This is not an article about Hillary Clinton’s health, so get that right out of your head. This article is about how the candidate, or more specifically her handlers, have reacted to questions about her health, and how that reaction bodes for a potential Clinton presidency.
The relationship between the press and the White House is an important one. In a representative democracy, the people have a right to know what their government is up to; it’s the only way they can make informed decisions about how to vote in subsequent elections. It is therefore in the interest of both the public and the country as a whole that reporters be granted a certain latitude in covering the presidency, even (especially) if that coverage is not always favorable to the commander in chief.
Yet, press freedom in this area has not been ideal in recent years. President Obama has a notoriously frosty relationship with any news organization willing to criticize him, to the point of actually trying to exclude whole networks (Fox) from press conferences and other official events. While he is happy to grant plenty of time to fawning talk show hosts and comedy shows, Obama’s unwillingness to be scrutinized by more serious media has made his promise to run “the most transparent administration in history” a pathetic joke.
One would hope that the next administration would be a little less hostile towards journalists, but if Clinton manages to defeat Donald Trump in November, don’t count on it. She has already earned the ire of many press outlets by refusing to grant access. In fact, she is so walled off from reporters, that members of the press literally rolled an orange with a question written on it down the aisle of her plane — just to get a question to her! Likewise, she has been suspiciously reclusive, when most candidates would want to spend as much time as possible getting face time with the public. It is this reclusiveness, in part, that has contributed to persistent rumors about Clinton’s health; rumors to which she has not reacted well.
As The Hill reports, several members of Clinton campaign team are pushing back aggressively against reporters who dare to question her physical fitness for the job, particularly a story by an NBC reporter, Andrew Rafferty, who wrote about the candidate’s recent coughing fit.
As Jay Caruso points out, questions about the health of presidential candidates, who are frequently in their late sixties or earlier seventies, are not unique to Clinton. Bob Dole and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) received a similar treatment during their campaigns, so journalists holding Clinton to the same standard can hardly be described as sexist or in any way out of bounds.
I don’t want to seem like I’m giving Trump a pass here; anyone who has expressed a desire to strengthen libel laws clearly has no great respect for freedom of expression. But Hillary’s lack of press accessibility and hostility towards reporters who question her is especially concerning. The last thing this country needs is another president who refuses to brook criticism from the press. While the media has been unhesitating critical of Trump, most news outlets are basically in the tank for Hillary, with some even admitting as much. The fact that she is unable to tolerate a few dissenting voices from coverage that is otherwise nearly uniformly positive points to a presidency defined by secrecy, deception, and even strongman tactics to silence dissent.
Then again, Hillary doesn’t know what the word “classified” means, so maybe she will end up being transparent after all. Just not for the right reasons. (For more from the author of “Reporters Beware: A Hillary Presidency May Require a LOT of Rolling Oranges” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/white-house-754766_960_720-5.jpg592960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-11 21:57:552016-09-11 21:57:55Reporters Beware: A Hillary Presidency May Require a LOT of Rolling Oranges
For all the attention on battleground polls giving Hillary Clinton the edge, Donald Trump enjoys at least one electoral advantage in his uphill climb to the White House: Republicans are outpacing Democrats in registering new voters in key states.
A review of registration figures shows that in the swing states that sign up voters by party, Republicans are seeing a significantly bigger boost since 2012. In states like Florida and Pennsylvania, the party has added tens of thousands of voters to the rolls at a time when Democrats have seen their base shrink.
“The numbers [in those states] … are a huge shift from what we’ve seen in 2012,” Republican National Committee spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said.
The surge doesn’t change the fact that Clinton leads, if only by a thin margin, in most battleground state polls, which presumably reflect the current voter make-up.
Fox News ratings show Clinton maintains the advantage in the Electoral College, while a Washington Post survey this week of registered voters in all 50 states reflects a similar dynamic. And in big swing states ranging from Florida to North Carolina to Pennsylvania, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans. (Read more from “Trump Card? Republican Voter Registration a Bright Spot for Campaign” HERE)
George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is seeking to expand the use of electronic and online voting systems nationwide, according to a leaked Foundations document reviewed by Breitbart News.
While the directive was issued two years ago, the issue of electronic voting has become a hot button topic in this year’s presidential election amid fears digital voting systems can be compromised.
The online voting plan was contained in a 67-page hacked file detailing the September 29-30, 2014 Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting in New York.
A significant portion of the board meeting was dedicated to methods the Foundation’s U.S. Programs (USP) could use to further the use of President Obama’s executive action authority to bypass Congress during Obama’s final two years in office.
The Open Society, together with partner grantees, assembled a general list of potential presidential executive actions on numerous issues. Significantly, the Soros-backed group zeroed in on the expansion of online voting. (Read more from “George Soros Trying to Convince More States to Adopt Vote-Fraud-Plagued Electronic Platforms” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/13307602303_5bc17185ce_b-1.jpg6821024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-10 01:06:032016-09-10 01:06:03George Soros Trying to Convince More States to Adopt Vote-Fraud-Plagued Electronic Platforms
This is a portion of remarks Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, delivered on the Senate floor on Thursday.
The Obama administration’s proposal to give away control of the internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and it’s one that many Americans don’t know about. It is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 30, 2016. Twenty-two days away. Just over three weeks.
Now what does it mean to give away control of the internet?
From the very first days of the internet, when it was developed here in America, the United States government has maintained its core functions to ensure equal access for everyone with no censorship. The government role isn’t to monitor what we say, it isn’t to censor what we say, it is simply to ensure that it works — that when you type in a website, it actually goes to that website and not somewhere else. And yet, that can change.
The Obama administration is instead pushing through a radical proposal to take control of internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], that includes 162 foreign countries. And if that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the internet, your speech. Countries like China, Russia, and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests.
Imagine searching the internet and instead of seeing your standard search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were searching for is censored. It is not consistent with the standards of this new international body, it does not meet their approval.
Now, if you’re in China, that situation could well come with the threat of arrest for daring to merely search for such a thing that didn’t meet the approval of the censors. Thankfully, that doesn’t happen in America, but giving control of the internet to an international body with Russia, and China, and Iran having power over it could lead to precisely that threat, and it’s going to take Congress acting affirmatively to stop it.
You look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it should give us greater and greater concern.
For example, ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehadé left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for China’s World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s decision to use his insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese government and their conference is more than a little concerning.
This is the person who was leading ICANN, the body that we are being told to trust with our freedoms. Yet this man has since gone to work for the Chinese Internet Conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of the press such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
But you know what, even reporters you may fundamentally disagree with have a right to report and say what they believe. And yet, the World Internet Conference banned them — said “we do not want these reporters here, presumably, because we don’t like what they’re saying.” — which led Reporters Without Borders to demand an international boycott of the conference, calling China the “enemy of the internet.”
Mr. President, if China is the enemy of the internet, do we want the enemy of the internet having power over what you’re allowed to say, what you’re allowed to search for, what you’re allowed to read online? Do we want China, and Russia, and Iran having the power to determine if a website is unacceptable, it’s taken down?
I would note that once this transition happens, there are serious indications that ICANN intends to seek to flee U.S. jurisdiction and flee U.S. laws. Indeed, earlier this summer, ICANN held a global conference in Finland in which jurisdiction shopping was part of their agenda, trying to figure out what jurisdiction should we base control of the internet out of across the globe.
A representative of Iran is already on record stating, “we should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.” Our enemies are not hiding what they intend to do.
Not only is there a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdictions stripping U.S. law from authority over the internet, there are also real national security concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama administration that the U.S. government will continue to have exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains in perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines all use the .mil top-level domain. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use .gov.
The only assurance ICANN has provided the federal government regarding .gov and .mil is that ICANN will notify the government in the future if it decides to give .gov and .mil to another entity. So if someone is going to the IRS, or what you think is the IRS, and you’re comforted that it’s on a .gov website so that you know it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victims of a foreign scam, a phishing scam, some other means of fraud with no basic protections.
Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit by and let censorship happen.
Now, some defenders of the Obama proposal say “this is not about censorship. It’s about handing control to a multi-stakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on the internet.”
Well recently, leading technology companies in the United States — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft — reached an agreement with the European Union, to remove “hate speech” from their online platforms within 24 hours. Giant U.S. corporations signing on with the government to say, “we are going to help you censor speech that is deemed unacceptable.”
And by the way, the definition of “hate speech” we have seen can be very, very malleable depending upon what norms are trying to be enforced. For example, the Human Rights Campaign, which is active within ICANN, has featured the Family Research Institute, the National Organization for Marriage, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other conservative and religious groups in a report entitled “The Export of Hate.”
We are facing the real possibility of an international body having the ability to censor political speech if it is contrary to the norms they intend to enforce. In their view, it is hate to express a view different from whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is being enforced.
Now it is one thing dealing with government organizations that try to stifle speech that is profoundly inconsistent with who we are as Americans. But to hand over control of the internet, to potentially muzzle everybody on the internet, is to ensure that what you say is only consistent with whatever is approved by the powers that be, and that ought to frighten everybody. And there is something we can do about it.
Along with Congressman Sean Duffy [R-Wis.] in the House, I have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which if enacted will stop the internet transition, and it will also ensure that the United States government keeps exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains. Our legislation is supported by 17 key groups across the country, advocacy groups, consumer groups, and it also has the formal endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus.
This should be an issue that brings us all together — Republicans, Democrats, all of us coming together. There are partisan issues that divide us, there always will be. We can have Republicans and Democrats argue till the cows come home about the top marginal tax rate, and that is a good and healthy debate to have. But when it comes to the internet, when it comes to basic principles of freedom, letting people speak online without being censored, that ought to bring every one of us together.
As members of the legislative branch, Congress should stand united to rein in this president, to protect the constitutional authority expressly given to Congress to control disposition of property of the United States. To put the matter very simply: The Obama administration does not have the authorization of Congress, and yet, they are endeavoring to give away this valuable, critical property, to give it away with no authorization in law. I would note the government employees doing so are doing so in violation of federal law, and they risk personal liability in going forward contrary to law. That ought to trouble all of us.
And if the Obama administration jams this through, hands control of the internet over to this international organization, this United Nations-like, unaccountable group, and they take it overseas — it’s not like the next president can magically snap his or her fingers and bring it back. Unscrambling those eggs may well not be possible. I suspect that’s why the Obama administration is trying to jam it through on Sept. 30, to get it done in a way that the next president can’t undo it, that the internet is lost for generations to come. To stop the giveaway of our internet freedom, Congress should act by continuing and by strengthening the appropriations rider in the continuing resolution that we will be considering this month, by preventing the Obama administration from giving away control of the internet.
Next week, I will be chairing a hearing on the harms to our freedom that come from the Obama administration’s proposal to give away the internet.
As President Ronald Reagan stated, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”
I don’t want you and I to have to tell our children and our children’s children what it was once like when the internet wasn’t censored, wasn’t in the control of the foreign governments.
And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together, to stand together and ensure that we protect freedom of the internet for generations to come. It is not too late to act, and I am encouraged by the leadership of members of both houses of Congress to stand up and protect freedom of the internet going forward. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Radical Internet Proposal Could Result in Censorship Online” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/16018574316_c450277836_b-1.jpg5761024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-10 00:42:572016-09-10 00:42:57Obama’s Radical Internet Proposal Could Result in Censorship Online
Fifteen years ago, in the wake of the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, I wrote about the tidal wave of patriotism that swept across America.
There was an overnight surge in military enlistments by teens and young adults often dismissed as spoiled and self-absorbed. Thousands of Americans lined up to give blood.
Tens of millions of dollars in donations flowed to the American Red Cross and to the Salvation Army and other faith-based organizations.
Attendance at churches, synagogues, and mosques doubled and tripled. There was a runaway sale of American flags—one Chicago store sold 25,000 flags in one day, more than it had in all of the past year.
There were less dramatic examples of patriotism. There was the quiet eloquence of a man explaining why he risked his life to help someone buried beneath the rubble at ground zero in lower Manhattan. A fire chief choked back tears as he spoke of a priest friend who suddenly disappeared in a cloud of dust as he looked for people to comfort.
Since then, we have been through a series of radical challenges, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a Great Recession, the great expectations raised by our first ever African-American president, the emergence of new political forces like the tea party and Bernie Sanders-style socialism, an ever present and ever expanding social media, and an unprecedented presidential election that pits the first woman nominee versus the first billionaire nominee.
Any other nation would have collapsed under such a succession of crises, but America still stands strong and resolute because it rests on what the Founding Fathers institutionalized and Alexis de Tocqueville observed—a unique mix of political and economic liberty and faith in “we the people.”
As President Ronald Reagan said about the American Revolution in his farewell address: “Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ‘We the people.’”
“We the people,” Reagan said, “tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us.”
If the people respond as they have in the past, we will have not the divided “red” and “blue” America of the mass media and political junkies, but a united red, white, and blue America resting on faith and freedom. (For more from the author of “On 9/11 Anniversary, Remembering a Red, White, and Blue Nation Is Possible” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/american-flag-1208660_960_720-3.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-10 00:20:262016-09-10 00:20:26On 9/11 Anniversary, Remembering a Red, White, and Blue Nation Is Possible
Hillary Clinton is taking heat for saying that, in Libya, she “put together a coalition that included NATO, included the Arab League, and we were able to save lives. We did not lose a single American in that action.” She made this claim during Wednesday’s presidential forum on NBC.
Some would beg to differ, citing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Politifact investigated Hillary Clinton’s claim, and while deeming it “narrowly accurate,” acknowledges that it is also “so narrowly framed as to be misleading.”
Clinton is correct when she says that no Americans died in the coalition effort to oust Moammar Gadhafi over seven months in 2011, but the direct result of that coalition was a power vacuum in Libya that Islamic extremists have taken advantage of. Ted Bromund, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation, told Politifact, “In the forum, Clinton used ‘a very narrow definition, one custom-built to define away any of the larger problems with the Libyan intervention.’”
Exactly. Four Americans died in Libya — including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens — as a result of the power vacuum created under NATO while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. It’s misleading for Hillary Clinton to ignore these deaths when claiming no American lives were lost in Libya. (For more from the author of “Hillary Declares ‘We Did Not Lose a Single American’ in Libya” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/459271639_07cb09817a_b-3.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-10 00:03:592016-09-10 00:03:59Hillary Declares ‘We Did Not Lose a Single American’ in Libya
When chief of staff Andrew Card knelt down and told George Bush “America is under attack” 15 years ago Sunday, the words he whispered in the president’s ear in a Florida classroom launched what was supposed to be a planned, orderly response to a national emergency.
But what followed instead was chaos, a breakdown in communication and protocol that risked international conflict and could have made Sept. 11, 2001, a still bigger tragedy. There were live nukes on the tarmac at U.S. airbases, a failed communications system, and a security protocol for the president and his potential successors — the “continuity of government” plan — that only one top official followed.
Based on a review of newly unclassified documents, memoirs and other published accounts, and interviews with U.S. officials, NBC News has learned that:
*Three dozen live nuclear weapons were aboard U.S. Air Force bombers at three airbases when al Qaeda struck New York and Washington.
*Because of inadequate communications equipment and procedures, top U.S. officials couldn’t talk to each other or to anyone else. Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to speak to Bush to know why the U.S. was preparing to go to DEFCON 3 — but the White House couldn’t put him through to Air Force One. Bush had no way to receive phone calls. (Read more about 9-11 Chaos HERE)
Millard Fillmore was born in a log cabin in upstate New York. Fifty years later, he took office as the thirteenth president of the United States. Around that time he sold off a piece of land. That land became the neighborhood of Lovejoy in the city of Buffalo.
Lovejoy was named after Sarah Lovejoy who had been killed defending her home during the War of 1812. British forces had assaulted American towns once again by using their Indian allies as a terror weapon. Buffalo, now a major city, was burned to the ground with only four buildings left standing.
Mrs. Lovejoy told her son Henry, a 12-year-old boy who shouldered a musket too heavy for him to bear, to flee into the woods. She stayed behind. When the savages invaded her home, she tried to defend herself.
The invaders killed her with a tomahawk and scalped her body. A neighbor described how her “long Black hair reached to the Floor clotted with Blood.” Other families fled on sleds into the snow.
When the locals returned a few days later, the only living thing in Buffalo was a cat. There were no other survivors. Only corpses.
But within a week they began to rebuild. By the time Fillmore sold his land, it was a city of 40,000. By the time Lovejoy was a neighborhood, it had surpassed 100,000. German, Polish, Jewish and Italian immigrants quickly filled Lovejoy and clung to it with the same tenacity that Sarah had.
And then another savage invasion began.
In the past decade, Erie County “resettled” nearly 10,000 refugees. Most of them have been inflicted on Buffalo and Black Rock, the same targets as that original invasion two centuries ago that claimed Sarah’s life.
Buffalo has four resettlement agencies working to bring as many Muslims as they can. Among them is the International Institute of Buffalo which was set up after WWI to bring “war brides” to America, but which now specializes in bringing Muslims here instead. Tickets to the Institute’s big event, Buffalo Without Borders, run as high as $10,000 a piece, and it is billed as “A Party Only the IIB Can Throw.”
One of these parties featured chocolates “inspired” by Iraqi Muslim migrants.
In Lovejoy though the price ranges are a little different. Like Sarah Lovejoy, the residents of this area, once Polish and Italian, are under siege.
A few months after September 11, Frank Scalisi passed away at the age of 92. For 50 years, Frank and his wife Edith had run Rosati’s Supermarket. Frank had presided over the Buffalo Retail Food Dealers and served as deputy sheriff for the Marine Division of Eric County. He coached a softball team in the sixties that became known as “The Goosport Phenomenon”.
And then Rosati’s was no more and in its place was the IGA Community Express Mart run by the Alshami clan. The Alshamis were part of the flood of Yemeni Muslim migrants who had washed up in Buffalo.
And the Muslim Yemeni population has a way of making headlines.
Six Yemenis made up the infamous Buffalo Cell, who had attended the Al Farooq training camp in Afghanistan, met with Osama bin Laden and were convicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda. The seventh member of the cell, Jaber Elbaneh, is a fugitive still wanted by the FBI, which describes him as armed and dangerous.
There is a $5 million reward on his head.
The Alshamis were not quite so ambitious. There were no suicide bombings. Rosati’s Supermarket went from a neighborhood institution to a rat’s nest. There were illegal cigarettes for sale, building code violations, glass pipes and blunts, sales of secondhand merchandise without a license, cars present without license plates and piles of trash. There were multiple complaints about drug dealing and accusations that the Yemeni shop attracted drug dealers and possibly even sold drugs.
On the corner of Ludington and Davey, where the small modest houses fly American flags, this outpost of Yemen had become a malignant sore for the community.
Councilman Rich Fontana said, “Frank Scalisi would be turning in his grave if he knew what was going on there now.”
There’s little doubt of that.
Ahmed Alshami, the grim patriarch of the clan, was arrested with crack cocaine in his car. He was accused of making drug deliveries and berated neighborhood activists by posting a picture of himself raising the middle finger and boasting, “Long stay the Arab stores.”
Then he smashed someone over the head with a bottle.
Finally he was charged with massive food stamp fraud for buying food stamp cards from customers for pennies on the dollar and then going to Walmart to stock his shelves. Not to mention a spot of burglary.
Ahmed Alshami skipped out on Buffalo City Court, announcing that he was too busy. So his bail was set at $2 million. His wife shouted, “We’ve got the million dollars!” and “F___ America.”
The family, whose patriarch had ten previous arrests, and whose presence in Buffalo has been a source of trouble, have done that already. There is talk of deporting Alshami to Yemen if he’s convicted, but considering that Yemen is currently little more than a battlefield between Shiite and Sunni Jihadists, that seems highly unlikely. Without major reforms to our immigration and criminal justice system, they are here to stay.
The Alshami antics of shouting “F___ America” made their case go viral, but they’re not the exception.
Just last year, Samir Hassan of City Market & Deli in Buffalo pleaded guilty to buying food stamps, Bandar Alsaidi and Talal Alsaidi were busted for buying food stamps at Big Boys Food Market also in Buffalo to the tune of $300,000, just as their parents before them had back in 2003 when it was known as Al’s Food Market.
This year, Alie Hassan of Buffalo’s Broadway Mart and Deli was given two years probation for buying food stamps. A few years ago, Riyadh Almadrahi of Zip’s Food and Beverage made over $140,000 by buying food stamps. The year after it was Nasser Ali Ghanem and Yousef Yafai of the Hollywood Nights Prime Shop. The crimes echo each other and they are ubiquitous.
When politicians promise us that Muslim migration will create small businesses and produce jobs, they forget to mention who will be paying for them. There are some 5,000 Yemeni Muslim settlers in Buffalo. Population numbers have increased as much as 242%. While the traditional population in the area declines, with Christian and Jewish populations falling, the Islamic population continues to grow, fed by refugee resettlement.
Cheerful news stories celebrate how “refugees” are “bringing Buffalo back.” The question raised by the Alshamis and so many of their compatriots is what is Muslim migration doing to Buffalo?
Large numbers of Muslims have been dumped in the area from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Buffalo’s heritage and its working class roots are being traded for the Koran and the hijab.
Buffalo is listed by the State Department as a “preferred community” for resettling migrants. Sizable numbers of Syrian Muslim migrants are headed there now. It’s even been studied by European advocates for migrants. But the cost to ordinary American neighborhoods like Lovejoy has been overlooked. Media accounts trumpet the Iraqi markets opening up, they don’t look at what those markets are up to. There are celebrations of ethnic food accompanied by the decline of local American communities.
Buffalo has faced catastrophe before and recovered. But the question is how long will it take to salvage it from this latest invasion. America is being targeted, invaded and carved up town by town and city by city. Much as two centuries ago, Buffalo is being invaded. But the invaders are not a weapon being used by a foreign government against Americans. Instead this weapon is being wielded by our own government. (For more from the author of “The Invasion of Buffalo” please click HERE)
The federal government stepped into the fight over the Dakota Access oil pipeline Friday, ordering work to stop on one segment of the project in North Dakota and asking the Texas-based company building it to “voluntarily pause” action on a wider span that an American Indian tribe says holds sacred artifacts.
The government’s order came minutes after a judge rejected a request by the Standing Rock Sioux to halt construction of the $3.8 billion, four-state pipeline.
The tribe, whose cause has drawn thousands to join their protest, has challenged the Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to grant permits for the pipeline at more than 200 water crossings. Tribal leaders allege that the project violates several federal laws and will harm water supplies. The tribe also says ancient sites have been disturbed during construction. (Read more from “Federal Government Halts Work on Part of Pipeline Project” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/13feb17_nokxl_dc.jpg19283233Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-09 20:09:342016-09-10 01:13:40Federal Government Halts Work on Part of Pipeline Project
Anchorage, AK – The Miller campaign today announced that all three of Lisa Murkowski’s primary campaign challengers have confirmed they’re voting for Libertarian Nominee Joe Miller in the November election.
“I’m humbled and honored by the support from Republicans across the state of Alaska,” Miller said. “I want to take this opportunity to thank Bob Lochner, Tom Lamb and Paul Kendall for their votes of confidence, and I look forward to working with all Alaskans for the betterment of our great state and the country we love.”
Republican runner-up Bob Lochner offered the following statement:
“I fully support Joe Miller for United State Senate. We have a Democrat and an Independent who are both liberal, and we have a Republican who is liberal. Lisa Murkowski is a walking contradiction . . . the farthest you can get from a conservative.”
Air Force veteran and Republican candidate Thomas Lamb also pledged his support for Miller, stating:
“I’m endorsing Joe because he’s an honest man, and I agree with him on 90% of the issues. With his military experience and knowledge of the Constitution, we need him in the United States Senate now. I’m honored to have a chance to vote for him.”
Paul Kendall has also affirmed that he will be voting for Miller in the November 8 election.
Citizens for Joe Miller invites all Alaskans to join us in the fight for freedom. Let’s make history!
Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believe in believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the right to life, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Bear-Paw-Parade5-cropped.jpg14291926Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-09 17:00:492016-09-11 03:30:18All Three of Murkowski’s Republican Primary Opponents Say They’re Voting Joe Miller
