House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has boarded the Trump train.
“I endorse Donald Trump,” Gowdy told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press Friday.
“I was a Rubio guy, and if Marco had won I would have expected the Cruz supporters and the Kasich supports and the Trump supporters to support my guy,” he said. “My guy lost. When the jury speaks, I’m going to support the jury.”
Gowdy had previously said he would support the eventual GOP nominee, but never mentioned Trump specifically.
When he was pressed about his change in attitude regarding Trump, Gowdy said, “I actually didn’t think I was that hesitant.”
He then reiterated his support for Trump.
“I was a Rubio guy and Marco lost, but I will enthusiastically support the Republican nominee,” he said.
Gowdy also elaborated about the current happenings on the Benghazi committee, which is investigating the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
He said that the report of his committee would be issued before this summer’s political convent?ons. Democrats have attacked the committee, saying the panel’s more than two years of investigations are politically motivated and timed to impact Clinton’s chances in the election. Gowdy has denied this accusation and blamed federal agencies for their slow responses to requests for information. (For more from the author of “Gowdy Makes a Second Endorsement — ‘I’m Going to Support the Jury'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-55.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 21:43:092016-05-20 21:43:09Gowdy Makes a Second Endorsement — ‘I’m Going to Support the Jury’
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to reject the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment would have ratified President Barack Obama’s executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in their private employment policies.
And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of gender identity can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans than other arrangements.
Employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees, but as I explained in greater detail at The Daily Signal two years ago, Obama’s executive order undermines our nation’s commitment to pluralism and religious liberty. So a vote for the Maloney Amendment is a vote to support Obama’s radical agenda.
Obama’s executive order, like the Maloney Amendment, does not contain any religious liberty protections—though it does leave in place an older federal regulation that permits religious organizations that favor employment of co-religionists to continue such practices. But there is no protection for organizations that hire based on mission—not on affiliation—to continue to do so. This in effect excludes taxpayers who hold conscientious beliefs about sexuality that run counter to Obama’s from being eligible for federal contracts funded with their own tax dollars.
The Obama executive order, and attempts to codify it through the Maloney Amendment, are problematic for four reasons, but there is at least one thing that can be done in response.
1. Obama’s order and the Maloney Amendment undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity, as it disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues. The federal government should not use the tax code and government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.
2. Obama’s order and the Maloney Amendment treat conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were invidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.
3. Obama’s executive order and the Maloney Amendment also do not contain any Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption. BFOQs allow employers to make employment decisions so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: permitting hiring only female camp counselors at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, which might otherwise seem to be “sex discrimination.”
4. Obama’s executive order and the Maloney Amendment are unnecessary. Voluntary market forces are already eliminating true discrimination, as making employment decisions based on non-relevant factors hurts one’s ability to compete. But the federal government should not penalize those contractors that do conscientiously judge sexual orientation or gender identity to be relevant to their mission and purpose.
In response to this executive order, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. This is the policy approach proposed in both the Russell Amendment and the First Amendment Defense Act.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement. (For more from the author of “House Rejects Amendment That Would Have Curtailed Religious Freedom” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-56.jpg8001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 19:21:262016-05-21 03:42:31House Rejects Amendment That Would Have Curtailed Religious Freedom
As insurance companies begin submitting their rates for health care coverage next year, consumers are seeing changes in the number of insurers selling plans on Obamacare’s exchanges.
And in some places, fewer choices on the exchanges can mean higher premiums.
So far, three states—Alabama, Alaska, and Wyoming—have just one insurer selling coverage on their Obamacare exchanges. And in Kansas, Insurance Commissioner Ken Selzer has been talking with carriers to convince them to sell coverage in his state. If Selzer isn’t successful in bringing other insurers on to the exchange in his state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas will be the only option for consumers there.
Since Obamacare took effect in 2013, a number of studies have documented a decline in the number of insurers selling coverage on the exchanges.
A March report from The Heritage Foundation found that from 2015 to 2016, the number of insurers participating in Obamacare’s exchanges fell from 307 to 287. Additionally, prior to the Affordable Care Act’s rollout in 2013, 395 insurers sold individual-market coverage. In 2014, the number of insurance companies selling coverage on the exchanges fell to 253.
When comparing the number of insurers selling plans on the exchanges from 2015 to 2016, 22 states and the District of Columbia saw a decline in the number of carriers selling exchange coverage from 2015 to 2016, according to the report.
Just 10 states, meanwhile, have more insurers on the exchanges.
Additionally, a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 650 counties nationwide will have one insurance company on the exchanges next year. In states using the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, 40 percent of counties will see just one or two insurers.
A Provider Monopoly
Insurer companies are in the midst of deciding whether to continue offering coverage on Obamacare’s exchanges, and some big players like Humana and UnitedHealthcare have already announced decisions to pull out of some exchanges.
These changes now have health policy experts warning that such a decline in insurer participation on Obamacare’s exchanges could impact how much consumers pay and how much providers charge.
“The focus has been on rural areas where you already have less insurer competition and are getting down to one or two [carriers],” Ed Haislmaier, a senior fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “I think the effect, paradoxically, is somewhat less. The real issue isn’t the number of insurers. It’s the number of providers.”
In rural areas where there may be only one provider such as a hospital and two or three insurers, the provider could charge what it wants, causing insurers to post similar rates, he said.
“The competition issue in rural areas is more driven by provider monopolies than it is by insurers,” Haislmaier said.
Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of policy at Avalere Health, agreed that in rural areas, specifically, higher premiums from insurers can be tied to increased rates from providers.
“The two are sort of linked,” she told The Daily Signal. “The way that insurers have brought premiums down in some markets is by designing narrower networks where they’re including only a subset of providers with better negotiated rates.”
“In rural areas, there’s a dearth of providers,” she continued. “Plans are beholden to the physicians there, and they don’t have the leverage to drive rates down. I think the monopoly of providers is limiting plans’ ability to keep premiums low.”
Pearson said that though competition has “been effective” at lowering the cost of premiums, consumers can expect to see across-the-board rate increases for a variety of reasons and not just in areas where there is little to no choice of insurer on the exchange.
“People in the exchanges are sicker than insurers were expecting them to be, so it’s costing more to cover them,” she said. “Additionally, the fact that two of the risk mitigation programs [risk corridor and reinsurance] go away in 2017 will also increase rates. Those are the two primary drivers.”
A ‘Guiding Principle’
In a study from the American Journal of Health Economics released last year, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber and the study’s authors warned that a decline in competition among insurers leads to an increase in premium prices.
Using UnitedHealthcare’s decision not to sell insurance on Obamacare’s exchanges in 2014 as an indicator of how premium prices changed, the study’s authors found that had UnitedHealth decided to enter all markets, the cost for the second-lowest silver premium would’ve decreased by 5.4 percent.
The government calculates subsidies based on the cost of the second-lowest silver plan.
Additionally, had insurers sold coverage in all areas on the state’s exchange, the cost of premiums would’ve declined by 11.1 percent.
Gruber and the study’s authors further found that areas where Obamacare’s co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans, sold coverage had lower premiums than those that did not.
The co-ops launched in 26 states with $2.4 billion in startup and solvency loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and were intended to boost competition and choice in areas where few existed.
However, since their roll out in 2013, 12 of the 23 co-ops have since closed their doors.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress in September 2009, President Barack Obama warned about how decreased competition among insurers can impact consumers.
“My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works,” Obama told lawmakers. “Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.”
While consumes in Alabama, Alaska and Wyoming will have just one insurer to select coverage from during next year’s open enrollment period, states have yet to encounter a situation where no insurer will sell on the exchange.
In 2013, before Obamacare’s launch, 34 counties in Mississippi were almost left with no carrier selling on its exchange, according to Vox. However, Humana decided to offer coverage to consumers in those 34 counties—albeit at a price, as premiums in the state were among the highest in the country.
“With only one plan, [insurers] certainly have pricing flexibility to make it work for them financially,” John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard University told Vox.
Having no insurers selling on an exchange doesn’t mean a consumer will go without coverage, Haislmaier said. Instead, carriers can and do sell plans off of the exchange.
In Mississippi and South Dakota, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield carriers are the largest insurers in those states. Neither, though, sell coverage on the exchanges.
“The key thing here is whether there’s an insurer willing to sell on the exchange,” Haislmaier said. “That’s important because that doesn’t necessarily mean there may not be coverage available off the exchange. But those with subsidies will be affected because they then have to pay full price.” (For more from the author of “Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_reacts_to_the_passing_of_Healthcare_bill.jpg27314096Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 01:22:252016-05-20 01:29:57Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017
If original reports from an insider campaign source are accurate, Gary Johnson, presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, could be getting a major boost to his campaign.
According to Daily Caller, a source in Johnson’s campaign reports billionaire David Koch is willing to pledge “tens of millions of dollars” to Johnson’s campaign, if he receives the Libertarian Party nomination.
The nomination will be made later in May at the Libertarian National Convention to be held in Orlando.
Should Johnson be selected, it will be his second consecutive presidential nomination.
A source closely connected with Koch reportedly did not deny the pledge existed.
In an update to the original article, TheDC reports a Koch spokesperson denied the claim.
“Reports that David Koch has pledged his support to Gary Johnson- or any candidate running for president for that matter- are untrue,” the spokesperson said.
However, an individual within the leadership of the Libertarian Party spoke to Daily Caller Thursday and said the support is still on track.
This source said, “In the event that a Johnson/[Bill]Weld ticket emerges from the convention, a pathway is in place for significant funding from Koch, [Steve]Wynn and other large donors.”
A representative for Koch held to the statement that Koch is not “supporting any third party presidential candidate.”
When Ron Neilson, campaign manager for Johnson was contacted by phone on Tuesday morning, he told Daily Caller that donor commitments would not be confirmed publicly prior to the convention. He went on to ask TheDC for their source.
Chairman of the Nevada Libertarian Party Brett H. Pojunis said, “People are upset and are looking for an alternative to the broken two party system.”
He added, “If the Libertarian candidate is successful raising money, the media will have a hard time ignoring that candidate. Especially with a public hungry for an alternative to to of the most polarizing figures in American political history.” (For more from the author of “Businessman David Koch Reportedly Earmarks Millions for November Election” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20599734300_6e54e31582_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 00:41:122016-05-20 00:41:12Businessman David Koch Reportedly Earmarks Millions for November Election
Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson had never planned to support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but now he will do whatever it takes to help Trump defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
“I was forced onto the Trump train, but I am happily volunteering my services for Mr. Trump, mainly because the Republican Party has spoken,” said Robertson, who supported Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the Republican primaries. “The people have said we want Mr. Trump. So Mr. Cruz goes down — I love him — but now I’m on the Trump train and I’ll do everything I can to help him.”
During his appearance Wednesday on Fox & Friends, Robertson had a very clear idea of how he could assist Trump.
Robertson has said that he will remain loyal to the Republican Party.
“I’ll go with the platform that I discovered when I was 28. I looked at the Democrats and the Republicans, and at least the Republicans aren’t for killing their children or for perversion, so I’m a Republican. So I’ll back old Donald,” he told The Hollywood Reporter recently.
As for Clinton, “Her record is long, and she’s already proven herself,” he said then.
“I know which way we’ll go with her, but I’m not sure with Donald. And remember, I’m a hunter. We shoot squirrels and ducks and eat ’em, and she says she’ll take our guns. All we’re doing is shooting targets, and alligators and cottonmouth snakes, and she wants to take that away from us,” he said.
Robertson consistently calls for political leaders to turn to God.
“Why don’t we vet our thinking through the word of God, love God and love each other?” he said on Fox & Friends Wednesday. “Why don’t we try that for a while? That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
He explained to the Hollywood Reporter why following God’s teaching is important to America.
“When you remove the God of the Bible and suppress the truth and allow men and women to determine right and wrong, historically speaking, it always ends in carnage and murder — Hitler, the Caesars of Rome, the French Revolution, ISIS. Man, there has been a slaughterhouse on planet Earth, and the common denominator is the removal of God,” he said. (For more from the author of “Duck Dynasty Star Offers to Take Important Role to Help Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/14837761109_c752b0a6b0_b.jpg6811024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 23:28:422016-05-19 23:28:42Duck Dynasty Star Offers to Take Important Role to Help Trump
Earlier this week, President Obama conducted an interview with BuzzFeed News and continued his campaign to put in the place what The New York Times says would be the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.
The campaign up to this point can only be described as a colossal failure. So far, conservative groups have dramatically outspent liberal counterparts, taking the case directly to the American people that the President cannot be allowed to fundamentally transform the nation’s highest court in the waning months of his administration.
In addition to their failed paid advertising campaign, President Obama and his allies have tried to make their argument in media appearances with no avail. Julie Pace of The Associated Press reported that focus groups she observed were “completely uninterested” in this debate and that it would not impact voters’ decisions this fall.
Despite the fact that this effort has not yielded anything in terms of results, it’s not surprising that President Obama keeps trying to repeat the same message. It’s clear that he wants another reliable justice on the Supreme Court that will cement his failed liberal agenda. Fortunately, Republicans are doing the right thing in their unwavering commitment to prevent his politically motivated power grab. (For more from the author of “SURPRISE! Obama Continues Partisan Push to Cement His Failed Presidency” please click HERE)
As White House hopefuls Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton pivot their campaigns toward the general election, polling continues to indicate the winner of the expected presidential contest is likely to be whichever candidate can convince voters that the other is more unlikable.
When Fox News released the results of a wide-ranging poll conducted this month, it became clear how steep the negatives against both the presumptive Republican nominee and likely Democratic nominee have become. The cable news network determined that voters see both Trump and Clinton as “deeply flawed candidates.”
Nationwide, a hypothetical contest between the two candidates shows Trump with the upper hand — but barely. The former reality television personality received a nod from 45 percent of those polled, while Clinton was the choice of 42 percent.
While the statistical difference is within the poll’s margin of error, the results show a precipitous decline in support for Clinton over the past month. The same poll conducted in April showed Clinton with a seven-point lead over her potential rival.
As in previous polls, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders performed better against Trump than Clinton. The Democratic candidate maintained a 46-42 percent lead over the billionaire, though that advantage was smaller than Sanders’ 14-point lead last month.
Meanwhile, 11 percent of Sanders’ supporters told pollsters that they would vote for Trump instead of Clinton should the general election ballot contain those two names.
Breaking down the results by demographics, it is clear which is Clinton’s most loyal voting bloc. The former first lady has a cavernous 81-point lead over Trump among blacks. Trump performed best among whites, with whom he has a 55-31 percent lead over Clinton. (For more from the author of “Fox News Poll Reveals Who Comes out on Top in Hypothetical Presidential Race” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24311159914_57ab433195_o.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 02:10:212016-05-19 02:10:44Fox News Poll Reveals Who Comes out on Top in Hypothetical Presidential Race
Donald Trump on Wednesday released a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court, a step intended to reassure Republicans of his conservative bona fides.
The list includes several judges often found on conservative wish lists, including Diane Sykes, William Pryor and Joan Larsen. Several of the judges were appointed by President George W. Bush, and many serve on state supreme courts.
In what some interpreted as a snub, the list does not include Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Trump’s bitter foe during the presidential primary race, or Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who endorsed Cruz. Both lawmakers had been floated in Washington as potential nominees . . .
Appellate judges Sykes and Pryor, two names previously floated by Trump as model jurists, are both on the list. So is Utah Supreme Court Judge Thomas Lee, the brother of Sen. Mike Lee and the son of Rex Lee, a former U.S. solicitor general during the Reagan administration.
Other judges mentioned include Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, David Stras of Minnesota, Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri. (Read more from “Donald Trump Releases List of Judges He Will Choose From to Put on Supreme Court” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5440385457_52d372e1d0_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 01:46:182016-05-19 01:46:18Donald Trump Releases List of Judges He Will Choose From to Put on Supreme Court
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warns air travelers to prepare for much longer than usual airport security lines, but a Transportation Security Administration watchdog says this mess is simply a matter of the government failing to manage its resources responsibly.
On Monday, Johnson stood at Ronald Reagan National Airport just outside Washington and told passengers to expect longer than expected wait times as the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, expedites hundreds of new personnel into service to speed up the security process. In Chicago, passengers were told to arrive three hours prior to departure.
The TSA claims congressional action has led to the elimination of some 4,500 personnel over the past few years and the agency simply doesn’t have the manpower to keep up, but that’s just spin according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. He also run Cato’s Downsizing Government blog.
Edwards told WND and Radio America the TSA is littered with problems, starting with its existing personnel.
“Annual surveys of federal government employees find that the TSA and the broader Homeland Security Department have some of the poorest morale in the federal government,” Edwards said. “The TSA has a high turnover rate for their screeners, which is not good for morale and is not good for security.” (Read more from “TSA Watchdog Spills Secret Behind Long Airport Lines” HERE)
We should count our blessings when dealing with this Republican-controlled Congress. At least they did what some of us called on them to do and stripped out the provision from the NDAA (H.R. 4909) including women in mandatory registration for Selective Service. Unfortunately, they have, once again, failed to utilize the “must-pass” defense authorization bill as a vehicle to fight the broader social engineering and transformation of our military. It appears that this much-vaunted promise of an open amendment process only applies to banal “in the weeds” issues, not to some of the fundamental issues affecting the morale, security, and mission of the military.
One policy Obama has been using to promote his social transformation is opening up the military to illegal aliens he unilaterally amnestied through his DACA program. In September 2014, the Department of Defense announced a new policy allowing military recruiters to enlist illegal immigrants under the auspices of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI. This was a pilot program created in 2008 designed to recruit foreign nationals with special language skills, but the program was only opened to legal immigrants. These foreign nationals are then given citizenship in return for their service and are able to bypass the 10-year green card process. After just a few months, 43 illegals immigrants were accepted into the MAVNI program. Undoubtedly, more have enlisted over the past year.
The acceptance of DACA recipients into MAVNI was part of a broader push from the administration and allies in Congress to open up all military service to illegal immigrants at a time when soldiers are being let go in large numbers as a result of Obama’s drastic cuts to the military.
The NDAA was a perfect opportunity to explicitly block Obama’s DoD directive to open military positions to DACA recipients. Yet, rather than go on offense, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, at the behest of Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), inserted a provision into the bill (Section 597) expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense has the discretion to authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens when it is “vital to the national interest.” This provision passed in committee by voice vote and Rep. Gallego declared it a “victory for Dreamers.” The pride of the nation, which protects our sovereignty and constitutional republic — was allowed to be used as a conduit to repudiate our rule of law.
In comes Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) last night to the House Rules Committee hearing where members teed up over 100 amendments to the NDAA. Gosar introduced an amendment to strike section 597 of the NDAA and affirm existing law explicitly barring illegal aliens from joining the military. Among all the small-ball amendments made in order last night, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) did not approve the Gosar amendment.
It’s a shame that Thornberry and Sessions were not willing to stand up for the military and stop Obama from using it as a visa mill for lawlessness. Moreover, the presence of illegal aliens in the military represents a huge security risk. The Obama administration has approved almost every DACA application, and as Judicial Watch discovered in 2014, DHS ostensibly gutted all background checks for DACA applicants, including the requirement of a government issued photo ID. As of a year ago, 282 DACA recipients lost their status after being approved due to their affiliation with gangs.
Moreover, as Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), a co-sponsor of the Gosar amendment, observed, why would there be a need for illegal immigrants in the military when Obama is dramatically downsizing it? “At a time when we are drawing down our military forces, and unable to retain and promote the men and women who have so bravely served our country, it is irrational, demeaning and absurd to ask that we prioritize the DREAMers over our own service members,” said the Virginia congressman.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) likes to brag about his open amendment process, but that process is only truly open to either insignificant issues or bills that will never become law. As I noted during last year’s NDAA vote, Republicans have failed to use the defense bill to stop any area of social engineering, including the unilateral lifting of the ban on transgender individuals in the military, placing women into direct ground combat against the wishes of Marine commanders, and stifling religious freedom in the service. This has taken a toll on morale in the military. In addition to dealing with all the spending and procurement issues, Republicans should be using the NDAA to reverse the terrible polices Obama’s Pentagon has unilaterally foisted upon our military.
Conservatives should pick up the motto of the Army: “This We’ll Defend” and should defend the institution against lawlessness and demand that this amnesty provision be stripped from the defense bill before it receives a final vote on the floor.
“While we are disappointed by the decision to not make the amendment in order, we are actively pursuing other avenues to achieve the same policy objective,” said Gosar in a statement to Conservative Review. “We are confident that this amendment will ultimately receive a vote on the House floor in the near future.” (For more from the author of “Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_Marksmanship_training_1-1.jpg10131519Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-18 22:23:432016-05-18 22:23:43Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military