What Conservatives Did to Pull off Religious Liberty Win in California

California conservatives won a surprise victory this week, changing a state assembly bill that would have curtailed the freedom of private religious colleges.

“We literally were able to see tens of thousands of people mobilize to make calls and to write their legislators, and to participate in the political process,” William Jessup University President John Jackson told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“We were hearing from legislators who said that they had gotten hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of phone calls on just this one piece of legislation,” he added. “And I think that’s a tremendous, tremendous encouragement to me for the health of our state.”

It’s a victory that they hope will prove a bellwether for institutional liberty fights to come.

Facing a maelstrom of grassroots controversy, state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, said Wednesday that he would remove the portions of his bill, SB 1146, that would have harmed the right of religious colleges to operate according to their principles.

Under the previous wording, SB 1146 would have ultimately blocked low-income students from receiving Cal Grants, California’s system of need-based education aid, if they attended colleges with policies such as bathroom use based on biological sex that violated the state’s LGBT policies. It also would have enabled students who feel discriminated against in light of these policies to bring a lawsuit against their college.

“Without a doubt, the unmodified version [of the bill] would have jeopardized Christian institutions and egregiously penalized all students of faith, especially Latino and African-American individuals,” Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said in a statement.

Conservatives who opposed the measure say they are relieved by this change, but some stressed that the current version of the bill, while less concerning, may still negatively impact religious colleges. Jackson mentioned a new amendment that would make religious colleges release data on expelled students—ostensibly to ensure they were not expelled for discriminatory reasons.

“What we’ve indicated to the senator [Lara] is that we’ll have to review the bill and compare it to [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] regulations,” Jackson said.

But religious liberty activists say they are pleased to have an effective blueprint for success as that battle progresses, a blueprint that involves building national coalitions focused on preserving the rights of religious Americans.

In addition to grassroots mobilization, conservative nonprofits also played a pivotal role in the controversy.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty publicized the fact that three of four students affected by the loss of Cal Grants would be low-income minority students, circulating a petition that quickly garnered 100,000 signatures.

With an open statement, Andrew Walker’s, the director of policy studies at the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, commission publicly opposed the bill with the support of a diverse group of advocates and thinkers both on the ideological left and on the right. Notable signatories included law professors, administrators at religious colleges, Hispanic and Islamic leaders, seminary presidents, Christian denominational authorities, intellectuals at think tanks (including three from The Heritage Foundation), and conservative magazines.

The statement was publicly released on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Lara announced that he was changing the provisions.

“I just think that this was a multifaceted effort that really showed what effective communication and strategy can result in,” Walker told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “You get your national coalitions working with your people on the ground, coupled with strong messaging—and religious liberty, we found out, is not dead in California.”

Continued defeats on issues of individual conscience, Walker said, showed that advocates of religious freedom still have a long way to go. But as lawmakers nationwide begin to bicker over the limits of freedom of conscience for religious institutions, the changes to SB 1146 represent a heartening opening salvo.

“There’s one discussion about private citizens engaged in commercial acts, like the bakers and the florists and the photographers, but what we see here is that the ability to protect religious institutions and their religious integrity remains very intact and very strong,” he said. “We’re going to have to turn especially and fight on all fronts, and that includes institutionally. We had a large institutional win in California.”

Jackson and Walker also stressed that conservatives must remain vigilant to oppose similar encroachments in the future.

“The sponsor of this bill has said that he intends to study this issue at further depth, and possibly reintroduce legislation like this next year,” Walker said. “We’re not naïve to the fact that this is an ongoing battle.” (For more from the author of “What Conservatives Did to Pull off Religious Liberty Win in California” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SHA-WINGGG! DNC Email Hack Just Got a Whole Lot Bigger

An investigation by the FBI has revealed the hack against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) may be much larger than expected.

According to The New York Times, the hack extended well beyond the DNC, and may have affected hundreds of other Democratic party officials and organizations, including the Democratic Governors Association.

The FBI briefed staff members of the House and Senate intelligence committees last week on the investigation into the email hacks against the DNC in July. The FBI told staff it has no doubt that the Russian government was behind the hack, according to The New York Times, citing an anonymous staff member briefed on the matter.

The FBI said that it has no direct evidence that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email server was hacked by the Russians. FBI director James Comey has said previously that hackers have tried to gain access into Clinton’s private server, and that they may have been skilled enough to leave no trace of a successful hack. The FBI also said that there is no evidence at this point that the hack extended to the emails of members of Congress or staff members of the intelligence committees.

According to the Boston Globe, the main targets of the hack appear to have been the private accounts of Clinton campaign officials, Democratic party officials, and Democratic party organizations. (Read more from “SHA-WINGGG! DNC Email Hack Just Got a Whole Lot Bigger” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Doubles Down on His Claim That Obama Created Islamic State

By Christine Rushton. Donald Trump doubled down Thursday on his accusation that President Obama created Islamic State, insisting that he didn’t simply mean that Obama’s troop draw-down in Iraq left behind chaos in which the terrorist group thrived.

The Republican nominee first called Obama the “founder of ISIS,” another term for Islamic State, during a rally Wednesday in Florida. He was asked Thursday in an interview on CNBC whether that was appropriate.

Trump responded: “He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely.”

Islamic State grew out of Iraq’s Al Qaeda affiliate founded around 2004, a half-decade before Obama took office. Its capabilities ebbed and flowed over the next decade as the group merged and split with other extremists. Around 2013, it increasingly began carrying out attacks in Iraq, and the group began overtaking large swaths of territory in both Iraq and neighboring Syria a year later. Islamic State has also claimed responsibility for attacks elsewhere, branching out as coalition-led forces roll back its territorial gains in the Middle East. (Read more from “Trump Doubles Down on His Claim That Obama Created Islamic State” HERE)

___________________________________________

GOP Rep: Obama Responsible for Manipulated Intel About ISIS

By Julian Hattem. President Obama and other senior administration officials created a political climate that led intelligence officials to create warped reports about the United States’s fight against Islamic extremists, a leader of a Republican task force studying the matter said on Thursday.

“They wanted a good news story,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), one of three GOP lawmakers leading a House task force into alleged intelligence manipulation at the Pentagon’s Central Command, told The Hill.

“Is there a memo from Barack Obama saying, ‘Don’t send me bad news’? We haven’t yet found that,” he added.

“But in every organization I’ve ever been a part of … leaders set a culture and the team that works around that leader understands the expectations of that leader,” Pompeo said. “Here that led to manipulation of an intelligence product that was extremely important to keeping our kids safe.”

The comments magnify the criticism in an initial report published by the task force on Thursday that concluded that Centcom reports about the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria were “consistently more optimistic” than analysts on the ground. (Read more from “GOP Rep: Obama Responsible for Manipulated Intel About ISIS” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was Ex-Twitter CEO Censoring Negative Speech About Obama?

According to a report by BuzzFeed News, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered staff to filter out “abusive and hateful” replies to President Obama during his #AskPOTUS Q&A session in 2015.

BuzzFeed reports:

According to a former senior Twitter employee, Costolo ordered employees to deploy an algorithm (which was built in-house by feeding it thousands of examples of abuse and harassing tweets) that would filter out abusive language directed at Obama. Another source said the media partnerships team also manually censored tweets, noting that Twitter’s public quality-filtering algorithms were inconsistent. Two sources told BuzzFeed News that this decision was kept from senior company employees for fear they would object to the decision.

If true, the information reveals a major fault-line in the social media company’s longstanding unfettered free speech stance. For many years, Twitter has touted itself as a global leader for free speech. Top executives even published a blog post boasting of such in 2011 titled, “The Tweets Must Flow.”

In the post, executives wrote, “Freedom of expression is essential. Some Tweets may facilitate positive change in a repressed country, some make us laugh, some make us think, some downright anger a vast majority of users. We don’t always agree with the things people choose to tweet, but we keep the information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content.”

“There are Tweets that we do remove, such as illegal Tweets and spam,” the blog post acknowledged. But only rarely, and only to serve the broader goal, which is simply to “not to remove Tweets on the basis of their content.”

… Except for when they may be harmful to a favored political figure. Got it. (For more from the author of “Was Ex-Twitter CEO Censoring Negative Speech About Obama?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslims Sue City for Rejecting Mega-Mosque

When the planning commission in Sterling Heights, Michigan, voted unanimously last fall to reject a mega-mosque in a residential area, an overflow crowd of residents could be seen on video shouting and cheering with joy . . .

But the Muslims ominously warned that they were not going away quietly.

On Wednesday they made good on their promise, suing the city for alleged civil rights violations, claims that the Obama administration appears all-to-eager to support.

WND reported that the Obama Department of Justice was secretly trying to intimidate the city earlier this year and now that appears to have been the case all along. The DOJ weighed in publicly Wednesday after the suit was filed with its own threatening language.

U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade told the Free Press, “The Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office have been conducting an independent investigation, and that investigation is ongoing.” (Read more from “Muslims Sue City for Rejecting Mega-Mosque” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HILLARY HEALTH CRISIS: Will She Even Make It to Election Day?

Hillary Clinton’s health is starting to become a major political issue, and there are many that believe that her health problems may force her to drop out before we even get to election day. On Sunday evening, the Drudge Report ran a photo of Hillary struggling to get up a set of stairs along with this headline: “2016: Hillary conquers the stairs”. Well, it turns out that particular photo was about six months old, but it sparked a much deeper debate about Hillary Clinton’s health. As you will see below, Clinton has been having seizures even while in public, she has been regularly having horrible coughing fits, she has a very large hole in her tongue that has not been explained, and she has been falling down way too often for a woman her age. No matter whether you are for her or against her, it should be apparent to everyone that this is a woman that has some very serious health issues.

Let’s start with Clinton’s very curious behavior during a recent campaign stop. When she suddenly froze up, she was rapidly approached by a large African-American man that appeared at first glance to be a Secret Service agent. The following comes from Gateway Pundit

In a recent campaign stop in a Union Hall in front of a sparse crowd, at about the time when some liberal protesters began to protest, Hillary Clinton suddenly froze. She looked dazed and lost. Seeing this, a group of men rushed to assist the candidate on the stage. One man however gently pats the candidate’s back and then says, “Keep Talking.”

An expert on Secret Service tactics told TGP Secret Service agents would not touch a candidate in the manner that this individual did and especially Hillary Clinton. It has been widely reported on Hillary’s disdain for the agents who work to protect her. The man who touches Hillary may be a member of Hillary’s close staff – but he is NOT a Secret Service agent.

Since that time, it has been reported that the very large African-American gentleman that was initially reported to be a Secret Service agent is actually a doctor instead, and as you can see here it appears that he is carrying with him the kind of auto-injector that is commonly used to inject someone with Diazepam…

If you are not familiar with Diazepam, it was originally called Valium. Here is more on this particular drug from Wikipedia

Diazepam, first marketed as Valium, is a medication of the benzodiazepine family that typically produces a calming effect. It is commonly used to treat a range of conditions including anxiety, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, muscle spasms, seizures, trouble sleeping, and restless legs syndrome. It may also be used to cause memory loss during certain medical procedures. It can be taken by mouth, inserted into the rectum, injected into muscle, or injected into a vein. When given into a vein, effects begin in one to five minutes and last up to an hour. By mouth, effects may take 40 minutes to begin.

It is quite noteworthy that this drug is often used to treat “seizures”, because Clinton seems to be having them with frightening regularity these days. In this video, you can watch Clinton go into a seizure in public with a bunch of reporters around…

So why won’t she just be honest about this? Well, because Trump would immediately pounce on the issue and that is the last thing she wants. She doesn’t want voters questioning whether she has the physical capability to fulfill her duties as president. Wikipedia also says that those that are elderly “are more prone to adverse effects of diazepam, such as confusion, amnesia, ataxia, and hangover effects, as well as falls.” As Susan Duclos has noted, Hillary Clinton has fallen and seriously hurt herself numerous times in recent years…

While the most recent image of Hillary Clinton unable to climb a short set of stairs without the help of two Secret Service agents has set the Internet abuzz after the Drudge Report headlined with the image while blaring “Hillary Conquers The Stairs,” we note multiple examples over the years, which include but are not limited to Hillary falling in 2009 on her way to a White House meeting and fracturing her elbow, falling while entering a plane in 2011, Hillary falling asleep while attending an Obama speech in Myanmar in November 2012, just one month later she fell in her home which led to a concussion in December 2012 and subsequent blood clot on the brain, her coughing fits which go back years…… all pointing to a rapid physical decline.

At the top of this article I also mentioned the strange hole that has now appeared on her tongue. You can see a photo of it for yourself right here…

There is much speculation about what may or may not have caused it, and hopefully Clinton will come forward and tell us the truth soon so that all of the speculation can be laid to rest.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s coughing fits have also been making headlines. If you don’t know what I am talking about, Here is just one example…

Of course Hillary Clinton could never possibly match Donald Trump’s energy level and immense workload, but at this point she has really cut back her schedule. As I write this article, she appears to only have one scheduled public rally between now and October 19th.

That seems quite odd for a candidate for president of the United States.

Could her health be a factor?

Of course many in the mainstream media are absolutely determined to try to destroy these “rumors”. For example, the Washington Post just published a story entitled “Armed with junk science and old photos, critics question #HillarysHealth“.

But these “rumors” are not going away. Every time Hillary Clinton has another coughing fit, another seizure or another disturbing fall, the alternative media is going to jump on it right away.

If Donald Trump was having these kinds of health issues, you can rest assured that the mainstream media would be all over it. As it is, they are running anti-Trump headlines 24 hours a day and we are still about three months away from the election. These are just a few of the anti-Trump headlines that I came across today…

-“Reagan Republican: Trump is the emperor with no clothes”

-“Khans blame Donald Trump for growing intolerance toward Muslims”

-“Anti-Trump Republicans call for GOP emergency meeting”

-“50 GOP officials: Trump would be ‘most reckless President in American history’”

And one very honest New York Times reporter is actually admitting the anti-Trump bias that is out there in the press these days…

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

According to Real Clear Politics, Hillary Clinton is leading in all of the recent major polls, and the mainstream media is going to continue to try to destroy Donald Trump.

But what happens if Hillary Clinton’s health completely fails and she is ultimately unable to make it to election day?

What would the Democrats do?

I don’t know what would happen in such a scenario, but we might soon find out… (For more from the author of “HILLARY HEALTH CRISIS: Will She Even Make It to Election Day?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AARP’s Retreat From Conservative Forum Part of ‘Great Silencing’

The decision by the seniors group AARP to drop its membership in an influential legislative reform coalition is the latest example of the left’s successful pressure on corporations and other organizations to disown the group.

As of December, according to the liberal website SourceWatch.org, “at least 108 corporations and 19 nonprofits” announced cutting ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council in the previous five years.

Among those listed as parting ways with ALEC: Coca-Cola Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, and Hewlett-Packard Co.

“A great silencing is taking place across America,” ALEC spokesman Bill Meierling told The Daily Signal. “All people should be deeply concerned when any group believes solutions come from intimidation rather than discussion.”

Of all the organizations in the conservative movement that have antagonized the left during the Obama presidency, this one stands out.

The American Legislative Exchange Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan network of state lawmakers, policy analysts, and private sector leaders that advances model legislation with an eye toward free market policy solutions.

The organization that became known as ALEC grew out of informal meetings of conservative activists in Chicago during autumn 1973. Forty-three years later, the exchange council includes “nearly one-quarter of the country’s state legislators and stakeholders from across the policy spectrum,” according to its website.

ALEC now has a long history of successfully promoting local and state legislation built on the constitutional principles of limited government, the free market, and federalism.

While the exchange council has attracted both positive attention and negative scrutiny since its founding, well-funded, well-organized opponents on the left have made a concerted effort over the past five years to marginalize, discredit, and defund it.

As previously reported by The Daily Signal, eight of the Senate’s most liberal Democrats also targeted ALEC last month in a letter to national and state-based think tanks and policy organizations demanding to know the names of donors.

Conservative policy analysts and think tank leaders who are familiar with the assault on ALEC have some insight.

A critical turning point came after the 2010 midterm elections, they say, when left-leaning lawmakers lost ground in statehouses across the country, making it possible for ALEC’s proposals to become policy at an accelerated pace.

Matthew Vadum is a senior vice president at Capital Research Center, which investigates the “aims and activities of left-liberal special interest groups.” Vadum said he suspects that because ALEC worked successfully to “frame the debate” during the Obama presidency, it aroused the ire of liberal groups such as Common Cause.

Those groups now see some of their most prized policy achievements in danger of losing their grip at the local and state levels, he said.

Obamacare and Voter ID

After President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, into law in March 2010, ALEC “sprang into action” and “drafted model legislation aimed at blocking states from enforcing the new health insurance monstrosity,” Vadum noted in a research paper.

In November 2011, ALEC published its “State Lawmakers Guide to Repealing Obamacare.”

At least 10 states took up ALEC’s model proposal to block the federal health care law by 2013, Vadum wrote. But what rankled the left above all else is the exchange council’s commitment to passing voter identification laws as a safeguard against voter fraud, he says.

Two opponents, The Nation magazine and the Center for Media and Democracy, have led the charge against ALEC for the past five years.

Founded in 1865, The Nation describes itself as providing a progressive outlook on political and cultural questions. Its print circulation peaked at 187,000 in 2006; by 2010 it had dropped to 145,000.

The Center for Media and Democracy is a left-leaning investigative journalism outfit based in Madison, Wisconsin, that describes itself as a watchdog on the use of public relations by corporations and political figures. The center, founded in 1993 by progressive Wisconsin writer John Stauber, publishes SourceWatch, PR Watch, and BanksterUSA.

In July 2011, the magazine and the center partnered on a series of articles highlighting ALEC’s model bills and emphasizing its connections with the Koch brothers and their companies, organizations, and foundations.

Charles and David Koch, wealthy entrepreneurs and philanthropists, drew the left’s ire by organizing contributions to libertarian and conservative causes and candidates. The Nation’s first article on ALEC called the Koch brothers the exchange council’s “billionaire benefactors.”

The left’s opposition to laws requiring voters to produce photo identification figures prominently in the articles. One, for example, says ALEC is “peddling ‘Voter ID’ laws to disenfranchise voters.”

The Center for Media and Democracy operates a website called ALEC Exposed, also dating to July 2011, that focuses on ALEC’s funding sources and policy proposals. The site criticizes corporations and nonprofits that support ALEC.

Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries Inc., shakes that off.

“We support ALEC and the work it is doing on criminal justice reform legislation, protecting free speech, and promoting policies that remove barriers to opportunity for all Americans, especially the least advantaged,” Holden said in an email to The Daily Signal.

‘Seek to Silence’

The pressure tactics appear to have met with considerable success.

As of December, according to the Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch.org, “at least 108 corporations and 19 nonprofits—for a total of 127 private sector members—have publicly announced that they cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council.”

Four of the 127 returned to ALEC, according to the website, but the left continues to claim new scalps such as AARP.

ALEC declined to comment on membership details or the exchange council’s success rate in state legislatures, saying opponents exploit the information.

Kevin Kane, president of Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a free market think tank based in New Orleans, said the anti-ALEC campaign is undermining free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

“There has been an important tactical shift in the campaign against ALEC and other organizations that do not toe the line on certain policy issues,” Kane told The Daily Signal. “Many organizations on the left are no longer content to engage in a debate over the issues, instead they seek to silence opponents by convincing donors and sponsors that certain policy positions are beyond the pale and therefore unworthy of consideration.”

In an email, Kane added:

This creates an environment where policymakers and citizens are less likely to be exposed to a wide range of arguments over important policy questions. Organizations like Pelican Institute do not benefit from this development, but the real losers in this campaign are policymakers and their constituents, who are denied the many benefits that flow from robust and open debate over important policy questions.

Pelican Institute, part of the State Policy Network, a coalition of state-based think tanks, sometimes partners with ALEC on legislative proposals.

AARP ‘Decides Not to Renew‘

Most recently, liberal advocacy groups succeeded in pressuring AARP, the nation’s most powerful organization of older Americans, to drop its affiliation with ALEC.

AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, announced Aug. 4 it would not continue membership.

In a letter that same day to Jo Ann Jenkins, chief executive officer of AARP, liberal groups accused the exchange council of pushing for policy changes that harm senior citizens.

“AARP’s support of ALEC is antithetical to your mission to fight for the issues that matter most to families—such as health care, employment, and income security,” the letter to Jenkins said.

The letter, which called on the seniors organization to withdraw from the exchange council, was signed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the Center for Media and Democracy; Social Security Works; and ClimateTruth.org, among other groups.

“After hearing from many of you, we’ve decided not to renew our membership to ALEC,” AARP said in a post that evening on its Facebook page. Politico broke the news.

The liberal organizations’ letter to AARP’s Jenkins said in part:

By partnering with ALEC, you have allowed it to use the powerful AARP brand to lend credibility to legislation harmful to seniors that is introduced in statehouses across the country. ALEC has been at the forefront of protecting drug companies and their ability to charge unreasonable prices, has been a strong advocate against the Affordable Care Act and has opposed Medicaid expansion, forcing lower-income retirees to make terrible choices between paying medical bills and buying groceries. …

ALEC also blocks action on climate change, causing irreparable harm to the world we will leave our children and grandchildren. ALEC has spearheaded calls for a dangerous Article V convention to enact a federal balanced budget amendment that would ultimately gut critical programs for seniors like Social Security, Medicare and the Older Americans Act. ALEC has also spent years pushing the dismantling of retirement security for older Americans by promoting the elimination of defined benefit pensions and the privatization of Social Security, at least in part, in favor of risky investment accounts.

‘Contemptible Betrayal’

“AARP should be ashamed and embarrassed at its action in withdrawing from ALEC,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. He added:

This is another sign of how much the progressive left wants to silence anyone who disagrees with them on matters of public policy. Their basic betrayal of the tenets of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment is disgraceful—and AARP’s going along with this censorship is contemptible.

Meierling, vice president of public affairs for the American Legislative Exchange Council, told The Daily Signal that left-leaning activist groups are working to silence organizations such as ALEC that hold alternative views on public policy.

“ALEC members represent many millions of retired Americans and work on issues such as health care, employment, and income security—key AARP issues,” Meierling said, adding:

All seniors benefit when their issues are discussed openly and with as many decision makers and stakeholders as possible. It is a shame that under the banner of good government, activists groups such as the Center for Media and Democracy would pressure any organization out of the free exchange of ideas.

“The left succeeded in pressuring AARP to disassociate itself from ALEC by using the same smears and pressure tactics it has long used in its jihad against ALEC,” Capital Research Center’s Vadum said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“Here the left claimed ALEC hates minorities and elderly people because it backed electoral integrity laws like photo ID requirements that combat election fraud,” he said. “It’s an absurd argument but it’s been quite effective in hitting ALEC in the pocketbook.”

Vadum also argues that ALEC receives relatively little support from foundations and no government grants, according to tax filings.

That contrasts with the National Conference of State Legislatures, its “left-wing counterpart,” he said, which “relies heavily on taxpayer funding.” (For more from the author of “AARP’s Retreat From Conservative Forum Part of ‘Great Silencing'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

University of Texas Professors Sue Over Concealed Guns Allowed in Their Classrooms

Three professors are fighting a Texas law that allows students to carry concealed handguns in their college classrooms.

Senate Bill 11, allowing concealed handgun license holders 21 and older (or 18 if active military) to carry in campus buildings, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, in June 2015. The law went into effect Aug. 1 this year.

Lawyers for Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter, all professors at the University of Texas at Austin, made their case to a federal judge last week.

The professors requested a preliminary injunction to block the new campus carry law and had filed suit on July 6 against the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton; the president of the University of Texas at Austin, Gregory Fenves; and members of the University of Texas Board of Regents.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made no ruling during the court hearing after lawyers for the professors and for the university struggled to agree on the university’s rules and policies on concealed weapons, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, Yeakel requested more information to clarify university concealed weapon policies.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit says.

Paxton, the Republican Texas attorney general, called the professors’ lawsuit “frivolous.”

“There is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas,” Paxton said in statement.

Paxton filed a response with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division on Aug. 1 in opposition to the University of Texas professors’ request for preliminary injunction.

The professors “have no right under the First Amendment to violate the Second Amendment rights of students,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “And it is insulting to law-abiding gun owners—categorizing them as crazies who will kill someone over a debate in a classroom.”

A 1995 Texas law allows concealed handguns to be carried in public, including on the grounds of public college campuses, but previously excluded campus buildings, the Statesman reported.

Under the new law, public institutions of higher education cannot “generally” prohibit license holders from carrying concealed weapons, but are allowed to establish “rules, regulations, or other provisions” restricting guns from places like labs with dangerous chemicals and regarding the storage of handguns in residential dorm facilities.

Private colleges can opt out of the law. So far, almost all private institutions of higher education have decided to opt out, The Dallas Morning News reports.

Moore, one of the plaintiffs, who teaches English and gender studies, told NPR that “it’s impossible to do our jobs with this policy in place.” She continued:

We all teach subject matter that is quite sensitive, and we all use very participatory, you know, pedagogically sound methods of trying to teach students how to state their views on controversial subjects, challenge one another and stand up for what they believe in.

“I am genuinely not equipped to keep students safe from a firearm in my classroom,” Moore added.

Allison Peregory, a 21-year-old University of Texas pre-law student, plans to get a state-issued concealed weapon license and carry on her campus, The Dallas Morning News reported.

“It’s important for people to have their right to self-defense be protected,” Peregory said, according to the Morning News.

Aug. 1 marked the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting that took place at the University of Texas at Austin.

“It is quite ironic; they [the professors] are apparently unaware that private citizens, including students, helped police in 1966 stop Charles Whitman, the University of Texas Tower sniper, when they grabbed their guns and started firing at the sniper in the tower,” Heritage’s von Spakovsky said. “One of those Texans, Allen Crum, even climbed to the top of the tower with a rifle to assist the policeman who eventually killed Whitman.”

Brian Bensimon, Students for Concealed Carry’s director for the state of Texas, told The Daily Signal that the professors’ lawsuit is “perplexing.”

“Concealed carry is allowed in our state capitol,” Bensimon said. “There’s plenty of open debate and lively discourse there.”

Students for Concealed Carry is trying to block a University of Texas rule that allows professors to ban concealed weapons from their individual office space. The group filed a complaint with Paxton on Aug. 4.

“Gun control advocates think that gun bans will make people safer,” John R. Lott, a columnist for FoxNews.com and author of “The War on Guns,” wrote in an op-ed. “But banning guns only ensures that law-abiding good citizens are disarmed, not the killers. Instead of bans improving safety, these bans attract killers and make it easier for them to commit crimes.”

Eight states—Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin—have provisions allowing concealed weapons to be carried by students on public higher education campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eighteen states ban carrying concealed weapons on college campuses. (For more from the author of “University of Texas Professors Sue Over Concealed Guns Allowed in Their Classrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Crooked Hillary’ Earns Her Nickname in Stunning New Email Revelations

With the release of new emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server, there is no longer any room for doubt that then-Secretary of State Clinton used the State Department to buy and sell favors for herself, her husband Bill, and her close aides.

The State Department turned over 44 previously unreleased email exchanges that Clinton failed to include among the 30,000 emails she released to the government, revealing State Department favors for Clinton Foundation donors and rich allies of the power couple.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, obtained the emails as part of its lawsuit against the State Department.

According to the New York Post, an April 2009 email exchange between top Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and Doug Band, who was running the Clinton Foundation at the time, show Band “urgently asked for a meeting between a top US official and Gilbert Chagoury — a major donor to the Clinton family charity.” The “top US official” was Jeff Feltman, America’s former ambassador to Lebanon who became Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in August 2009.

A close pal of Bill Clinton’s with financial interests around the world, Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who donated between $1-5 million to the Clinton Foundation and in 2009 pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. Chagoury was convicted of money laundering in Switzerland in 2000, paying a $66 million fine in a plea deal.

Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin set up the meeting Band requested; she was quickly rewarded for the favor:

Abedin’s quick response to Band paid dividends down the road.

In June 2011, Band formed the Teneo consulting firm, with Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman. And in 2012, Abedin won permission to work as a $15,000-a-month consultant for Teneo in a special arrangement that allowed her to remain on the State Department payroll.

This is far from being the only case of alleged kickbacks found among Clinton’s emails.

The Daily Caller News Foundation details how Clinton aide Cheryl Mills set up a deal to direct money from an Abu Dhabi oil company—now known as TAQA—to a Bangladeshi banker named Muhammad Yunus—a long-time friend of the Clintons and Clinton Foundation donor. After this deal was brokered, the oil company put “as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.”

“The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director,” writes The Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock. “The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.”

Here’s where things get interesting, and really sketchy:

The issue of the TAQA donation was initially raised by Clinton Foundation development officer Linda Andich, who read an Associated Press article about Clinton’s intervention on behalf of Yunus during an official visit to Bangladesh.

Yunus was charged by an official Bangladeshi commission with financial mismanagement of Grameen Bank, a government bank that was supposed to give out “micro-loans” to poor women in the country. He was eventually forced to leave the bank.

“Just reading about HRC’s support of the Grameen Bank, which prompted me to check in for any updates for the State Department, re: the Donation from TAQA,” Andich wrote Desai and Dennis Cheng, the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, on the morning of May 7.

Three hours later, Desai contacted Mills, saying, “we’d welcome your guidance on accepting funds from TAQA.” Mills replied, “Will call to discuss.”

That ensuing discussion completed a deal offered by TAQA managing director Leo Koot in Scotland in which Koot donated $60,000 to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for former President Bill Clinton’s appearance at charity-auction dinner.

The dinner in Scotland was a fundraiser for Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank, and Bill Clinton made off with a $250,000-500,000 speaking fee.

What’s clear from these revelations is that Hillary Clinton abused her position in the State Department to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation on an international scale—when she was supposed to be of service to the country and American citizens.

Can we expect more of this behavior should she become president? (For more from the author of “‘Crooked Hillary’ Earns Her Nickname in Stunning New Email Revelations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Photo: Hillary Physically Propped up in Campaign Speech

Fresh questions are being raised about Hillary Clinton’s health, including her mental well-being, after a new photo emerged that appears to show an aide holding her up at a campaign event.

The latest image suggesting a physical problem was posted on Twitter and at the Gateway Pundit by Kristinn Taylor, who writes for the outlet and others.

It shows Mrs. Clinton at a crowd at Southwest College in Los Angeles on April 16 with two aides at her side apparently trying to steady her . . .

Taylor commented, “It is not clear what made Clinton lose her balance such that two men had to rush to keep her from falling down.”

He wrote the image shows her “being firmly held up by a man on her right side to keep her from falling over as she addressed an overflow crowd during a campaign stop in Los Angeles, while a man on her left side is seen urgently extending his arm to aid in propping up Clinton.” (Read more from “Photo: Hillary Physically Propped up in Campaign Speech” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.