Obama Endorses Clinton While Press Secretary Makes Important Admission

Throughout the ongoing scandal regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails on a private server, it has been maintained by the Clinton campaign that the FBI’s investigation is merely a security review and not criminal in nature.

However, recent statements from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest may undermine whether the Obama administration believes this is actually the case.

Earnest met with reporters Thursday to discuss President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.

Earnest was questioned on the appropriateness of such an endorsement in light of the continuing investigation.

The reporter asked, “I wonder if you could address for us the potential conflict of interest that might exist when the President of the United States … is openly saying ‘I want this woman to succeed me in the Oval Office.’”

Earnest answered saying, “You noted instances where the president was asked about the FBI investigations. And in each of those answers the president made clear that that is being conducted independent of any sort of political interference.”

He added the president feels confident in making the endorsement because he knows the investigation will be conducted by people not swayed by political forces.

Earnest ended saying, “And that’s why the president … has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.” (For more from the author of “Obama Endorses Clinton While Press Secretary Makes Important Admission” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ben Carson: America Is ‘Like a Cruise Ship’ Headed Towards ‘Tremendous Carnage and Death’

Former Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said that the United States may be on a course to “tremendous carnage and death” during an interview Monday on Fox and Friends.

“America, right now, is like a cruise ship that is about to go off of Niagara Falls with tremendous carnage and death,” Carson said. “What you have to do first is recognize the problem, stop the ship, turn it around and then move in the other direction” . . .

Carson, a surrogate for Donald Trump, also addressed reports that an independent candidate may run for president, arguing that a third-party bid by an independent could lead to victory for Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in November over “petty little differences” with the Republican candidate.

(Read more from “Ben Carson: America Is ‘Like a Cruise Ship’ Headed Towards ‘Tremendous Carnage and Death'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Dark of Night, GOP Traitors Vote To Make Obama’s Transgender Insanity the Law of the Land

Many are asking what Republicans plan to do to stop Obama’s executive war on culture and religious liberty in pursuit of cultural Marxism. Now we know that not only will this party do nothing to stop Obama, they will use their control of Congress to codify Obama’s agenda into law.

Late Wednesday night, Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment from Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY), which codified Obama’s executive order 13672 making transgenderism the law of the land. Obama’s executive order, promulgated in July 2014, instructed bureaucrats to sever contracts with companies that don’t follow the Obama mandated sexual identity agenda. This could include companies that don’t allow men into female bathrooms in their private corporate offices. The Maloney amendment to the $37.4 billion FY 2017 Energy &Water Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5055) codified that unilateral act into law.

The amendment passed 223-195 with 43 Republicans supporting it. The GOP House just supported arguably the most radical Democrat agenda item in the dead of night.

Defenders of House leaders will contend that leadership had to allow this amendment to come to the floor. After all, they promised an open amendment process and they just couldn’t stop all the RINOs in the conference from voting with Democrats. This argument is weak on many accounts:

1. GOP leaders are forever blocking key conservative initiatives and legislation in order to violate the GOP platform; certainly they can block an anti-religious liberty transgendered amendment from Democrats to protect the integrity of the GOP-controlled House. Could you imagine Democrats allowing an amendment to pass on an issue that violates their very essence while they are in control of the chamber?

2. GOP leaders are always twisting arms to get conservative members to vote for bad bills. Somehow we are to believe they were impotent in ensuring “moderate” members (what is moderate about transgenderism?) adhere to the party’s platform?

3. The reality is that Paul Ryan has long been a supporter of ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act), the legislative vehicle for enshrining transgenderism into law and mandating adherence to its dogma on private businesses. That is why he’s been absent in this fight. Moreover, Republicans have failed to allow a single anti-religious bigotry bill to the floor since the illegal gay marriage decision was issued by the Supreme Court, despite the ubiquitous threats against private businesses, states, and private property. Clearly, whipping against this vote was not a priority.

Once the Maloney amendment passed with GOP votes, Republicans proceeded to do what they always do so well. They offered side-by-side amendments in an attempt to cover up the damage. They passed the “Pitts amendment” as a second-degree by voice vote to affirm the constitutional importance of religious liberty. Then they passed the Byrne Amendments to reaffirm that RFRA is still in place and the government cannot discriminate against religious individuals. Well, as we all know, the Constitution and RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) have been in place for the entire Obama administration, yet he is still able to get away with anti-religious bigotry edicts by claiming they don’t interfere with religious beliefs. Enshrining Obama’s specific edict into law and then passing vanity language reaffirming the general importance of religious liberty is like doing CPR on a dead body.

To begin with, this entire spending bill was something that should never have come to the floor. It increased spending and retained a number of green energy programs for a department that shouldn’t even exist. The sad reality is that Republicans will wind up passing a continuing resolution or an omnibus in September and will jettison even the few good provisions they secured in these individual spending bills. As such, the only remaining purpose of spending weeks passing these bills [that will go in the garbage anyway] is to draw a sharp contrast with Democrats on important issues in the news and drive a wedge between the Left and the voters. Now that they are using this process for just the opposite purpose – to codify the most pernicious agenda of the left – why not abort this wasteful process anyway? Why not focus on slam dunk winning legislation if they are not going to use the power of the purse?

Now that leadership has loaded this already sub-par spending bill with transgenderism, conservatives should vote against final passage on Thursday. It’s bad enough that a Republican House cannot be used as a tool to go on offense against cultural Marxism and anti-religious-liberty initiatives. To pass a bill placing an exclamation mark on that agenda is unforgivable.

Obama Admin: U.S. Stopped Sanctioning Iranian Human Rights Abusers After Nuke Deal

The Obama administration has not designated a single Iranian as a human rights abuser since finalizing last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, despite rising abuse in the Islamic Republic, including state-sanctioned killings and the imprisonment of opposition figures.

The administration’s hesitance to use sanctions as a tool to confront Iranian human rights abuses, despite past promises made to Congress, has prompted outrage on Capitol Hill among lawmakers who were given assurances the administration would act.

A senior administration official admitted during questioning on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the U.S. has not sanctioned a single Iranian human rights abuser since the deal was finalized. The disclosure calls into question further administration promises to continue using sanctions as a tool to pressure Iran . . .

Republicans and Democrats alike are now accusing the administration of misleading Congress about its commitment to sanctions and saying that it has avoided such designations in order to prevent the Iranian regime from walking away from the deal.

“We were told during this process that getting the nuclear issue off the table was so critical and we could actually expect Iran to engage in additional destabilizing activity,” Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee examining the administration’s promises regarding Iran. (Read more from “Obama Admin: U.S. Stopped Sanctioning Iranian Human Rights Abusers After Nuke Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive

President Barack Obama, the titular head of the LGBT movement, has added to the firestorm of confusion, misunderstanding, and fury surrounding the transgender bathroom debate by threatening schools with loss of federal funding unless they allow students to join the sex-segregated restroom, locker room, and sports teams of their chosen gender, without regard to biological reality.

His action comes after weeks of protests against the state of North Carolina for its so-called anti-LGBT bathroom bill.

As someone who underwent surgery from male to female and lived as a female for eight years before returning to living as a man, I know firsthand what it’s like to be a transgender person—and how misguided it is to think one can change gender through hormones and surgery.

And I know that theNorth Carolina bill and others like it are not anti-LGBT.

L” is for lesbian. The bill is not anti-lesbian because lesbians have no desire to enter a stinky men’s restroom. Lesbians will use the women’s room without a second thought. So the law is not anti-L.

G” is for gay. Gay men have no interest in using women’s bathrooms. So the law is not anti-G.

B” is for bi-sexual. The “B” in the LGBT have never been confused about their gender. Theirs is also a sexual preference only that doesn’t affect choice of restroom or locker room.

T” is for transgender. The “T” identifies a person who has undergone hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery, and legally changes the gender marker on his or her birth certificate.

The North Carolina law is not anti-T because the law clearly states that the appropriate restroom is the one that corresponds to the gender stated on the birth certificate. Therefore, a transgender person with a birth certificate that reads “female” uses the female restroom, even if the gender noted at birth was male.

So, you see, the law is not anti-LGBT. What then is all the uproar about?

What has arisen is a new breed emerging among young people that falls outside the purview of the LGBT: the gender nonconformists.

Gender nonconformists, who constitute a miniscule fraction of society, want to be allowed to designate gender on a fluid basis, based on their feelings at the moment.

I call this group “gender defiant” because they protest against the definition of fixed gender identities of male and female. The gender defiant individuals are not like traditional transgender or transsexual persons who struggle with gender dysphoria and want hormone therapy, hormone blockers, and eventually, reassignment surgery. The gender defiant group doesn’t want to conform, comply, or identify with traditional gender norms of male and female. They want to have gender fluidity, flowing freely from one gender to another, by the hour or day, as they feel like it.

Under the cover of the LGBT, the anti-gender faction and its supporters are using the North Carolina bathroom bill to light a fuse to blow up factual gender definitions.

Obama is championing the insanity of eliminating the traditional definition of gender. He does not grasp the biological fact that genders are not fluid, but fixed: male and female.

Using the power of his position to influence the elimination of gender, overruling science, genetics, and biblical beliefs, is Obama’s display of political power.

One fact will remain, no matter how deep in the tank Obama goes for the gender nonconformists, genetics and God’s design of male and female, no matter how repugnant that is to some, cannot be changed. Biological gender remains fixed no matter how many cross-gender hormones are taken or cosmetic surgeries are performed. No law can change the genetic and biblical truth of God’s design. Using financial blackmail to achieve the elimination of gender will become Obama’s ugly legacy. (For more from the author of “A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Women Confront Hillary: ‘It’s About Rape, Stupid’

By Jerome R. Corsi. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, the New Hampshire state legislator who confronted Hillary Clinton in a town-hall rally in Derry, New Hampshire, during the state primary on Jan. 3, explained to WND in an exclusive telephone interview why she was so upset at reporters who defend Mrs. Clinton by suggesting she should not be blamed for her husband’s infidelity.

“This is about rape, not infidelity,” O’Brien insisted, explaining that at the Derry rally her goal was to confront Hillary about Juanita Broaddrick, a woman who went public in an interview with Dateline NBC that broadcast on Feb. 24, 1999, that Clinton had raped her decades earlier, in 1978, while Clinton was yet Arkansas attorney general.

The YouTube video of O’Brien’s encounter with Hillary at the Derry town-hall rally on Jan. 3 shows O’Brien standing to shout her question at Hillary as Hillary at first ignores her and then declares that she does not intend to call on O’Brien for a question, charging that O’Brien was being “very rude.”

“I asked myself what kind of a wife stays with a man who raped Juanita Broaddrick?” O’Brien asked.

In the YouTube clip, the CNN reporter interviewing O’Brien was clearly antagonistic, agreeing with Hillary that suggesting O’Brien was a Republican operative who only heckled Hillary to embarrass her politically. (Read more from “Women Confront Hillary: ‘It’s About Rape, Stupid'” HERE)

_______________________________________

Bill’s Sex-Assault Victim Lashes out Over Hillary’s Terrorizing

By Jerome R. Corsi. CNN reporter Chris Cuomo recently turned antagonistic in an interview with GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump for branding Hillary Clinton the “enabler” of her husband’s sexual crimes, prompting Kathleen Willey, a Clinton assault victim, to write an open letter to Cuomo.

The interview, broadcast Monday when Donald Trump phoned in to CNN’s “New Day” show, allowed Cuomo to confront Trump over his statements that Hillary Clinton enabled her husband’s sexual crimes by concealing the details, intimidating or harassing the other party, and more.

“[People see this] as potential proof that you don’t have anything to offer as president. What is your thinking on this line of attack?” he asked.

“Well, this is a nice way to start off the interview,” Trump responded, turning the table on Cuomo. “You should congratulate me for having won the race. I thought, you know, there’d at least be some small congratulations. But I’m not surprised with CNN because that’s the way they treat Trump. They call it ‘The Clinton Network.’” (Read more from “Bill’s Sex-Assault Victim Lashes out Over Hillary’s Terrorizing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Candidate

Forget everything you think you know about Joe Miller. There’s no doubt that he has an elite educational pedigree, honorable military record, and unimpeachable legal and judicial background; and there’s also no doubt that mistakes were made along the way during the 2010 campaign. But the chatter coming from left-wing media and some local talk radio about what a “deeply flawed candidate” or “shady character” Joe Miller was makes apparent that they had no clue what they were talking about. Most were parroting the “conventional wisdom” of ruling class pundits, and some were “just making things up.” The narrative created and spun by Joe’s opponents and their eager accomplices in the media would bear no resemblance to reality. The foil played out before our eyes was nothing more or less than the Establishment’s hack job on the Tea Party-backed Republican Nominee for the US Senate from Alaska, a performance that I’m sure would have done Tonya Harding proud. What transpired was a first-rate political “knee capping.” It was pure unadulterated political theater. And without a doubt, it was nefarious.

In a post-election conversation, our Attorney Tom Van Flein would lament the injustice of the smearing of a good man. I agreed. But what we both found equally disturbing was what this successful character assassination might portend for future candidates, and whether it would cause men and women of good faith to abandon public service.

On a late February day in 2011, I sat across the table from some of my compatriots at the Village Inn on Northern Lights Boulevard in Anchorage. We were still grappling with what had happened in the 2010 Senate race. Having all worked closely with Joe, we felt like we knew him quite well. So I decided to pose a question, “Campaign rhetoric aside,” I said, “how would you describe Joe Miller to someone who didn’t know him?” Without hesitation, Dirk Moffatt brought up the Fairbanks North Star Borough computer incident. It was the worst thing they had on Joe. He had been castigated during the campaign for it, but Dirk thought it revealed something more telling about the man’s character, something positive. To a fair person who knew the facts, it was the only blemish on Joe’s public record that bordered on legitimacy. He had, in fact, used several borough computers during the lunch hour one day to vote in an online poll relating to Republican Party politics, on his own personal website. But having said that it was a real violation of borough policy to engage in a political exercise, and of professional ethics to access a co-worker’s computer, one also had to admit that however inappropriate and sophomoric the stunt had been, it was anything but the serious crime it had been portrayed to be in the media. Suggesting that it was anything more than a minor peccadillo was not only unfair, it was tantamount to bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.

The more serious side of the offense had been his denial to co-worker’s that he had used their computers, and not being forthright about what it was that he was up to. We got it; it was embarrassing. But what we also knew, that the public didn’t, and our professional handlers didn’t want us talking about, was the rest of the story. It had been conveniently left out. Joe had not been forced into a confession at all, as some had reported. About ten minutes after his initial denial, and a brief phone conversation about the scenario with his father in Kansas, who was a former member of the clergy, he came clean on his own because he feared that one of his co-workers might be punished for his “crime.” He would later write to Rene Broker, his boss at the borough, “I acknowledge that my access to others’ computers was wrong, participating in the poll was wrong, lying was wrong, and there is absolutely no excuse for any of it.” Broker noted that she believed that the incident was indicative of “an isolated event,” not a pattern of behavior.

Joe apparently felt so bad about what he had done that he voluntarily proffered his resignation. After recounting the incident, Dirk laughed. “The guy’s a boy scout,” he said. “Who does that?” The Borough hadn’t judged it a serious enough offense to fire him, and wouldn’t accept his resignation. Even if that is all the information one was privy to, it seemed to me that it begged the question, how serious could it have possibly been?

As I pondered the whole incident, a story from ecclesiastical history resurfaced into my consciousness. It was of the 16th Century English Reformer Thomas Cranmer, who had fraudulently signed a denial of his true beliefs in the presence of his captors to avoid being burned at the stake. Only later did he recant his recantation. As the story is told, when he eventually faced the fire, he would convince a guard to leave the hand that signed the fraudulent document free so it could be the first to burn for its offenses. For this and other things, he became a hero and martyr to The Church of England.

I’m not suggesting Joe Miller is a saint, or a martyr. Neither am I justifying what he did. I’m merely pointing out that committing a sin may make a man a sinner, but it does not necessarily make him a villain. We all make mistakes. The measure of a man is not whether he makes mistakes, but what he does with the mistakes that he has made. In my view, Joe Miller had passed with flying colors.

During the waning days of the campaign, the Borough affair seemed to be a cloud of doubt hanging over us. Folks were left with the impression that somehow, this one incident was the final commentary on Joe’s life; a rather strange assumption in light of our cultural credo, “judge not.”

There’s no doubt that we should have won anyway. The strategy employed in the general election was a loser from the start, as I was wont to point out early and often, though it fell upon deaf ears. But I’m still stuck with the nagging thought that everything may yet have been different had folks actually known the Joe Miller that his family and friends knew.

I recall Kathleen Miller, Joe’s wife, telling me how she and Joe met. As a newly single mother, fresh out of a messy and abusive relationship, she placed an ad in a local Kansas newspaper in an attempt to get rid of one of her dogs, a golden retriever named Maverick. She was going to live with her mother, and it just wasn’t possible to keep both of her dogs. Having received several calls, but reluctant to say goodbye to her canine friend, she deferred a decision on the adoption. But before she could act, Maverick was hit by a car and would need extensive surgery to fuse one of her legs. It would be weeks before Maverick would walk again, and afterwards she always walked with a limp.

Some weeks later, upon his return from the Gulf War, Joe happened upon Kathleen’s ad in an old newspaper someone had left in the barracks at Ft. Riley. He called to inquire whether she still had the dog. She explained that she did, but that Maverick had been badly injured. She would be permanently affected by the accident. Joe assured her that it didn’t matter, he wanted the dog anyway. Kathleen agreed to give Maverick up for adoption.

Fortuitously, she had forgotten something though – the papers. Joe later called back for Maverick’s papers, and when he arrived to pick them up, they struck up a conversation. Joe offered to take Kathleen and her two toddlers out for pizza and a trip to the local Dairy Queen. Thus began a friendship that would go the distance.

It was moving to hear Kathleen tell of Joe’s interest her little family and their situation, in spite of the fact that he had a number of other romantic options that might have been more suitable for an unattached West Point graduate fresh home from the war. But Joe was undeterred by the extra responsibility. He would accept her children as his own, and the rest, as they say, is history. They now have a total of eight children and it is apparent that their family bonds are a source of strength for them.

One of the frustrations of his political handlers was getting Joe to project his inner warmth. He’s not a good poseur, and his public persona is sometimes a little cold. That would often lead critics to conclude that he was arrogant, aloof, or perhaps self-important.

During one photo shoot for an ad, his youngest daughter would interrupt the shoot by running into the middle of everything and jumping into her daddy’s arms. He lit up. And the videographer stopped. Campaign Chair Bernadette Wilson lamented that we didn’t get it on video. That’s exactly what we needed from Joe, but couldn’t get in the sterile atmosphere of a studio shoot.

We did a pretty good job of conveying Joe’s resume but a deplorable job of giving folks insight into Joe Miller the man. There is so much more to him. The public portrait that most folks had could not have comprehended the family man; the man of faith who served on the board of elders at his church; the public servant who had taken a pay cut to move into government; the avid outdoorsman who made spending time out in the wilderness with his boys a priority; the altruist who crossed the ocean to help take medical assistance to the Third World; the many hours of pro bono work given up for folks with legal troubles who had no money to pay; the innovative Magistrate who formed the State’s first Therapeutic Court; or the young lawyer who frequented the Downtown Anchorage Soup Kitchen to assist the homeless on lunch breaks and days off at the firm. That Joe Miller, the public knew nothing of and the media didn’t talk about.

If such things had been part of his opponent’s record, I suspect the media would be lobbying the Pope for canonization of their favorite Statist. After all, The Anchorage Daily News all but beautified her for having flunked the bar exam four times, something that would make any conservative unfit for the United States Senate.

Joe had grown up “dirt poor” and had a real empathy for those less fortunate than himself. His desire to serve had earlier taken him to West Point, and later induced him to leave the private practice of law to serve in a public capacity for significantly less money. But none of that mattered. For many liberals, serving in government is much to be preferred over private enterprise anyway, and is therefore not seen as sacrifice. And we all know that private charity is a non-starter for those who view government as divine.

I still remember the financial disclosures coming back on Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden during the 2008 Presidential race. I can’t tell you how it chapped me to hear their sanctimonious lectures to the American people about sacrifice, when the record revealed that they had contributed only a pittance to charity. The spectacle of two rich cats preaching moral do-goodism when they had each given less than I had on a salary of less than forty thousand dollars was just too much for me. Similarly, the media assumed that Joe Miller was just a mean and hypocritical ogre when he suggested the government would have to rein in spending on social programs, and reform the ones that weren’t solvent, just to keep the government from going bankrupt. To them, it was proof positive that the man was a misanthrope. Never mind the facts.

For some reason it seems to never have dawned on these people that giving a dollar to one’s neighbor in need might be more productive than the Federal Government taking that same dollar, withholding a percentage for administrative costs, then passing it on to State and Local governments to do the same, only to wind up back on the neighbor’s doorstep as forty cents. And it is indeed a queer anthropology that insists that men are inherently good, but cannot be counted on to care for their neighbors. The same people would look down their noses at those of us who still believe in the Judeo-Christian philosophy, which affirms that man is fallen, as somehow backward – even though we affirm that there is a capacity for goodness in human beings sufficient that, more times than not, they’ll do the right thing without government intervention.

It wasn’t like the kid from small-town Kansas who ate soy beans when he was growing up, just to have enough protein, was unacquainted with the plight of the poor. He understood poverty. But he also knew there were pressing issues facing the country; potential circumstances that don’t portend good things for the very people the big spenders profess to want to help.

With a sovereign debt crisis looming on the horizon, it was just common sense to suggest that programs would have to be cut. Nothing has changed. The fact remains that the future does not bode well for the poorest among us if Washington doesn’t exercise a little bit of self-control. Spending cuts are inevitable. The question before us is whether those necessary cuts will come in a time and manner of our own choosing, or whether we will be forced into a situation where there are few, if any, good choices. The fact that the FY11 budget included a record deficit of $1.65 trillion and a $137 billion increase in discretionary spending and Congress has yet to pass a viable FY12 budget tends to leave one with the impression that Washington still doesn’t get it.

During the campaign, Joe had taken a lot of abuse over his signing of a pledge not to ask for earmarks that didn’t go through an extensive vetting process. His insistence that the gig was up on earmarks seemed to be offensive to some folks, in spite of the fact that he was spot on. It didn’t matter to the crony capitalists that Joe Miller happened to be telling the truth; they would attack him for it just because they didn’t want to hear it. It was a puerile game. Lisa Murkowski was at the front of the line of bashers, falsely promising to bring home the bacon for Alaska. It may have been a desperate and disingenuous ploy, but it would be her calling card for the general election, despite the fact that she had just spent several months trying to sell Republicans on the fact that she was a conservative fighting to rein in federal spending.

Ironically, a few short months after the election, Murkowski began singing Joe Miller’s tune, telling Alaskans that they would have to learn to live without earmarks. Joe Miller predicted at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce debate in 2010 that it didn’t matter who was elected, it was simply a matter of fact that “the era of earmarks is dead.” Now that the US House, Senate Republicans, and President Obama have all agreed to swear off earmarks, and Governor Parnell has stated publicly that he won’t be asking for any, Senator Murkowski has finally shown up to the party. And not a single word from the media about the whole phony affair.

I will not soon forget Murkowski’s indignation at the suggestion that she wasn’t a “real Republican.” She spent the primary election denying, and trying to sidestep, the fact that she had taken more than 300 votes on the Senate floor against the majority in her own party. At a Fairbanks meeting in April she went so far as to suggest that they had perhaps been committee votes, or overwhelmingly bipartisan measures. Not true. In the general election she bragged of having crossed the aisle more than 300 times to vote for bipartisan measures, embraced traditional Democrat constituencies, hired Democrat strategists, appointed prominent State Democrats to key positions in her campaign, embraced Obama’s mantras (“Yes we can!” and “Let’s make history!”), and openly pandered to the Democratic base.

Joe Miller was prescient. He saw right through Murkowski, and she knew it. I suspect that’s why she harbors such hatred for him. As Joe predicted, she would go on to vote with the Obama Administration on every major piece of his lame duck agenda, the only Republican in the United States Senate to do so. And if Obama is able to fully recover from his 2010 humbling and win re-election in 2012, Murkowski will surely bear a heavy weight of responsibility for his political resurgence.

In the end, I suspect Joe Miller will be proved right on a whole host of issues, including 8(a) Reform and Obamacare. Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) has proposed legislation in the United States Senate to reform significant portions of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program for minority preference. And in spite of the fact that Murkowski was forced to take a symbolic vote for repeal of Obamacare, there were signs that she had already began to cave by February 2011 when she openly criticized her colleagues’ repeal vote as a “waste of time.” Then in early March 2011 she declined to sign on to a Republican letter asking the President to withdraw his recess appointment of Don Berwick as CMS Administrator. Berwick is an outspoken critic of free market health care solutions, and a strong advocate for single payer European-style government-run health care.

Lisa Murkowski may have “made” history, but Joe Miller was on the right side of history. In the end, human experience has a way of crushing our illusions and purifying our perspectives. The truth always prevails, and I suspect it will vindicate Joe Miller.

TEST POST

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque eleifend diam urna, eget porta dui tempus at. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras venenatis lacus sit amet elit gravida gravida. Nullam eget finibus nisl. Ut sed iaculis massa. Curabitur laoreet tortor non justo tristique, eget posuere nibh cursus. Nunc at venenatis nulla. Maecenas tincidunt risus elit, eget iaculis magna lobortis viverra. Morbi sit amet magna tortor.

Vivamus aliquet quis orci eget euismod. Suspendisse convallis est et est lobortis, non porttitor nisl imperdiet. Aliquam ut lectus quis nibh vestibulum congue. Curabitur fermentum vitae eros at fringilla. Ut convallis nisl vitae ornare aliquam. Praesent scelerisque fermentum dolor, vel malesuada urna lobortis id. Pellentesque ut est porta, tempor tellus vel, tempor lorem. Proin et justo sit amet sem molestie mollis. In mollis, erat eget pulvinar dapibus, erat elit iaculis felis, vitae mollis tortor enim vitae dui. Etiam eu lacus quis nibh feugiat tempus. Ut vel aliquet erat, sit amet finibus sapien.

Curabitur eget justo ac quam viverra elementum vel id mauris. Nulla mattis massa vel lacinia elementum. Morbi nec justo ut mi commodo commodo. Donec consequat dictum justo varius gravida. Nam tellus sem, venenatis sit amet gravida vel, consectetur eget tortor. Integer a leo elit. Proin consequat urna dolor. Donec rutrum dui et lacus placerat consectetur. Mauris ut elit molestie, posuere erat vitae, condimentum tortor. Nunc id tellus sodales, condimentum lorem vitae, accumsan erat. Aenean nec eleifend justo, ac convallis nisl. Phasellus eu velit vel nisi gravida faucibus. Vivamus bibendum tellus nec rhoncus volutpat. Sed ac enim vel massa rutrum pulvinar eget eu est. Phasellus non magna quis mi vehicula finibus eget vitae risus.