to see ourselves” in the plight of refugees, and that in welcoming refugees, “our world will be more secure.”

Oh, really?

Obama’s address at the U.N. comes on the heels of a slew of terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey this past weekend. Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist responsible for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, was originally from Afghanistan. Dahir Adan, who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall on Saturday, was a Somali immigrant and a suspected ISIS recruit. Both terrorists came to the United States as children.

Despite questions about the vetting process for refugees, the Obama administration is seeking to increase the America’s cap of refugees next year to 110,000, from 85,000 this year. As Conservative Review recently reported, the administration has already surpassed its target number for Syrian refugees this year by about 3,000, for a total of 13,000 refugees from Syria. More than 98 percent of these Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslim, while just 0.4 percent of them are Christian.

A new Rasmussen poll conducted after the weekend terrorist attacks shows that almost half of likely American voters do not want to let in any more refugees to the United States and 62 percent “believe that increasing the number of Middle Eastern and African refugees next year poses an increased national security risk to the United States.” Further,

Voters were similarly opposed and concerned about the national security threat of bringing Syrian refugees here this year, but Obama did it anyway, citing humanitarian concerns and the pressures these immigrants were putting on our European allies. The administration even sped the vetting process for these refugees in order to hit the president’s goal of bringing at least 10,000 here in 2016.

If President Obama is so intent on welcoming poorly-vetted refugees from ISIS-controlled regions into the United States, perhaps he should consider welcoming a few into his new home next year when he leaves office. (For more from the author of “Americans Support Restrictions on Refugees but Obama Says Screw It Anyway” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

N.Y. Times Shafts Top Christian Author

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jonathan Cahn, the two-time New York Times best-selling author, knows what it’s like fighting the odds as a Christian to make the vaunted list – despite having the sales to warrant it.

He made it twice with his first two books, 2012’s “The Harbinger,” which remained on the New York Times’ fiction bestsellers list for more than 100 weeks, and 2014’s “The Mystery of the Shemitah,” which made the list for more than 12 weeks. But the messianic rabbi’s readers won’t be seeing his latest release on the Sept. 26 list.

It’s not for lack of sales for “The Book of Mysteries,” which came out Sept. 8.

Apparently, the book is too mysterious to classify for the guardians of the New York Times list.

Or maybe they’ve just had enough of Cahn’s domination of their charts every other year. (Read more from “N.Y. Times Shafts Top Christian Author” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Inspired Attacks Show Strength of Islamic State, Experts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

After the terrorist attacks this weekend, President Barack Obama acknowledged a link between the central Islamic State and lone bad actors, even as the administration has frequently drawn a distinction in the past.

National security experts believe terror attacks “inspired” by the radical groups are just as dangerous—potentially more so—than if ISIS draws up the plan of attack.

The independent bad actors are clearly “executing the will of the organization,” said Bill Roggio, the editor of The Long War Journal.

“ISIS says, if you can’t come down here and fight with us, fight at home, it might even be better,” Roggio, also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “ISIS and al-Qaeda are a greater movement where in many cases these people pledge their allegiance to the groups.”

Roggio noted the attacks in New York and New Jersey are certainly similar to past terror attacks.

“The attack patterns follow the past patterns; a bomb in a populated area, similar to Boston. The execution was sloppy. but the planning and coordination were good,” Roggio said.

Over the weekend, a pipe bomb exploded at the location where a charity race for Marines and sailors was set to take place later in New Jersey. No one was harmed because the area was empty at the time of the explosion. Also, a pressure cooker filled with shrapnel—similar to what was used in the 2013 Boston Marathon attack—exploded in the Chelsea area of Manhattan, where 29 people were injured.

Additionally, in St. Cloud, Minnesota, a man stabbed eight people at a shopping center, talking about Allah and Islam. All of the victims survived. The attacker was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer before he could harm anyone else. The Islamic State claimed credit for the attack.

But there is no evidence that any of the attacks were linked to a foreign terror organization or cell.

Obama addressed the weekend’s terror attacks on Monday in New York ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting, asserting the Islamic State is losing. Obama said:

We will continue to lead the global coalition in the fight to destroy ISIL, which is instigating a lot of people over the internet to carry out attacks. We are going to continue to go after them. We’re going to take out their leaders. We’re going to take out their infrastructure. They are continuing to lose ground in Iraq and in Syria … As we take away more of their territory, it exposes ISIL as the failed cause that it is, and it helps to undermine their ideology, which over time will make it harder for them to recruit and inspire people to violence.

In July, CNN host Jake Tapper challenged Secretary of State John Kerry’s insistence that the Islamic State is “on the run,” pointing out several terrorist attacks that were inspired by the Sunni militant group.

Kerry responded, “It depends on where you mean ISIS,” drawing a distinction between an inspired attack and one plotted and carried out by the central organization.

“If people are inspired, they’re inspired, but ISIL which is based in Syria is under huge pressure and that is just a fact … If you’re saying that one person standing up one day and killing people is a reflection of ISIS moving in Iraq and Syria, I think you’re dead wrong.”

In two high-profile cases this summer, an ISIS-inspired attacker killed 49 in Orlando and another ISIS-inspired attacker murdered 84 in Nice, France, during a Bastille Day celebration.

Inspired attacks are actually worse, argued James Carafano, vice president for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

“It is way worse when an organization doesn’t have to invest its assets and infrastructure, and can simply outsource terror for free,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The notion that ISIS didn’t draw up the attack plans so we are somehow better off is utterly stupid. For ISIS this is free lunch.”

The Islamic State is still able to energize people to join its fight, which demonstrates that the United States and the West haven’t sufficiently weakened the group to the point that it is perceived as weak, Carafano said.

“The inspired attacks show that ISIS is able to take the fight to the enemy and hurt the enemy when people are acting on its behalf,” Carafano said.

In some respects, if anyone is winning, it would be the Islamic State by virtue of still being in existence after two years of fighting with the United States and other powerful Western countries, said Jim Hanson, executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank.

“Whether it is al-Qaeda or ISIS, this is a civil jihad movement that doesn’t have to have a hierarchy like a Fortune 500 corporation, it’s the ideology that links them,” Hanson said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

“The ideology links them enough to say online, ‘If you believe as we do in Sharia law and that Islam should dominate, you are one of us,’” Hanson, a former Army Special Forces sergeant, added. (For more from the author of “Inspired Attacks Show Strength of Islamic State, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Retired Navy Chaplain Says Military Is Now Hostile to Christianity

/0 Comments/in , /by

Newly retired Navy chaplain Wes Modder said in a recent interview that the military has become openly hostile to Christianity.

In an interview with OneNewsNow, Modder, who the Navy tried to fire in 2015 for failing to act properly “in [a] diverse and pluralistic environment,” said that Christians need to understand if they remain in uniform, they will be attacked by military officials hostile to their beliefs.

The problem is even worse for Christians just now joining the military.

“If you’re a Christian and you come into the military today, it’s going to be difficult for you,” Modder added.

Modder was serving at the Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston, South Carolina, with regard from his superiors, but that all changed in 2014. A gay lieutenant junior grade officer poked and prodded Modder during private counseling sessions to answer questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage the officer knew would land him in hot water.

At the time, Modder had no idea the officer was gay.

“I came to find out later that he was a gay activist, and I was targeted,” Modder told OneNewsNow. “And, of course, the chaplain I was working with at this Navy Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston — she was a very liberal United Methodist command chaplain. She decided to escalate it, brought charges that I was intolerant [and] not able to function in a diverse pluralistic environment.”

The officer then carefully noted the answers provided and used them to build a case against Modder, who previously had earned high praise from his commander officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs, namely that as a chaplain he was “the best of the best.”

Five months later, Fahs turned on Modder and said he discriminated against his students, creating an open controversy about religious freedom in the military.

With a complaint in hand from Equal Opportunity representatives, the Navy removed Modder from his duties.

The Navy attempted to fire the chaplain, but the investigation found that the case was remarkably weak, leading to the removal of the “Detachment for Cause” action against him. First Liberty, a legal defense group focused on religious liberty, provided representation for Modder, allowing him to retire after 20 years of service on September 6 with an honorable discharge and medal of accommodation. (For more from the author of “Retired Navy Chaplain Says Military Is Now Hostile to Christianity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

John Boehner Rises From the Ashtray of Political Defeat to Become a Tobacco Lobbyist

/0 Comments/in , /by

John Boehner has cashed out.

That is the news from The Intercept, which describes how the former Speaker of the House is “monetizing his decades of political relationships and cashing out to serve some of the most powerful special interests in the world.”

In other words, in less than one year since leaving Congress, Boehner has become a lobbyist. Lee Fang and The Intercept report:

Boehner is joining Squire Patton Boggs, a lobbying firm that peddles its considerable influence on behalf of a number of foreign nations, including most notably the People’s Republic of China. Serving Beijing is somewhat appropriate: Boehner has long been a supporter of unfettered trade, helping to lead the effort to grant Most Favored Nation status to China. Squire Patton Boggs also represents a long list of corporate clients, including AT&T, Amazon.com, Goldman Sachs & Co., Royal Dutch Shell, and the Managed Funds Association, a trade group for the largest hedge funds in the country.

Boehner is signing onto Squire Patton Boggs “as a strategic advisor to clients in the U.S. and abroad, and will focus on global business development.”

The news comes just a week after the announcement that Boehner will be joining the board of Reynolds American, the tobacco company responsible for brands such as Camel and Newport cigarettes. The tobacco board seat will likely earn Boehner over $400,000 a year in stock and cash. The Squire Patton Boggs salary has not been disclosed, but lawmakers of Boehner’s stature have easily obtained salaries at similar gigs in the seven-figure range.

This was entirely predictable. K Street is a revolving door for former politicians who seek to make a quick buck using the relationships they have built in the legislature to dance bills to the tune of lobbying firms.

Boehner has always served special interests. Now he’s just doing it from outside Congress, instead of inside. (For more from the author of “John Boehner Rises From the Ashtray of Political Defeat to Become a Tobacco Lobbyist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Backroom Spending Deal Will Only Get Worse

/0 Comments/in , /by

If Congressional Republicans lose the election, it won’t be because they were too conservative. In fact, quite the contrary. Since Republicans took control of the Senate in 2015, there have been embarrassingly few conservative victories.

Instead, this Republican Congress is better known for making deals with President Obama than for standing with conservatives. After all, in the first year Republicans controlled Congress since 2006, they helped add $1.2 trillion in new deficit spending. That’s not so conservative.

Yet, the 114th Congress is quickly coming to a close. But before Republicans can return to the campaign trail, they must pass a short-term spending bill, known as a Continuing Resolution (CR), before government funding runs dry on October 1. However, negotiations between Senate Republican leadership and Democrats are like perpetual moments of deja vu.

As in the past, Republicans seem resigned to surrender to Democrats in backroom deals; and Democrats appear to be comfortable with their ability to outwit Republicans.

We already know that Republicans have surrendered to Obama’s demands for a 10-week CR, which will require Congress to legislate during the lame-duck session. And the dangers of a lame duck, the time between the election and a new Congress, should be obvious by now.

A primary sticking point has been funding to fight the Zika virus. Earlier this summer, disagreements over how the funding could be utilized led to an impasse. In particular, Democrats wanted emergency Zika funding to be used for Planned Parenthood.

This impasse has now been ironed out, or at least the Democrats did the ironing. It didn’t take much for Republicans to surrender to Democrat demands to use part of the Zika funds for Planned Parenthood.

You may think that the Republican surrender on Planned Parenthood illustrates just how feckless Republicans truly are, but it gets worse.

If you didn’t already know, the Zika virus is spread by mosquitos. Republicans, sensibly, wanted funding to also include a temporary moratorium on the permits generally required for mosquito pesticides. The moratorium would have allowed farmers and others to spray specific pesticides near bodies of water. Instead, Democrats made clear they prioritize the environment over people’s health; Republicans caved to those demands too.

Really, you can’t make this up. The United States Congress wants to fight bugs, but won’t make it easy to get the permits that would allow homeowners, farmers, towns and cities to actually do it.

Then there’s the discussion involving more “emergency funding.” Republicans want additional money to fund Louisiana’s flood disaster, while Democrats are requesting additional federal funds for the Flint City water crisis.

This issue shouldn’t even be debated in a short term funding bill. The Disaster Relief Fund currently has $12 billion available, today, to address immediate needs and disaster mitigation. Instead of using money normally dedicated to long-term disaster needs, like housing and reconstruction, Congress should use the billions of dollars they already have set aside.

As conservatives, these constant charades over spending are what we have all come to expect. So, too, are the backroom deals negotiated by Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) and Democrats. Far too often, these terrible deals are pieced together without the input of other Republican senators, and voted on merely hours later.

Republicans are negotiating these terrible deals just weeks before they have to stand for reelection and ask voters to send them back to Washington. If they’re already willing to sell out this close to the election, just imagine what they’ll feel free to do in the lame duck — once they’ve already been reelected.

Buckle your seat belts, guys. Congressional Republicans are about to take us all for a very bumpy ride. (For more from the author of “Senate Backroom Spending Deal Will Only Get Worse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.