Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Imagine that some splinter Christian sect existed that preached a sneering contempt for women, sex slavery, hatred for Jews, death to non-believers (and homosexuals), child-marriage, religious conquest, segregation and gross religious discrimination, and the legitimacy of lying whenever it suited the church’s purposes. Imagine that it had been practicing all these evils since shortly after its founding, and had left mountains of corpses on three continents — complete with burned libraries, looted cities and ruined civilizations.

Do you think that secular leftists would spend their time and energy making excuses for such a church? Would they fight like wildcats to admit millions of its followers into Western lands? Or would they boycott any country where it predominated as they did racist South Africa? Would they subject its American followers to ruthless surveillance and government harassment, as the Clinton administration did the Branch Davidians? Would they send the FBI to fill its ranks with helpful informers, as the government did to the white-nationalist Christian Identity “churches”?

The question answers itself.

People whose minds work in linear fashion draw from all this the conclusion that leftists concerned with equality, social justice, and personal freedom would strongly oppose orthodox Islam and rethink their attitude toward Islamic immigration if only they knew the facts. Clearly these well-meaning people just haven’t been informed about the teachings of orthodox Islam and the track record of its faithful followers. So it’s our job to share those facts.

So far so good. We have the duty to do just that. Marshal those Quranic suras, those authoritative haditha, and cite abundant examples of atrocities which those canonical texts have directly inspired. Recount the recent sermons of highly placed widely respected Muslim religious authorities who approve recent attacks of terrorism or gross religious violence.

But don’t get your hopes up.

Far too many leftists have built insuperable barriers to that information, and nothing — literally nothing — you say or do could convince them. While knowledge may be power, the human will is stronger. We are richly capable of denying the facts in front of our faces if they go against where our guts want to lead us.

That raises another, more interesting question: Why would leftists who are outraged, say, that the Catholic church won’t ordain women or that Southern Baptists won’t celebrate same-sex weddings, give a pass to a faith that endorses child polygamy and executes homosexuals? What’s in it for them?

As the author of a book on the Seven Deadly Sins, let me step in here and tell you. I’ll taxonomize the motives of pro-Muslim progressives according to each of those classic human motives. Perhaps not every progressive who’s in denial about Islam is in the grip of Deadly Sins. But I’ll wager that most of them are driven by one or more of the following:

Lust

Plenty of progressive men first adopted their views as a mating strategy. And indeed, spouting feminist rhetoric probably did help them in the bedroom. But this easy intimacy filled their lives with a series of thin-skinned, self-righteous women with an unsleeping vigilance for the slightest trace of “patriarchy.” Perhaps, on a deep, subconscious level, such men can’t help admiring bearded foreigners with harems who don’t have to pay this price for pleasure.

Gluttony

This might seem too trivial to make much of a difference, but you’d be shocked at how many progressives form their immigration policies around the crucial issue of access to ethnic restaurants. It’s not just food, of course. People who hunger to see themselves and be seen as sophisticated and cosmopolitan also want access to hookah-pipe cafes, funky foreign clothes and “exotic” neighborhoods where they can dip into alien cultures — but of course, would never live. Other progressives hunger for approval, and look for a cost-free way to gain it, by siding with supposedly “oppressed” groups like Palestinians, or radical Muslims forced out of countries by secular governments.

Wrath

Too many progressives nurse a deep, insatiable hatred for the Christian and Western past, and also for those of us in the present who are loyal to such things as church, nation or Western civilization. These people don’t so much think as feel that if a roadside Pentecostalist church in Oregon is allowed to abstain from gay weddings without swift and certain punishment, within five years the Spanish Inquisition will be burning witches on Wall Street. Or something. As I said, they don’t sweat the details.

Greed

For the past 30 years, no one has been kept off a TV network or failed to get tenure because he was too friendly to exotic, foreign cultures, or too hostile to Western ones. Even Fox News won’t air the most candid critics of Islam. Those critics have to resort to online TV shows (some of which are excellent, by the way, like The Glazov Gang).

Sloth

It’s so much easier to follow the narrative that makes you comfortable, pumped out by elites whom you have decided to trust, than to ferret out facts that are only likely to ruin your day. And anyway, what can you do? What will happen will happen, and trying to push back against overpowering forces of history is exhausting. What’s the point?

Vainglory

Nothing is lower prestige in our culture today than being a narrow-minded bigot — which is how everyone who matters sees people who criticize other cultures. It suggests that you haven’t traveled to foreign countries, attended elite academies, or mixed with the best kind of people. You might as well just put on a Trump hat, drive a red pickup truck to a NASCAR rally, and stand there listening to Nash-Trash while drinking Budweiser (non-ironically). Please.

Envy

If there’s one worldview that’s predicated on frustrating natural human drives and diverting them into strange, unnatural byways, it’s progressivism. You’re expected to prosper while loathing capitalism, raise boys to play with dolls and girls to play with guns, and compete for social status while battling for equality. Muslims don’t have to fake any of that. Their faith is nothing if not candid: It’s about joining the winning team, with God on its side, which will gladly use force and fraud to make sure it comes out on top — in this life and the next one. Its ethics could have been crafted by bands of Vikings or a cabal of adolescent boys. What fun we would have, some progressives may imagine, if they could only swallow Islam. Most can’t. But they can take vicarious pleasure in seeing it in action, and in watching the Christians squirm. Delicious. (For more from the author of “Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It was hard to pick only three of the worst lies from Barack Obama’s speech today, but we did it.

LIE ONE

Remember when Barack Obama said Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans, that was right before women and children became suicide bombers. He’s still saying it and it’s patently untrue.

The Breitbart London editor picked up this massive lie by Barack Obama. He actually lied to the UN with statistics that directly contradict those of the UN. He’s lied to them before. Take the lie about the video causing the Benghazi “protest”.

LIE TWO

Globalist Obama just plain lied about poverty in the U.S.

During his speech, the president said, “Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.”

It’s an absolutely provable lie. Poverty Levels Under Barack Obama SKYROCKET To 50-Year Record High, as The Washington Times reported,

LIE THREE

Obama thinks he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis. He’s made it worse. Look at how much the Iranians respect us now – constantly harassing our ships. We sure taught them.

His opening paragraph was a massive lie but my favorite was him saying he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis with diplomacy.

“From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.”

The Iranian nuclear deal guarantees Iran will have the bomb and he sent them billions in wire transfers to help them proliferate and lied about it. How is that strengthening the nonproliferation regime?

Barack Obama doesn’t believe in the United States or any sovereign nation, he believes in globalism. He wants to redistribute our wealth throughout the world and the other nations will readily take it but if he thinks dictators will give up their little fiefdoms, he’s truly insane.

The entire speech proves he lives in an alternative universe. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The mainstream media has been breathlessly running headlines like this one from The Chicago Times, “Trump signed improper charity check supporting Florida attorney general,” alleging that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bribed Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (another Republican) in order to avoid prosecution. For three years now, zealous reporters have tried to find a smoking gun revealing impropriety in Trump’s campaign donation.

Now The New York Times says there’s almost certainly no smoking gun to find.

A Matter of Days

The US Supreme Court recently held in the landmark public corruption case, McDonnell v. U.S., that bribery requires that the person giving the donation get something for it. According to the Federal Code (18 U.S. Code § 201), not only must something of value have been offered to a public official, but it must be shown to have influenced that public official’s behavior for the contributor’s benefit.

The train of events began when several attorneys general filed complaints against Trump a few years ago, claiming that he fraudulently marketed Trump University’s real estate and wealth-building seminars. On September 13, 2013, a Florida newspaper published the story that Bondi’s office was investigating Trump and might join the other attorneys general in a suit.

Four days after that, Bondi’s PAC received $25,000 from Trump. (Several months later, Trump threw a $3,000 a plate fundraiser for her at Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and she’s become a prominent supporter.)

Complaints were filed with local authorities and the FBI’s public corruption unit alleging bribery to stop Bondi’s office from investigating him too. But after Bondi’s office released 8,000 documents in response to a public records request, even The New York Times admitted that the check had been written and signed four days before the story broke in the media that Bondi’s office was considering investigating Trump University.

Additionally, the Times reports about Trump’s donations in Florida that “he has contributed at least $375,000 to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own.” Bondi said she personally solicited the donation from Trump, who had already contributed $500 to her campaign in July.

The Times isn’t giving Trump a clean bill of health, however. The press had reported in 2010 that “the attorneys general of Florida and Texas had gotten complaints from Trump University students. “His contribution, therefore, could have been a pre-emptive investment to discourage Ms. Bondi from joining the New York case.”

No Evidence of Bribery

In the article , the Times said it could find no evidence in the released records that Bondi herself even was aware of the initial review being done by her office. This was not unusual. Most of the complaints came to her predecessor, who said he had not known about them, the Times reported, as did his two top deputies and others in the consumer protection division.

In fact, the chief of the consumer protection section wrote in an internal email in 2011 that the office was holding off on any investigation of Trump University. When Mark Hamilton, a lawyer in the consumer protection division, heard about the media outcry in 2013, he advised the office that any lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General against Trump University would apply to Floridians, so there was no need for the Florida AG to duplicate the work.

Now, Trump did make a mistake in writing the check from his charitable organization, not his personal account, which he blamed on a staff clerical error, and reimbursed his charity with $25,000 in personal funds. He also paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS over the mistake.

Mac Stipanovich, who the Times describes as “a longtime Florida Republican strategist and lobbyist who disdains Mr. Trump and has never worked with Ms. Bondi,” observed, “The optics are terrible even though there is not a shred of evidence that Pam Bondi solicited a bribe or that Donald Trump provided one.”

Although the Times has (mostly) cleared Trump, most of the rest of the mainstream news outlets are still claiming he behaved improperly and they are exaggerating the seriousness of the check confusion. Fortunately for Trump, the top newspaper in the country, which is left-leaning, has told a different story. (For more from the author of “BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is George H.W. Bush Planning to Vote for Hillary Clinton?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former President George H.W. Bush, a veteran Republican, plans to cast his ballot for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Election Day, according to a daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

According to several reports, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, a Democrat, posted a photo to her private Facebook account Monday of her shaking hands with the former commander in chief, along with the caption, “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”

Bush, 92, has remained largely silent on the presidential election since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for president, beating his son, Jeb Bush, and several other competitors in a bruising primary battle.

In a phone interview with Politico, Townsend confirmed the report, telling the outlet she met with the elder Bush in Maine earlier Monday, where she said he revealed his choice for president.

“That’s what he said,” Townsend, who served as Maryland’s lieutenant governor for eight years, told Politico. (Read more from “Is George H.W. Bush Planning to Vote for Hillary Clinton?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Was the First ‘Birther’?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Donald Trump was wise not to take the advice of some of his staff and political allies by apologizing to Barack Obama for questioning his eligibility for the presidency and, yes, even whether he was born in the U.S.

Trump was hardly the first “birther.” Neither was I. Nor was my colleague Jerome Corsi. And neither was Hillary Clinton.

That honor belongs to one person and one person alone – Barack Obama.

Obama went to extreme lengths to conceal his past. And, indeed, if he was born in the U.S. and was eligible to serve as president, he certainly did his best to create the mystery that led to the question being asked.

Years earlier, he billed himself as having been born in Kenya. (Read more from “Who Was the First ‘Birther’?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference

/0 Comments/in , , /by

First lady Michelle Obama was present Friday at a Hillary Clinton campaign event, held at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., where she spoke to a group of college students.

After taking the stage, Obama said, “My family is almost at the end of our time in the White House.” This statment was met with groans, followed by shouts of “four more years.”

During Obama’s speech, she lauded her husband for his accomplishments and the decisions he has had to make while in office.

She also urged them to vote for Clinton, adding, “Being president isn’t anything like reality TV.”

“Hillary is one of the few people on this entire planet, and clearly the only person in this race that has any idea what this job entails,” Obama said. “Who has seen it from every angle, hear me, the staggering stakes, the brutal hours, the overwhelming stresses. And here’s the thing: She still wants to take it on.”

She suggested that Donald Trump’s actions throughout the campaign speak to how he would act should he win the election.

“A candidate is not going to suddenly change once they get into office. Just the opposite, in fact.” Obama said. “Because the minute that individual takes that oath, they are under the hottest, harshest light there is. And there is no way to hide who they really are. And at that point, it is too late.”

The first lady told the college students, “I hear folks saying they don’t feel inspired in this election. Well let me tell you, I disagree. I am inspired. Because for eight years, I’ve had the privilege to see what it takes to actually do this job, and here is what I absolutely know for sure. Listen to this: Right now we have an opportunity to elect one of the most qualified people who has ever endeavored to become president.”

The first lady told the crowd the president of the United States needed to be someone committed to taking the job seriously.

“We need someone who is steady and measured because when you’re making life or death, war and peace decisions, a president can’t just pop off,” she said, without mentioning Trump by name.

Praising Clinton, Obama told the crowd she has what it takes to be president.

“When she didn’t win the presidency in 2008, she didn’t throw in the towel. She once again answered the call to serve, keeping us safe as our secretary of state. And let me tell you, Hillary has the resilience that it takes to do this job.” Obama added, “See, because when she gets knocked down, she doesn’t complain or cry foul. No, she gets right back up and she comes back stronger for the people who need her the most.”

The first lady went on to say she has been inspired by Clinton’s “persistence and her consistency, by her heart and her guts.” (For more from the author of “First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Alaska GOP Officials Resign Rather Than Back Liberal Murkowski Over Libertarian Joe Miller

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Alaska Republican Central Committee voted over the weekend to remove one of its members due to his decision to back newly-minted Libertarian U.S. senate candidate Joe Miller instead of the state’s moderate GOP incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski, while other members chose to resign to support the insurgent candidacy.

As reported by Western Journalism, Miller was the 2010 GOP nominee who defeated Murkowski in perhaps the biggest upset in the 2010 federal election cycle, running as “Alaska’s True Conservative Choice.”

Then, as now, Murkowski had the most liberal voting record of any Republican up for re-election. During the last session of Congress, the senator voted with President Obama and the Democrats 72 percent of time, second only to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

As in 2010, incredulously Murkowski branded herself as a conservative (“The Conservative Voice For Alaska”) during this year’s Republican primary in which she faced no challenger with statewide name identification. She easily prevailed in an election with the lowest voter turnout in recent history.

The senator looked like she was on her way to an easy re-election in the red state until last week, when Miller accepted the Alaska Libertarian’s Party’s invitation to replace its candidate, who had chosen to end her bid.

Alaska GOP party chair Tuckerman Babcock knew Miller’s entry into the race was going to draw support from members of his party’s top leadership and called on any who wanted to back Miller to do the “honorable” thing and resign.

Dave Bronson, one of Anchorage’s district chairs, did not believe he should have to step down just because he wanted to support Miller — whose positions align with the state party’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-limited constitutional government platform — instead of getting behind a “Republican” senator whose votes do not.

Rather than resign, he put the issue up for vote at a central committee meeting last Saturday. Speaking before the body, he said “I am standing here before you because I am done with turning a blind eye to a Republican senator from Alaska who rejects our values and then expects our support every six years.”

Bronson, who serves as a board member of the Alaska Family Council, highlighted Murkowski’s claim to support traditional marriage during the 2010 election, then coming out not long afterwards in support of same-sex marriage. He also noted her vote to fund Planned Parenthood, even after the undercover videos revealed the organization was apparently guilty of selling aborted babies’ body parts.

He stated, based on Murkowski’s voting record and decision to run as an independent in 2010 against the Republican Party nominee, he does not doubt she would switch to being Democrat, if she calculated it would keep her in office.

“Disciplining me is the right thing to do,” Bronson conceded though wanting to keep his seat. “I openly supported that candidate for the US Senate who best reflected the principles of the Alaska Republican Party. It just happened to not be Lisa Murkowski.”

Reportedly, Bronson received hearty applause when he concluded his remarks from a significant portion of the audience with many rising to their feet to show their approval. However, the members of the Central Committee present voted 36 to 23 to remove him.”

Four other district chairs and one member of the Rules Committee, to date, chose to resign their positions to openly back Miller, while others reputedly plan to do so privately because they do not want to lose their seats.

Shannon Connelly of Palmer (about 40 miles north of Anchorage), who was vice president of the Mat-Su Valley Republican Women until this weekend and a district chair, is another who decided to step down. She told Alaska Public Radio that, in Miller, she has a candidate, “who is pro-life, which is a major thing for me,” adding, “I thought I can’t just sit back. I have to stand for what I believe in.”

The Alaska Right to Life endorsed Miller two days after he announced his candidacy.

In a release earlier this week, the group shot down the notion that Murkowski is “pro-life” as a campaign spokesman claimed and then was forced to walk back, noting Murkowsk received an 80 percent NARAL Pro-Choice America score in 2014, in contrast to most GOP senators (like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and even John McCain), who received a score of zero.

In an unprecedented move, the Alaska Republican Assembly (which has described itself as the Ronald Reagan wing of the GOP) endorsed Miller this week.

Like Connelly, Ron Johnson, a member of the assembly, chose to resign as a Mat-Su Valley district chair this past weekend to back Miller.

He told Western Journalism, “This allows me to work for a candidate that holds Republican values. I’m a Republican because of the party platform, not because of the party. Many of us are.”

Johnson explained one of the reasons he decided to run for district chair was in response to how the Republican party failed to get behind Miller’s candidacy in 2010 after he defeated Murkowski.

The senator waged a write-in campaign narrowly defeating Miller in a three-way race, 39 to 35 percent, with the Democrat garnering 23 percent of the vote. Between her and her father, a Murkowski has held the seat since 1981. This year’s contest pits four candidates against each other: Murkowski, Miller, a left-leaning independent, and a Democrat.

Amy Demboski, a district secretary in Anchorage, is supporting Miller. She said party Vice Chair Rick Whitbeck threatened to remove her until she pointed out the Alaska GOP rules specifically state that only those who hold district chair positions or above are prohibited from publicly supporting anyone other than the nominee.

“Like many Alaskans, I don’t do well with intimidation and threats,” she said, and the GOP leadership backed off.

Demboski, who is a radio talk show host in the Anchorage/Mat-Su Valley area and was the Republican nominee for mayor of the city last year, affirmed Johnson’s observation that the state party did not appear to back Miller in 2010. Further, it was her sense that then-chairman Randy Ruedrich and others in leadership actively worked against him behind the scenes, while supporting Murkowski.

Demboski could not help but note the irony of the GOP’s loyalty test for Murkowski in 2016 in light of 2010, and pointed out the senator’s co-chair in that race was current Democrat Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott.

“Nobody is talking about and the party is pretending it did not happen,” she said.

Miller enjoys the support of not only Demboski, who is Donald Trump’s co-chair in Alaska, but also Bill Keller of the Kenai Peninsula, who was Sen Ted Cruz’s co-chair (along with Demboski and others) during the Republican presidential primary. Cruz won the primary with 36 percent of the vote to Trump’s 33.5 percent.

Keller said people “have been really grumbling about Murkowski” since the 2010 race. Like other prominent GOP members in the Last Frontier backing Miller, he cites Murkowski’s liberal voting record as the main reason he will not support her.

Alaskans appear in for a spirited contest to see who will represent them in the U.S. senate in January. A district chair, who voted against Bronson’s removal, told Western Journalism that Miller’s entry in the race creates the rematch people have waited six years to see. (For more from the author of “Top Alaska GOP Officials Resign Rather Than Back Liberal Murkowski Over Libertarian Joe Miller” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2 More Docs Charge Coverup in Hillary Health Scandal

/0 Comments/in , , /by

With a significant number of top physicians expressing concern that the American people aren’t being told the truth about Hillary Clinton’s health, the Democratic Party nominee’s personal doctor is declaring she is fit to return to the campaign trail . . .

“My overall impression,” [Dr. Lisa Bardack] wrote,” is that Mrs. Clinton has remained healthy and has not developed new medical conditions this year other than a sinus and ear infection and her recently diagnosed pneumonia. She is recovering well with antibiotics and rest. She continues to remain healthy and fit to serve as president of the United States.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told WND the letter from Bardack “ignores all the pertinent questions” . . .

Dr. Lee Hieb, author of “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare,” took no time in expressing alarm.

“From a distance, without formal evaluation there are still three things I know for sure regarding Hillary Clinton’s medical condition: 1) She has a neurological disorder; 2) pneumonia did not cause the episode on 9/11; and 3) she and her staff have been lying to cover up the truth of her condition for months if not years.” (Read more from “2 More Docs Charge Coverup in Hillary Health Scandal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By all appearances, Republicans will suffer some serious losses in the upcoming election. The House may remain in GOP hands, but the Republican majority is expected to shrink. The Senate, on the other hand, is tilting towards Democratic control.

If the Republicans Party loses its majorities, the GOP’s ability to lead conservatives in Congress will have lasted a measly two years. During that time, they have accomplished little. However, the time for Republicans to adopt something — hell, anything — remotely conservative, is now. There are only a few opportunities available, but perhaps none is as important as the upcoming spending bill, known as the Continuing Resolution (CR).

In a matter of days, 2016 spending authorization will expire, and it will soon become evident whether Republicans are prepared to fight for conservative principles — or relent to Obama. Unfortunately, in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) has already expressed interest in caving to Democrat demands by passing a short-term CR into December. House conservatives, on the other hand, want to lock in conservative spending priorities for a longer term, or at least for the next nine months.

McConnell knows that this December represents a lame-duck session of Congress. Lame-duck sessions are dangerous times for Congress. As my former colleague, Andy Koenig, noted in the Wall Street Journal,

Dozens of lawmakers on Capitol Hill will retire after November’s election, some voluntarily, some not. But many of them, on both sides of the aisle, are demanding a last chance to pass their preferred policies – in a lame-duck session, this time without interference from pesky voters.

Yes, those pesky voters mean YOU. While we should be clinging to one last chance to sway conservative policy in the CR, we must simultaneously fear the speed at which McConnell is so ready to allow liberals the last word. Here’s what has us concerned.

More Spending

Lame-duck spending bills are synonymous with more spending.

During the 2012 lame duck, Congress passed the “fiscal cliff” budget deal, which increased spending by $47 billion. The same scenario played out the following December, in 2013. Republicans again relented to Democrat demands for additional spending, agreeing to reverse austerity measures passed in the Budget Control Act (a 2011 conservative bill that was designed to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over a decade). The 2013 lame-duck spending bill, however, increased spending for two years; a $45 billion increase for 2014 and an $18 billion increase for 2015.

There was more of the same this past December. Congressional Republicans agreed to increase spending by $80 billion; $50 billion of which was tacked on to this year; the other was designed for next year.

If Congress is consistent at all, it’s in their desire to increase spending during December; particularly during a lame duck. Senator McConnell’s interest in jamming through a spending bill during the lame duck indicates that we should expect more of the same.

Union Bailout

Last week, thousands of unionized coal miners from the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) protested around the U.S. Capitol. Their demonstrations were meant to pressure Congress into providing a bailout for their broken pension and healthcare system. Those miners, in particular, expect Congress to write a check for nearly $490 million — per year.

That amount will cover just a fraction of the short-fall each year. In total, the miners’ pension fund is short nearly six billion in promised benefits. And pleas from the unions are starting to find sympathy among politicians. In July, The USA today reported bipartisan support for Congressional action, especially from Ohio’s Senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (F, 11%) and Republican, Rob Portman, R-Ohio (F, 49%).

The dangerous precedent Congress will set by bailing out this one constituency could lead to one of the world’s largest bailouts. As I wrote last week, unions in total (not just miners) across America have underfunded pension funds totaling more than $600 billion. Furthermore, there are other private, non-unionized plans that need $760 billion in order to fulfill pension promises — or more than $1.3 trillion.

Will Congress offer bailouts for some Americans and not others? Unlikely. Therefore, December could be the start of a multi-trillion dollar pension bailouts.

Obamacare Bailout

Last Friday, the Obama Administration released a discreet memo to every health insurer effectively offering an additional Obamacare bailout. The bailout is related to Obamacare’s risk corridors, created to help insurance companies initially transition into the exchanges. Companies with large profits were asked to deposit part of those gains with the government in order to help other insurance companies that were operating at a loss.

As you can imagine, this plan only works if the insurance companies are actually making money. As Chris Jacobs writes at National Review, “As with most things Obamacare, risk corridors haven’t turned out quite like the administration promised. In 2014, insurers paid in a total of $362 million into the risk-corridor program – but requested $2.87 billion in disbursements.”

Without the necessary funds to bailout all the insurance companies, the Obama administration attempted instead to use taxpayer dollars — a move that turned out to be illegal. It was actually Congress, shockingly enough, that stepped in to prevent Obama from using any funds for this purpose.

Yet, sure enough, Obama found a loophole. The administration has since been sending public notices that insurers are permitted to sue the United States government. Yes, you read that right — “Please sue me.” That letter, sent out in November 2015, signified that all unpaid risk corridor charges were “an obligation of the United States Government for which full payment is required.”

Therefore, instead of complying with the Congressional prohibition on bailouts, the Obama administration has instead encouraged insurance companies to litigate their case before a court; a procedure that would allow the Obama administration to pay the insurance companies from another taxpayer fund, the Judgement Fund of the Treasury; a fund that is used to pay out claims against the U.S.

Absent any action from Congress, Republicans could end up bailing out Obamacare. By doing nothing, Obama will continue to pay-off the insurance companies through the Judgement Fund, blatantly ignoring the intention of Congress.

Previous spending bills have been used to stop Obamacare bailouts; in this instance, Congress can once again prohibit insurance companies receiving payment from the Judgement Fund.

In the end, Congress may proactively bailout out the insurance companies — or do nothing, and accomplish the same end. But just remember, the health care lobby is massive, not to mention wealthy — and there will be many members leaving Congress who would like new employment.

Unneeded Emergency Funding

Flooding and severe storms wreaked havoc on Louisiana last month. In total, 20 parishes were declared a major disaster; at least 60,000 homes were damaged. The governor of the state is expecting damages could exceed $8.4 billion. Of course, that is a preliminary estimate — and everyone is hoping the federal government will pick up the tab.

At first glance, there appears to be enough money in existing federal coffers to help Louisiana. According to Roll Call, FEMA’s emergency fund has $5.3 billion available in its Disaster Relief Fund, not to mention another $7.4 billion that was appropriated this year. In total, the federal government has more than $12 billion available, more than enough to assist Louisiana.

Yet, that isn’t stopping Republican members of Congress from asking for more! In fact, Republican Senators David Vitter, R-La. (D, 69%) and Bill Cassidy, R-La. (F, 50%) along with House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise, R-La. (D, 64%) and the rest of the Louisiana delegation, sent President Obama a letter requesting more emergency funding, “With Congress considering appropriation bills to fund the federal government, it is crucial that a Louisiana supplemental disaster funding component be included as part of the funding bill.”

Congress has long been known to use emergency funding as an excuse to increase spending, even when it’s not particularly needed. Might we see more of this in the lame duck?

Zika Funding

Controversy has surrounded Zika since early summer when the first confirmed cases showed up in Florida. In late June, Congress departed for a summer break without consensus on Zika funding. Despite the government having access to $590 million, left over from Ebola fuding, both parties want at least an additional $1 billion. Republicans requested $1.1 billion, while Democrats demanded $1.9 billion. However, Democrats want more than simply an extra $800 million – they wanted that additional cash to get funneled to Planned Parenthood. That request left the two parties in stalemate.

Until today, that is. According to press reports, it appears Mitch McConnell is willing to relent in order to get a deal done on Zika. That means that in addition to the $550 million the federal government already sends to Planned Parenthood, they may now qualify for more federal money — this, let me remind you, is under a Republican Congress.

To clarify, this agreement may get done before the new fiscal year. But if Republicans and Democrats can’t settle the Zika debate in its entirety — or if the virus gets any worse, we should all prepare to see this issue addressed further in the lame duck.

Conclusion

Republicans spent years working to regain the House, and fought even longer to recapture the Senate. The opportunities that Republican gained by taking control of Congress were endless. Yet few, if any, truly conservative goals were accomplished. Instead, this Republican moment will be remembered for higher spending, larger debts, and bigger deficits. They have one more chance to make a name for themselves — this time by avoiding a complete sell out during this year’s lame duck. (For more from the author of “5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sniper Takes out ISIS Executioner From a Mile Away

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.

The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.

The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.

The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner. (Read more from “Sniper Takes out ISIS Executioner From a Mile Away” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.