Poll: Donald Trump Still in the Lead After Debates

Donald-Trump-in-his-YouTu-012By Shawna Thomas and John Lapinski. If Donald Trump’s comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly are hurting his standing in the Republican primary, it’s not showing in the numbers.

According to the latest NBC News Online Poll conducted by SurveyMonkey, Trump is at the top of the list of GOP candidates that Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for if the primary were being held right now.

The overnight poll was conducted for 24 hours from Friday evening into Saturday. During that period, Donald Trump stayed in the headlines due to his negative comments about Kelly and was dis-invited from a major conservative gathering in Atlanta.

None of that stopped Trump from coming in at the top of the poll with 23 percent. Sen. Ted Cruz was next on the list with 13 percent.

During the Fox News debate Thursday evening, Trump was the only Republican candidate to say he would not rule out a run as an independent candidate. According to this poll, that’s just fine with over half of his supporters. 54% of Trump supporters said they would vote for him for president, even if he didn’t win the GOP nomination. About one in five Trump supporters said they would switch and support the eventual Republican candidate. (Read more from “Poll: Donald Trump Still in the Lead After Debates” HERE)


GOP Leaders Say Erratic Attacks Hurt Trump, but He Vows to Fight and Win

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa. Republican leaders who have watched Donald Trump’s summer surge with alarm now believe that his presidential candidacy has been contained and may begin to collapse because of his repeated attacks on a Fox News Channel star and his refusal to pledge his loyalty to the eventual GOP nominee.

Fearful that the billionaire’s inflammatory rhetoric has inflicted serious damage to the GOP brand, party leaders hope to pivot away from the Trump sideshow and toward a more serious discussion among a deep field of governors, senators and other candidates.

They acknowledge that Trump’s unique megaphone and the passion of his supporters make any calculation about his candidacy risky. After all, he has been presumed dead before: Three weeks ago, he prompted establishment outrage by belittling the Vietnam war service of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), only to prove, by climbing higher in the polls, that the laws of political gravity did not apply to him.

Still, Trump’s erratic performance during and after the first Republican presidential debate last week sparked a backlash throughout the party Saturday and a reassessment of his front-running bid. The final straw for many was Trump’s comment on CNN late Friday that Fox moderator Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), a fellow candidate, said Trump was jeopardizing the GOP’s chances of winning back the White House and urged party leaders to stop “tiptoeing” around him. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Imposes Devastating Climate Change Controls on US Power Plants

Photo Credit: Breitbart Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.

In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.

Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.

The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.

The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. (Read more about Obama’s devastating climate change controls HERE)

Obama’s Flight to Africa Cost – By Itself – Almost $6 Million!

President Obama’s five-day trip to Africa cost taxpayers more than $5 million in flight time alone for Air Force One, according to a study released Tuesday.

The National Taxpayers Union said Mr. Obama is spending about 29 hours of flight time on the trip that began Thursday, taking him to Kenya and Ethiopia. Operating Air Force One costs $206,337 per flight hour, for a total of $5,983,773.

The total cost of the trip will easily reach into tens of millions of dollars. In the summer of 2013, Mr. Obama took his family on a weeklong trip to sub-Saharan Africa that was estimated to cost taxpayers between $60 million and $100 million.

On that earlier trip, the Secret Service’s hotel costs alone totaled $953,788, or about $136,255 per day.

The president is returning to Washington early Wednesday, after a refueling stop in Germany. (Read more from “Obama’s Flight to Africa Tops $5 Million: Study” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama and Valerie Jarrett Deserve a ‘Dishonorable Discharge’ for Failing to Respect the Chattanooga Victims

Last week proved to be another dark blemish in the history of the United States with the brutal murders of four U.S. Marines and a sailor serving in the U.S. Navy allegedly at the hands of another “lone wolf” who apparently carried out the edicts of Islamic State terrorism on American soil against our military.

How long will this administration continue to shrug off the acts of terrorism and the threats to the security of the U.S. without calling it what it really is, namely radical Islamic State terrorism?

Despite having had our security level raised earlier this year because of an “increased and predictable threat of terrorism” against our military and law enforcement, the military remained defenseless and five of their men inside two Chattanooga, Tennessee recruiting centers paid the ultimate price.

“We have a general concern, obviously, that ISIL is focusing on the uniformed military and law enforcement,” Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director James Comey told reporters in May.

An order upgrading the threat level was signed by Adm. William Gortney, who heads the U.S. Northern Command overseeing all U.S. military installations in the continental U.S. His order applied to National Guard facilities, recruiting stations and health clinics, according to a Pentagon official.

“We have the same concern about the potential threat posed by violent homegrown extremists,” Capt. Jeff Davis, spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command said earlier this year.

And yet, knowing that there was sufficient evidence to raise the threat level and that homegrown terrorist threats were also possible, the commander in chief did not issue an order to arm our military. Instead, our military men and women serving this country became target practice for any wayward “lone wolf” or other terrorist attack.

Decisions seemingly made out of political correctness rather than reason cost five military men their lives. That’s a failing grade in my book.

If politicians who serve this country could be dishonorably discharged like those in the military who fail the American people by their morally unacceptable choices then this administration would be facing those charges, as well.

Clearly, the high threat level established by the FBI and the issuance of the order by Gortney were ignored.

Were there other questionable measures that were taken by President Barack Obama and members of his administration following the massacre of our military in Chattanooga that deserve “dishonorable” mention?

A statement was released by Obama shortly after the killings of the four U.S. Marines by a suspect who self-identified as a Muslim and who was also suspected of possibly being a homegrown extremist.

Obama’s statement extended the “warmest” wishes from himself and Michelle to Muslims celebrating the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr, a Muslim holiday marking the end of Ramadan. The month is reportedly the most violent month of the year in the Islamic world, when Muslims renew their devotion to Allah and where violent jihad is a supreme act of devotion to Allah.

Obama went on to say in his celebratory statement that it was “a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs,” while knowing that there was a real possibility that the servicemen had been killed at the Chattanooga recruiting centers as a result of the gunman’s radical religious beliefs.

Obama concluded by saying that he and Michelle hoped that “today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubaraki!”

While Obama had previously commented that the murders of the service members were “heartbreaking” and condemned the killings, the timing of the release of the statement so soon after the tragedy, while expressing his hope of “joy” for those celebrating Eid, showed extremely poor judgment.

Additionally, the Senior Advisor to Obama, Valerie Jarrett was busy taking selfies with celebrities and posting them on Twitter within hours of the Chattanooga tragedy. Those on Twitter blasted her for her insensitivity and lack of respect. Morally unacceptable behavior on a day of mourning for the nation?

Not to be outdone, Obama topped off his day by taking in a Broadway show and fundraiser. Who hasn’t done that following a death in the family or in this case our military family? Would it be too much to expect a leader to lead the nation in mourning? If it were possible, would this be considered morally unacceptable behavior that would be worthy of a dishonorable discharge?

And then, as if to finally reflect on the loss to America and their families, Obama announced that he was going away this past weekend for some “personal time.” There was probably no time for self-reflection, however, because the weekend in New York City included a secret Democratic National Committee fundraiser as well.

Never letting a moment go to waste following a tragedy, this was Obama’s second time attending a fundraiser following a tragic event that struck this nation.

As you may recall, Obama’s decision to attend a fundraiser the day after the massacre in Benghazi was questioned by critics for its “appropriateness.” Dishonorable discharge worthy or acceptable behavior for the leader of the free world?

Finally, as if there had not been enough evidence of thoughtless decisions made following the loss of life in Chattanooga, Obama failed to order all U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff.

While his senior advisor can arrange for the White House to be lit with colorful rainbow lights and the owners of the Empire State building can display green lights for the celebration of Eid, Obama couldn’t take the time to issue the order to show respect for the loss of life.

While the president can issue an executive order to fly the U.S. flag at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the U.S. government and others as a mark of respect to their memory, apparently such details were overlooked.

All in all, following the tragic deaths of our military at the hands of a possible radical Islamic State extremist who carried out the tenets of radical terrorism, the actions of this administration, while not subject to a dishonorable discharge, have been appalling and morally unacceptable to those in America who value our military and the freedoms that they protect.

Those that lost their lives, their families and the American public in general deserve better from a sitting president and his or her administration.

May God bless the U.S. military men and women who honorably serve to protect our freedoms every day and may God bless those who lost their lives in Chattanooga while honorably doing the same. (Posted with permission of the author, “Obama and Valerie Jarrett Deserve a ‘Dishonorable Discharge’ for Failing to Respect the Chattanooga Victims”, originally appearing HERE)

Listen to a recent interview with the author on The Joe Miller Show:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gay Activists Put up Version of Iwo Jima Photo; ‘Jennifer Aniston’ Posts a Bold Response

The Battle of Iwo Jima was a pivotal battle in World War II when U.S. Marines won the weeks-long assault to capture the strategically key spot in the Pacific island archipelago. Almost 6,000 Marines and Navy corpsmen died and 17,000 were wounded.

The victory was sealed with the iconic raising of the American flag on Mt. Suribachi:

In recent years, there has been an image floating around the internet which was found on a Facebook page that claims to be actress Jennifer Aniston, but is not a verified account . . .

[The post reads:]

“Now… I have nothing against people who are into same sex partnerships. However what I do have a problem with is this F**KING picture. How dare you compare your political struggle to what the Marines & Navy Corpsman went through on Iwo Jima. I get the whole meaning of you winning the “Uphill Battle” but this is tasteless, offensive, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives on that hill. You should be ashamed of yourselves for being hypocritical of those you claim offend your flag.”

(Read more from “Gay Activists Put up Version of Iwo Jima Photo; ‘Jennifer Aniston’ Posts a Bold Response” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chief Justice Roberts Moves Court Closer to Tyranny with SCOTUScare Decision: Laws No Longer Mean What They Say

Photo Credit: Washington Times In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama his second major win on his signature health care law, upholding nationwide tax subsidies for millions of Americans.

Chief Justice John Roberts, again siding with the court’s liberal wing, said in the majority opinion that Obamacare allows for residents of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges to still receive subsidies to pay for their health coverage.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote.

Section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says customers should receive subsidies through an exchange “established by a state,” leaving the Supreme Court to decide how literal those words are: whether tax credits are restricted to customers in state-run exchanges, or if the federally run marketplace counts as well.

The plaintiffs had contended that the legislative language clearly means that tax subsidies to buy health insurance may only be available to states that established their own health exchanges, excluding residents in 37 states that didn’t set up an Obamcare marketplace, while the Obama administration argued the language broadly meant that all exchanges were eligible for federal tax subsidies. (Read more from “Chief Justice Roberts Leads Court Toward Tyranny in SCOTUScare Decision” HERE)



Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt that “Exchange established by the State” means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government”?

Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that refer to the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting the Court’s interpretation means nullifying the term “by the State” not just once, but again and again throughout the Act. . . It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times?

The Court claims that the Act must equate federal and state establishment of Exchanges . . . Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the “interests of graduate students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has “graduate students,” so that “graduate students” must really mean “graduate or undergraduate students”? Surely not. Just as one naturally reads instructions about graduate students to be inapplicable to the extent a particular professor has no such students, so too would one naturally read instructions about qualified individuals to be inapplicable to the extent a particular Exchange has no such individuals.

The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means. . .For its next defense of the indefensible, the Court turns to the Affordable Care Act’s design and purposes. . .

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).

Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” Ante, at 14–15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

Economic Experts: The World is Drowning in Debt, Growing “Out of Control”

By Szu Ping Chan. The world is sinking under too much debt and an ageing global population means countries’ debt piles are in danger of growing out of control, the European chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management has warned.

Andrew Wilson, head of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), said growing debt piles around the world posed one of the biggest threats to the global economy.

“There is too much debt and this represents a risk to economies. Consequently, there is a clear need to generate growth to work that debt off but, as demographics change, new ways of thinking at a policy level are required to do this,” he said.

“The demographics in most major economies – including the US, in Europe and Japan – are a major issue – and present us with the question of how we are going to pay down the huge debt burden. With life expectancy increasing rapidly, we no longer have the young, working populations required to sustain a debt-driven economic model in the same way as we’ve managed to do in the past.” (Read more from this story about the world drowning in debt HERE)


Banks Fear Worldwide Recession With no Means to Avoid It

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. The world economy is disturbingly close to stall speed. The United Nations has cut its global growth forecast for this year to 2.8pc, the latest of the multinational bodies to retreat.

We are not yet in the danger zone but this pace is only slightly above the 2.5pc rate that used to be regarded as a recession for the international system as a whole.

It leaves a thin safety buffer against any economic shock – most potently if China abandons its crawling dollar peg and resorts to ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies, transmitting a further deflationary shock across the global economy.

The longer this soggy patch drags on, the greater the risk that the six-year old global recovery will sputter out. While expansions do not die of old age, they do become more vulnerable to all kinds of pathologies.

A sweep of historic data by Warwick University found compelling evidence that economies are more likely to stall as they age, what is known as “positive duration dependence”. The business cycle becomes stretched. Inventories build up and companies defer spending, tipping over at a certain point into a self-feeding downturn. (Read more from this story HERE)

Vietnam Hero: America’s Pathetic Leaders aren’t Worthy of Our Soldiers’ Sacrifices

Photo Credit: WNDNavy Capt. Eugene “Red” McDaniel said it’s been some time since he “reached a point where I decided the leadership isn’t worthy of the sacrifices people are making for it.”

The establishment in Washington has been entrenched in a number of issues concerning the military of late, including trying to defend the huge losses in territory in the Middle East now being taken over by ISIS.

Much of that land had been bought with the blood of U.S. and coalition military members over the years of fighting tyrants and trying to establish a society based on freedom and rights.

The current administration’s focus on the military has seemed to be more on installing open homosexuality in the ranks and allowing women into tip-of-the-spear ground combat operations. . .

McDaniel isn’t alone in his brutal analysis of the current American leadership. Richard Botkin, a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and author of “Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph,” told WND, “I whole-heartedly agree that the current leadership is unworthy of the men and women they supposedly lead.” (Read more from this story on America’s Pathetic Leaders HERE)

Education Expert: Government Schools Warring on Christianity, Deliberately Dumbing Down Students

Photo Credit: NewscomGovernment schools are warring on Christianity and real education, warns an education expert and one of America’s most influential Christian authors.

Pastor Carl Gallups and educator and author Alex Newman charge there is a deliberate and unified agenda to dumb down U.S. school children and remove Christianity from schools and public life. And both of them place most of the blame at the feet of John Dewey, the godfather of America’s progressive education system. . .

“It is absolutely clear at this point that the militant secular agenda and the Big Government agenda are actually one and the same,” [Newman stated]. “Real Christians have no need for big government. They generally have strong family, work ethic, community, and so on, in addition to high moral standards that should preclude bad behavior.”

Newman added, “But those promoting big government’s so-called solutions understand that a moral people with supreme allegiance to God are infinitely harder to oppress and control with government. Plus, the utopians pushing socialism and secularism know that as long as Americans are loyal to God above everything else, government will never be able to occupy that coveted place in people’s hearts, minds and souls.”

[Gallups also noted,] “We’ve raised up generations of these children who believe they are nothing but souped-up gorillas who think life is an accident, who can’t read well, who don’t possess deductive reasoning, and who can’t think critically. There is a massive, deliberate dumbing down because our public education system was built with the agenda of creating worker bees, not citizens,” he said. . .

“It is going to get a lot worse if Americans do not rise up and put a stop to this lunacy. As long as there exist well-educated, critical thinkers who were raised outside of the indoctrination system, there will always be that little boy to point out that the emperor actually has no clothes. This is why we are seeing the accelerating assault on educational freedom.” (Read more about government schools warring on Christianity HERE)

Iraqi forces, civilians flee as ISIS gains control of Ramadi

Fear of a possible Islamic State bloodbath sent tens of thousands of Iraqis fleeing Ramadi on Monday after government forces abandoned the city — just 80 miles from Baghdad — in what one U.S. military official conceded was a fight “pretty much over.”

Some 25,000 people have fled the embattled streets of Ramadi as thousands of ISIS fighters seized the key Iraqi city, killing some 500, and reportedly going door-to-door looking for Iraqi government troops and police to run out of town.

“There have been executions in the streets of Ramadi,” Muhannad Haimour, a spokesman for the Anbar provincial government, told NBC News Monday. ISIS extremists used vehicles, bulldozers rigged with explosives and suicide bombers to overrun the city after weeks of battles in the street. . .

Although there were a large number of Iraqi security forces occupying Ramadi, most troops fled after ISIS fighters began their assault on the city center Sunday, leaving behind Humvees and armored vehicles supplied by the U.S. military, a separate senior U.S. military official told Fox News.

“The Iraqi security forces were pushed out by a much smaller [ISIS] force,” the official said. (Read more from “ISIS gains control of Ramadi” HERE)