New Marine Corps Ad on Women in Combat Sparks Heated PC Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Marine Corps’ first-ever recruitment video showing a woman in combat quickly devolved into a spat about political correctness after it was posted to Facebook.

The recruitment commercial, called “Battle Up,” shows a young girl confronting bullies, playing rugby and then evolving into a Marine later in life, at which point she leads other Marines and engages in a firefight through an ambush. The final scene shows her helping the homeless. Marine Capt. Erin Demochko, who served in Afghanistan, played the woman.

The video has already racked up almost half a million views after being posted to the Marine Corps’ official Facebook page Friday.

Almost as soon as the commercial appeared on Facebook, conversation devolved into a spat about political correctness. The first comment by Facebook user Chris Clark reads: “had to be a chick…tired of all this political correct bull****…. now let all the man haters come out of the woodwork…”

Immediately, the Marine Corps page responded and said: “That’s not a “chick”, Chris. You’re watching a Marine.” (Read more from “New Marine Corps Ad on Women in Combat Sparks Heated PC Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberals Boo God and Natural Rights at GOP Town Hall

/0 Comments/in , , /by

At a rambunctious town hall in his district, Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., ran into something he probably never expected to see in his district: voters booing the concept of fundamental, God-given rights.

“As a seminary graduate, do you believe in the separation of church and state?” the questioner began. “Would it be acceptable for you for churches to support specific candidates?”

The question was in reference to the Johnson Amendment, which President Trump recently gutted somewhat with his lackluster order on religious liberty.

“Absolutely,” Brat initially answered, cautioning that he was asked “a loaded question.”

“It’s in the Constituiton. They got it pretty good,” Brat said amidst the crows of hecklers.

“The politics shouldn’t establish any religion, right?” Brat added, to a response of claps and cheers. “But you should all, under the First Amendment, have the free expression thereof.”

But he took the argument deeper, asking an enthusiastic audience if they wanted a “total separation of state,” and cautioning that he did not think such an arrangement would be a good thing.

“Some of you have said that health care is a right,” the congressman explained. “And in the Western tradition, rights come from God. The role of government is to protect those rights.”

The hecklers responded with a chorus of sustained boos.

The question and its response came during a Tuesday night event – his first since the House’s most-recent health care vote – and was attended by hundreds, and fraught with jeers.

In an op-ed published the day after, the Richmond-Times Dispatch’s editorial board lauded the congressman for attempting to engage in civil discourse while excoriating the crowd’s “astonishing rudeness.”

“People have every right to rage at their congressmen, their president, or anybody else they care to,” the board stated. “After a while, though, the emotional vomiting gets old … when did banging on a high chair with a spoon ever lead to a solution?

(The below clip shows most of the townhall with Rep. Brat:)

Brat’s answer about rights was not wrong, of course. This republic was founded by men of different faiths who had a common understanding that their rights came from a transcendent, pre-political source, and established a system of government to ensure that these inalienable rights would be protected, rather than metered out by kings and demagogues.

Our denominationally neutral Declaration of Independence reflects this, appealing to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” as the font from which our fundamental liberties and inherent equality spring.

Apparently, the concept of rights coming from God – or civil discourse in general – just wasn’t what Rep. Brat’s constituents showed up to hear that night. (For more from the author of “Liberals Boo God and Natural Rights at GOP Town Hall” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Vaccine Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Have Significantly Less Health Problems

/0 Comments/in , /by

In this video, Vin Armani explains the trade-off with vaccines. Like any pharmaceutical they have side effects. A brand new study on homeschoolers shows unvaccinated children have significantly less health problems as vaccinated children. Is the small chance that your child gets measles or mumps worth a lifetime of hay fever or asthma?

(For more from the author of “New Vaccine Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Have Significantly Less Health Problems” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former NSA Director James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee this week about the unmasking of surveillance on Trump and his associates. It was part of a congressional investigation into whether Russia interfered in the election. Democrats claim the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election.

The questioning focused heavily on Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor. Flynn was forced to resign after the unmasking revealed he had lied to the vice president about a conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Media coverage of the testimony is focusing on the fact that Trump did not act right away to remove Flynn. But that is only a small part of what was revealed. More importantly, Clapper and Yates did not provide any evidence of collusion with Russia. They also revealed more evidence of the surveillance of Trump’s team.

Unmasking

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked several piercing questions. He asked the two if they reviewed classified documents where Trump or his associates had been “unmasked.” The identities of Americans taped talking to a foreign official are “masked,” unless a request to unmask them is approved.

Clapper and Yates both responded yes, but refused to provide details.

Grassley asked them if they had any evidence that Trump or his associates colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election. Clapper responded no. Yates refused to answer. She added, perhaps tellingly, “Just because I say I can’t answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes.”

Next, Grassley asked, “Did you request the unmasking of Trump, his associates or any members of Congress?” Clapper said yes, but would not disclose any details. Yates said no.

Grassley asked the pair if they know how details of Yates’ conversations were leaked to The Washington Post. They both denied being the source.

Should Michael Flynn Have Been Fired Earlier?

Yates testified that she warned Trump’s White House counsel Donald McGahn about Flynn almost three weeks before Flynn was forced to resign. He was “compromised by the Russians” and “could be blackmailed,” she said.

Surveillance recorded a conversation Flynn had with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak on December 29 about recent U.S. sanctions against Russia. When Vice President Mike Pence asked Flynn about it, Flynn denied discussing the sanctions.

The lie, not the conversation, reportedly led to his resignation. Members of a presidential transition team frequently speak with foreign officials. Yates refused to name what of Flynn’s behavior she thought illegal.

Flynn didn’t resign until 18 days after Yates warned Trump. However, Reince Priebus, Trump’s Chief of Staff, explained on CBS’s Face the Nation in February that the White House legal department “said they didn’t see anything wrong with what was actually said.” When Yates told McGahn about Flynn, he told her that the White House was concerned that taking action might interfere with the FBI probe.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Flynn was forced to resign due to a “trust issue,” not a legal issue. The White House became aware of the lie on Friday, February 10. Flynn was asked to resign the next business day, on Monday, February 13.

Former President Barack Obama told Trump two days after the election not to hire Flynn. In 2014, Obama fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn worked on Trump’s presidential campaign and had been considered as a running mate. Spicer dismissed the warning as “sour grapes” from a “sore loser.”

Was Surveillance Really Just Part of ‘Incidental Collection?’

When Yates was asked whether Flynn was unmasked due to “incidental collection,” she declined to answer. Nor would she reveal whether anyone had asked to unmask Flynn. She said answering the question would reveal classified information.

Members of Trump’s transition team were reportedly caught in surveillance of foreign officials. Trump maintains that he was subject to surveillance. The Obama administration insists it was routine surveillance of Russians, who happened to be speaking with Trump and his associates.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has asked the House Intelligence Committee to disclose whether the Obama administration conducted surveillance on him or other members of Congress. He said an anonymous source told him it occurred. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, was caught in a lie about unmasking Trump or his associates. At first she denied having any role in unmasking. After evidence emerged showing otherwise, she admitted she requested unmasking. She has refused to testify before Congress.

Republicans also questioned Yates about her refusal to enforce Trump’s travel ban. Yates was fired after refusing to enforce the ban. Judicial Watch is suing for Yates’ emails. (For more from the author of “Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The left-wing media site Salon posted an article with the headline blaring: “Donald Trump doesn’t like the ‘archaic’ Constitution: ‘It’s really a bad thing for the country.’” Other liberal sites said the same thing. It was the classic gotcha article: The man who says he’s a conservative wants to trash the Constitution! Haha, say the liberals.

The only problem: he didn’t say that.

What Trump Didn’t Say, and What He Did

Salon did the easiest thing possible — took phrases out of Trump’s Fox News interview. In fact, the interview posted with the article contradicts it.

One hint that the liberal press misquoted the president? The word “constitution” doesn’t even appear in the interview. Not even once.

So what was Trump talking about? Fox News’s Martha MacCallum asks him about his political philosophy. Trump responds that he’s “not really an ideologue.” He’s “a person of common sense.” He gets things done, he says. “I understand what has to be done, I get things done I’ve always been a closer. We don’t have a lot of closers in politics and I understand why.”

Then comes the quote that the mainstream media jumped on. “It’s a very rough system, it’s an archaic system,” he says. The Constitution? No. He continues:

You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House. The rules of the Senate, some of the things you have to go through. It’s really a bad thing for the country. In my opinion, they are archaic rules. Maybe, at some point, we’re going to have to take those rules on. For the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions.

What’s He Upset About?

Does Trump reject the Constitution in the interview? No, he never even mentions it. What’s he upset about? The rules of Congress, especially the Senate. He thinks those rules are “archaic.”

Trump may be flustered working with Congress, but he hasn’t deserted our system of checks and balances to become a dictator.

The fake news piece had 17,500 Facebook shares at the time this article went to publication. There has been no retraction or correction. Will Google push it down in search results? Will Facebook flag it as fake news? Probably not. (For more from the author of “Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 1986, the San Diego Border Patrol sector accounted for approximately one-third of all apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border. Today, it accounts for only a small fraction.

How did the region go from one of the busiest sectors for illegal border crossings to one of the most secure? In our latest edition of “Underreported,” The Daily Signal visits the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego to find out.

(For more from the author of “Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Do Artificial Wombs Mean for Humanity and Our Pre-Born?

/0 Comments/in , /by

In case you missed it: Scientists at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have developed an “artificial womb” in which eight pre-born lambs were able to grow and develop to maturity, in what looks like a system of tubes and bags filled blood and fluid that mimics a fully-functional uterus.

According to a story at The Verge:

Over four weeks, [the lambs’] lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.

But what are we ever to make of such a development? There are two sides to this coin.

Of course the bioethical implications of this development are stark, at least at first blush. Images of children born completely independent of parents, a la “Brave New World” or “Gattaca,” and all the wicked, dehumanizing baggage that comes with such a scenario immediately spring to mind.

Perhaps the clearest warning against the creation of a fully artificial womb comes from one of its proponents, feminist theorist Shulamith Firestone, in her 1970 manifesto “The Dialectic of Sex,” which promotes the “freeing of women from the tyranny of their reproductive biology by every means available, and the diffusion of the childbearing and childrearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women.”

We’ve heard watered-down versions of this dehumanizing creed for ages now, in the promotion of the killing of the unborn. The next stop on this train would be fully stripping out the role of mothers for the sake of “equality.”

Certainly, in contrast to the systematic murder of the unborn that our society engages in, this doesn’t seem so bad, but taking humanity out of the human-making process comes with its own set of problems.

However, such a reality is far off, according to Dr. Alan Flake, fetal surgeon and the lead author of the study on the device.

“It’s complete science fiction,” he says in the Verge story, “to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there.”

It would seem that even in a world of three-parent embryos and the widespread disintegration of the family, our reach hasn’t exceeded our biological reality too much for now.

Rather, the bag’s success would seem to present the hope of a brighter future for children born prematurely and their families, pushing back the ever-changing line of outside-the-womb viability to dates in pregnancy earlier than ever before. The eventual hope of the device is that it would be used to help children born prematurely. Premature birth is still the leading cause of death for children under five worldwide, according to the World Health Organization, with rates increasing as recently as November.

But a real bombshell of a benefit came in an NPR interview of a bioethicist about what this could mean for the life-vs.-abortion debate in the United States.

“Up to now, we’ve been either born or not born. This would be halfway born, or something like that. Think about that in terms of our abortion politics,” she says.

What a peculiar thought. Imagine if that line were blurred. Just imagine if, like the 4D ultrasound, such a method drove home to the general public what so many pro-lifers already know to be true: that children are human, regardless of their geographic relation to their mothers or the state of their umbilical cords.

Yes, think of a politics where the acolytes of the abortion industry could no longer hide behind their proffered delusions that a pre-born child is “just a clump of cells,” or at least would be thought absolutely delusional beyond a shadow of a doubt for doing so.

In their comprehensive history “Abortion and the Pro-Life Movement: An Inside View,” Dr. and Mrs. John C. Willke outline how scientific discoveries that preceded Roe v. Wade by centuries actually led to pro-life protections for the unborn in the old world. In the opening chapters of the book, the couple hash out how the development of such things as the microscope led people to realize that life was present at the moment of conception, and laws surrounding when “quickening” of an infant supposedly happened were changed to reflect that reality.

Likewise here, there lies the potential for scientific discovery to impose upon us an even more truthful understanding of where human life begins and what that entails.

Of course, this technology could be used for bad ends. Techology always can be. There is indeed always the danger that technology will outpace our maturity to use it. Just look at what things like cars, smartphones, video games, and the internet have done to minds, families, and communities who were not cautious about what their use would mean for humanity. We have seen advances in convenience, but we have also seen things like the decline of reading and family time, the loss of the walkable community, and the proliferation of internet pornography, each with its own devastating effects.

But these are cautions, not injunctions. As shown above, technology is merely a means that can be used for either good or bad, and so — could an artificial womb.

Certainly, if we’re reckless with the potential outcomes of this development, a Huxleyan future could indeed result, and history has shown us again and again that we definitely must learn to be more careful with technology. But that is no reason to let concern overshadow the hope that innovation brings with it, especially for our most vulnerable.

The best that could come from a device blurring the lines between born and pre-born is that it might force all of us to realize that what our abortion politics have been really doing all these years: blurring the line between human and inhuman.

(For more from the author of “What Do Artificial Wombs Mean for Humanity and Our Pre-Born?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been filled with outrageous moments in the mainstream media. Some of those moments will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and some will infuriate you. Here are six of the hottest of hot-take fails, outrageous comparisons, outright fabrications, and more from Trump’s first 100 days.

1. LET’S START AT THE BEGINNING, ON INAUGURAL DAY AND NIGHT

LIfeZette had a great compilation of media meltdowns on inauguration day: Matt Lauer being afraid that Trump fans would physically harm Hillary Clinton, Salon saying that Trump was going to “victimize his own voters,” and more. But perhaps my favorite is Paul Krugman, the smarmy New York Times economic columnist, who just needed a safe space.

Inaugural day kicked off the insanity. It really hasn’t ended.

2. TRUMP SIGNS HIS NAME LIKE A NAZI WAR CRIMINAL

Surely this can’t be true, you must be saying to yourself. There is no way that any respected journalism outfit would waste either paper or internet bandwidth with a story like that. Well, you’d be wrong. The Boston Globe published an “ideas” piece that basically asked if you “should care” that Trump signs his name like a Nazi.

Some experts — graphologists, people who have been trained to examine handwriting for markers of personality — were no less harsh. “His signature is this barbed-wire thing that’s into power and control and rigidity,” said Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience in this small field. “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.” As in Heinrich Himmler, head of Adolf Hitler’s SS and the man who established the first official concentration camp at Dachau.

But they totally made it OK by asking if you “should care.”

3. TRUMP’S KIDS ARE JUST THE SAME AS THE HUSSEIN WAR CRIMINAL DUO

If you guessed that this one would involve MSNBC, you’d be right. Almost lost in an orgy of Leftist spin were these two jewels by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Here’s Rachel – jump to 3:40 in this video.

We have never thought of us as a country where Uday and Qusay [Hussein] get to be ministers of whatever they want, right?

You might think that was obnoxious but was all of it, until you hear Matthews from the week before.

That’s right, because the Trump kids and family follow a long tradition of family members working in a presidential administration, they should be compared to murderous thugs like Uday and Qusay Hussein, the sons of Saddam Hussein.

4. DONALD TRUMP IS CAUSING THE NATION TO LOSE PRECIOUS SLEEP

Here’s another golden one. Lisa Belkin, the “chief national correspondent” for Yahoo News, decided back in March that a think piece on Trump as national bogeyman would be a fun time. She described a dystopian present where Americans were tossing and turning, all because of Trump.

She even went full Nazi Germany, casting the heroes of the piece:

Last night I dreamed we were hiding people in our basement,” says Allentown, Pa., physician Jenni Levy. “Not sure what they were hiding from.”

It continued …

I’m worried about the ‘Anne Franks‘ of Syria, Somalia, Yemen,” says tech industry employee Amanda Silver, who is literally sleepless in Seattle, her hometown.

“I am afraid the democratic process is under attack by a nationalist, far-right, authoritarian leader,” says Lori Rivere Rodrig, who teaches math at a New Jersey high school.

Boo!

5. NOT JUST TRUMP BUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TOO

It was pretty hard to find dirt on the Boy Scout and Trump SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. But that didn’t stop NPR and a whole host of other organizations from trying. Here’s an original headline for a gotcha piece on Gorsuch.

The story went on to describe a class discussion about employment law that, quite simply, did not happen. Here’s the NPR story. After a rush to publish, without disclosing the conflicts of the source, NPR and other organizations were forced to clarify the story. It ended up not that bad for Gorsuch. Here’s the editors’ note from NPR.

Editors’ note Monday, 12:55 p.m. ET: Since this story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk’s political affiliations. On Tuesday, Gorsuch disputed the allegation himself during his confirmation hearing and explained the lesson he intended to teach.

What were Sisk, the accuser’s, political affiliations?

Sisk, once a staffer for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and the Interior Department during the Obama administration, told NPR that she wrote the letter “so that the proper questions could be asked during his confirmation hearings,” which begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yeah, the allegations came from a professional Democratic operative, and until called out on it, NPR didn’t disclose it.

6. RACHEL MADDOW CHANNELS AL CAPONE’S VAULT

If you were alive during the 1980s, chances are you remember the hype from a not-yet-famous Geraldo Rivera surrounding the unveiling of Al Capone’s secret vault. It was a live prime-time event. Except it was an empty room behind a wall.

Maddow wanted a similar moment all to herself. So she hyped that she had Donald Trump’s tax returns. Except, well, she didn’t. Here, let Greg Gutfeld explain.

That’s right, she had one year’s returns, that Trump probably sent her anonymously himself, that showed he paid a higher tax percentage than almost every president who has released his returns.

Maddow was rightly excoriated for the remarks. Even Geraldo got in on the fun, in a hilarious bit of self-deprecating humor.

Those are just six of hundreds of media moments. Do you remember any others? Tweet me @robeno to let me know of your favorite meltdown. I may cover it in a future article or Facebook live. (For more from the author of “Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Market for Baby Body Parts Is Growing: New Video of Planned Parenthood Exec

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood has trafficked in human organs. We know that they don’t merely “donate tissue” but negotiate the sale of baby body parts.

Just ask Mary Gatter, the Planned Parenthood doctor who once joked that she “wanted a Lamborghini” while haggling over the price of a dead baby’s organs.

Dr. Gatter is the Medical Directors’ Council President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She isn’t a fringe figure in the world of abortion providers — she’s the leading light. And she has a starring role in a new undercover video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

If you thought maybe Dr. Gatter’s previous video simply showed her on a bad day, check out this new footage.

Dr. Gatter is as eager as ever to talk price points and “specimens” with a tissue buyer she has just met at a conference. She cuts right to the chase. Identifying herself in her role with the clinic at Planned Parenthood of Pasadena, she asks:

“What kind of volume do you need, and what gestational ages?” Her eye gleams as she raises an eyebrow to the tissue buyer. She explains that she “did it in L.A., I’m committed to it. I think it’s a great idea… you have to pay a little money for use of the space, but we’re not greedy about that.”

For use of the space is weasel-speak used by abortion profiteers. It means blood money, and it’s very different from a shared rental agreement. When the prospective buyer asks about what she’d expect “in terms of compensation,” Gatter explains the numbers: “Per specimen, like $75 a specimen, or $50 a specimen?”

The buyer explains that he’s been quoting $50. Gatter is quick to correct him on the current state of the fetal tissue market.

“Fifty is on the low end. Fifty was, like, twelve years ago.”

If this were a nominal fee for the use of space at the clinic, the numbers would be about time and square footage, not volume and gestational age. But this is about the market for baby body parts, which has been around for more than a decade. And in that time it’s seen 50% growth.

No wonder Planned Parenthood was so willing to discuss these transactions with a potential buyer.

Gatter has a lot of experience to share. She “believes in it,” after all. As the Medical Director for PPLA, she oversaw their partnership with Novogenix Laboratories, a local for-profit fetal organ and tissue harvesting company. In the video, she tells her potential buyer about her relationship with Novogenix and how they went up to 24 weeks at PPLA and a “lovely tech” regularly visited two of their sites to harvest fetal organs.

From CMP:

According to contracts and invoices, the real-life fetal organ and tissue wholesaler companies Novogenix, StemExpress, and Advanced Bioscience Resources all made monthly payments to Planned Parenthood based on the number of resalable fetal specimens the wholesalers’ workers could harvest inside the abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood told Congressional investigators it kept no contemporaneous records of actual costs for reimbursement under the law.

The Novogenix contract promises Planned Parenthood Los Angeles $45 “per donated specimen.” Planned Parenthood Los Angeles does over 15,000 abortions every year, but has never publicly admitted how much money they received total under their contract with Novogenix. In December 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel both referred Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and Novogenix to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice for further investigation and criminal prosecution.

CMP project lead David Daleiden notes, “The fact that Novogenix, StemExpress, and ABR stationed their own workers inside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics to perform the harvesting, packaging, and transport of aborted baby body parts demonstrates that Planned Parenthood had no reimbursable costs under the law. The volume-based sums that Planned Parenthood charged these businesses for baby parts are criminal trafficking and profiteering in fetal body parts. The U.S. Department of Justice should take heed of the Congressional investigations’ criminal referrals and prosecute Planned Parenthood to the full extent of the law, and taxpayers must stop being forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood’s criminal abortion empire.”

If you want to watch the unedited, full video clip, the Center for Medical Progress made that available here. (For more from the author of “The Market for Baby Body Parts Is Growing: New Video of Planned Parenthood Exec” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Pentagon Has a ‘Ghost Soldiers’ Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

Since 2002, billions of U.S. tax dollars have been spent rebuilding Afghanistan after decades of war. A big chunk of that money pays Afghan soldiers and police. But it turns out a lot of those troops may not, in fact, exist. We investigate how your tax money is being wasted on “ghost soldiers.”

Here’s my interview with John Sopko, who is the inspector general watching over the U.S. taxpayer billions spent to rebuild Afghanistan.

Sharyl Attkisson: When you say “ghosts,” what are you referring to?

John Sopko: What we’re talking about are policemen, Afghan policemen, Afghan military, Afghan civil servants who don’t exist or they have multiple identity cards and we’re paying their salaries. By “we” I mean the United States and the international community…

For years, multiple audits have shown there’s no way to prove that the money we send for salaries is going to a real live body. And the payroll numbers just don’t add up. For example, Sopko says, in June 2016 the supposed number of Afghan military and police was 319,595. But an Afghan official told the Associated Press “the best internal estimate” of the real number was “around 120,000.”

Attkisson: This implies fraud, obviously.

Sopko: Absolutely. Major fraud. And what’s happening is the commanders or generals or other higher officials are actually pocketing the salaries of the ghosts. And I remember President [Ashraf] Ghani, again, at that time he wasn’t president, saying, “John, you, the United States government, are paying the salary of an Afghan who’s a teacher, he’s a civil servant, he’s a doctor, he is a policeman, and he’s a soldier. And it’s the same Afghan. And he doesn’t exist.”

Attkisson: What kind of money are we talking about?

Sopko: Hundreds of millions of dollars, we’re talking about, that may be lost.

Attkisson: In multiple letters and audits, Sopko has taken the Pentagon, which manages the money, to task stating, “Persistent reports raise questions regarding whether the U.S. government is taking adequate steps to prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on so-called ‘ghost soldiers.’” And he says the “ghost” phenomenon extends beyond Afghan and security paychecks to other forms of aid.

Sopko: It’s not just the salaries. We’re funding schools based on the number of students, so if you invent or inflate the number of students, you’re going to be paying more money. On the soldiers and police, we’re paying for extra boots, food for everything else and logistics for numbers that don’t exist.

Attkisson: Is there any way to tell who’s taking the money?

Sopko: It’s difficult because of the security situation. It’s really up to the Afghans or designing systems for the Afghans to implement.

The Pentagon is implementing a new system of biometrics in Afghanistan, using fingerprints, photos, and blood type. It recently said up to 95 percent of Afghan police and 70 to 80 percent of soldiers are now enrolled. The idea is to dispense with old ghosts, and ensure proof of life among a faraway force funded by U.S. taxpayers. The Pentagon expects to complete its person-by-person verification of Afghan’s army and police in July. (For more from the author of “The Pentagon Has a ‘Ghost Soldiers’ Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.