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.

FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can’t remember certain details on her emails and on many issues she remains evasive. On the other hand, for some observers, FBI director James Comey has clarified recent actions in regard to the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Comey released documents concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails on September 2, the afternoon before the Labor Day weekend, as Paul Ryan observed, the time when they were least likely to command attention. Comey defended the action and told reporters the FBI released the documents when they were ready. Those suggesting the FBI was being “political” or part of “some fix,” he wrote in a memo, “either don’t know us, or they are full of baloney (and maybe some of both).”

The FBI director also said that the decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and “there really wasn’t a prosecutable case.” Comey referred disparagingly to “all the chest-beating by people no longer in government.” That may be a reference to former Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano, who described the FBI interview with Clinton as “very troubling.”

Napolitano counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have the material it needed. “This is the FBI’s own fault,” Napolitano wrote. “This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials. Someone restrained the FBI.”

Further, “the FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them – particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.”

For the judge, “it is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI’s failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it.”

The FBI’s release of the document on the Friday before Labor Day did not escape media coverage. On the other hand, the old-line establishment media has been slow to recognize James Comey’s history with the Clintons.

As Christopher Andersen noted in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, after Bill Clinton left the White House, the goal was to get Hillary back in. The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that she discussed any pardon.

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson noted, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.” Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen found it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

Hillary’s cleanup hitter is stepping up to the plate again, according to Andrew Napolitano. By his count, Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t remember a full thirty-nine times. She claimed she used a single electronic device but she actually used thirteen. When Congress began requesting information, her staffers smashed the devices with a hammer and a critical laptop was supposedly lost in the mail.

For Napolitano, destruction of the thirteen Blackberries was “obstruction of justice,” but nobody was charged. The only explanation, as the judge sees it, is that FBI bosses “blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton.” (For more from the author of “FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Republican Party Chairman Calls For “Honorable” Conduct, Implies Senator Lisa Murkowski Dishonorable and Selfish

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Late last week, Alaska Republican Party Chairman Tuckerman Babcock sent out a memo to members of the State Central Committee urging those who intend to support Joe Miller for US Senate to resign.

At issue is the following party rule: “No appointed or elected Republican party officers shall promote or be engaged in any activity that promotes the candidacy of any person for partisan political office other than a Republican running on a Republican ticket.”

Babcock made his point no less than four times, stating in clear and unambiguous terms, “the honorable course is to resign your party office.”

At first glance, it all seems straightforward, but when one looks at the facts of the case it becomes more difficult.

Lisa Murkowski lost the 2010 Republican primary to Joe Miller, then proceeded to run against Republican nominee Joe Miller, all the while maintaining her seat on the Republican State Central Committee. She was never disciplined, never censured, and never vacated her seat.

Chairman Babcock went on to suggest that those who don’t voluntarily step down are not only dishonorable, but also selfish.

If this is the case, then apparently the party Chairman is suggesting Lisa Murkowski is both dishonorable and selfish, and to top it all off her record in the United States Senate stands in stark contrast to the Alaska Republican Party platform whose stated mission is “to elect and appoint to public office Alaskans with integrity committed to enacting solutions consistent with these [Republican Party] principles.”

In essence, the Chairman is advocating that an obscure party rule be used to subvert the party’s stated mission in the promotion of a candidate who has systematically disregard party rules and undermined party principles.

So are we to conclude that the Alaska Republican Party Chairman would have party officers exhibit honor by supporting dishonor?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Frantic Murkowski Spokesman Contradicts Senator, Tells Alaska Press Pro-Abortion Senator “Remains Pro-Life”

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Citizens for Joe Miller Press Release
September 13, 2016, Anchorage, Alaska

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has a long record of support for abortion “rights” and federal funding for Planned Parenthood, is apparently pushing the line that she is, and has been, a pro-life senator. Alaska Dispatch News reported on Monday that the Incumbent Senator’s spokesman said Murkowski “remains pro-life.”

“This is typical Murkowski, but a staggering assertion nonetheless,” said Joe Miller. “It’s a clear indication that the Murkowski campaign is in a panic over the loss of Republican support. But it also poignantly illustrates that Alaskans can’t trust anything she says. It’s all politics all the time. She has no principles.”

Early in her tenure in the US Senate, Murkowski voted for a Sense of the Senate Amendment that affirmed:

“It is the sense of the Senate that – (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned.”

Murkowski has consistently stood in opposition to Ronald Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which bans taxpayer dollars from flowing to foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortion.

The Senator has also been a strong advocate for federal funding of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

But that’s not all, she has even defended Roe v. Wade on the Alaskan airwaves and accused Republicans of a “War on Women.”

During the last session of Congress, Murkowski received an 80 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, while her Republican colleagues like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earned a 0 percent.

There’s a reason Alaska Right to Life declined to endorse Murkowski during her 2004 run against Tony Knowles, and has subsequently backed Joe Miller.

But now that she’s in a tough re-election fight she’s throwing her liberal allies under the bus, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of pro-life Republicans. It’s not going to work.

Miller concluded, “Lisa Murkowski is a creature of Washington who governs one way and talks another. I think Alaskans are getting wise to the fact that she is playing both sides, but loyal to neither. As we saw in 2010, she’ll do or say anything she thinks will get her the desired political outcome – which is of course re-election.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the right to life, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton: I Didn’t Think Pneumonia Diagnosis Would Be a Big Deal; Obama Senior Staffer Attacks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper on Monday night that she didn’t think that her pneumonia diagnosis would be a “big deal.”

Clinton nearly collapsed on Sunday as she was leaving a September 11 memorial event in New York City. Her campaign released a statement over an hour later saying that she was feeling overheated, but then her campaign later announced that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier.

David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns, criticized Clinton on Monday on Twitter for her campaign not disclosing the diagnosis on Friday.

Cooper asked Clinton about Axelrod’s criticism and why she told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) about her pneumonia on Sunday morning, but didn’t tell the press or public.

“Well, I just didn’t think it was going to be that big a deal. I know Chuck said today he didn’t tell anybody. It’s just the kind of thing that if it happens to you and you’re a busy, active person, you keep moving forward,” Clinton said. (Read more from “Clinton: I Didn’t Think Pneumonia Diagnosis Would Be a Big Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memo to the Washington Post: The Bible Does Reject ‘Transgender’ Behavior

/0 Comments/in , , /by

With the op-ed “Where in the Bible does it say you can’t be transgender? Nowhere” (Aug. 26), the Washington Post apparently feels no embarrassment from publishing such a poorly executed attempt at exegesis of the biblical text (this from 3 weeks ago; it’s hard to keep up with nonsense). I had already responded on Aug. 15 to a badly done New York Times op-ed that claimed that the Bible depicts God as transgendered and affirms gender fluidity. The WashPost op-ed arrives at a similar ideological objective (i.e., claiming that the Bible is not opposed to transgenderism) but from a different angle. Rather than make the case that the Bible endorses transgenderism it attempts to argue that “there is not a single verse in scripture that discusses transgender identities.”

The author is a certain Eliel Cruz who is identified as “a bisexual Christian writer” and “executive director of Faith in America” (a organization which, according to his bio, is “dedicated to ending religious based bigotry towards LGBT people”). I see no evidence that he has any academic expertise in the field of biblical studies (just the kind of person the Post is eager to get?). His three arguments are as follows.

Cross-Dressing or Transgenderism: What’s the Difference?

Cruz claims that the reference in Deuteronomy 22:5 women who wear men’s clothes and men who wear women’s clothes as “an abomination (abhorrent, detestable) to Yahweh your God” is about cross-dressing and not transgenderism.

In the ancient Near East, this is a distinction without much of a difference. Almost certainly at least some of these figures (probably most of the men) were connected with the indictment of the so-called qedeshim: literally, “cult figures” or self-named “sacred ones,” connected with idolatrous cult shrines (Deut 23:17-18). These men thought themselves possessed by an androgynous deity. As self-perceived women in male bodies they attempted to erase their masculine identity with feminine dress, manners, occupations, and sometimes even castration.

Comparable Mesopotamian figures were known as the assinu, kurgarru, and kulu’u. A later manifestation were the Greco-Roman figures known as the galli, connected with the Great Mother Cybele. In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Judges thru 2 Kings) they were condemned for having committed an “abomination” (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). The biblical writers rejected any presumption that these birth-males were females.

Centuries later the apostle Paul referred to the malakoi (“soft men”; a Greek term, the Latin equivalent of which was molles), men who deliberately feminized themselves, sometimes to attract male sex partners, through dress, mannerisms, hairstyle, and at times even castration. This is a more generic term and necessitates no cultic connection (though in some cases there was such a connection). Paul listed such figures among those who, without repentance, would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Binary Significance

Cruz then claims that Genesis 1:27, “male and female he created them,” carries no binary implications. He cites the use of “and” in the phrase “the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1) and in the reference to God as “the alpha and the omega” (Rev 1:8) as including “everything in between.”

Yet the understanding of the phrase “male and female” as implying a sexual binary is all too obvious. In the few times that this exact phrase is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible it always indicates a sexual pair: Gen 5:2 (genealogy fulfilling command to “be fruitful and multiply,” similar to 1:27) and 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16 (animals going into the ark “two by two”).

According to Mark 10:5-9 (parallel in Matt 19:4-6), Jesus cited “male and female he created them” in Gen 1:27 alongside Gen 2:24 (“For this reason a man shall … be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh”) in order to establish a principle about duality of number in sexual relations. In short, Jesus predicated a limitation of two persons to a sexual union on the foundation of a divinely designed complementary sexual pair.

A century before Jesus the Jewish sectarian group known as the Essenes likewise applied the same principle from Gen 1:27, this time in connection with the duality of number in the Noah’s ark narrative (“two by two … male and female”), to reject polygamy among their adherents, calling the male-female requirement for sexual relations “the foundation of creation.” Jesus went further in applying the principle to a rejection of divorce/remarriage for any cause.

So Jesus clearly saw binary significance to the phrase “male and female.” His citation of Gen 2:24 confirms this, when he includes a reference to “the two” (man and woman) becoming “one flesh.” Mention of “the two” is missing from the Hebrew text of Gen 2:24 but all the other versions (Greek Septuagint translation, Aramaic Targums, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch) pick it up as obviously implied in the original.

Birth Sex, Gender and Intersex

Cruz also appeals to a distinction between birth sex and self-constructed “gender.” Yet he ignores the fact that biblical authors reject the idea that a self-constructed “gender” that differs from birth sex is in any sense true.

Cruz appeals to the “intersex” also, even though this is a separate issue from so-called “transgenderism.” The appeal to “intersex individuals” is akin to an appeal to conjoined twins as a basis for rejecting a standard of monogamy. It makes as a basis for imploding the entire standard an extraordinarily rare exception, where something goes developmentally wrong in nature’s processes (e.g., an inhibition of testosterone production or sensitivity, or an XXY in an essentially male child). The overwhelming percentage of the tiny subset of the population often categorized as “intersex” do not in fact straddle equally between two sexes but are marked predominantly as one sex or the other in terms of the possession (or lack) of a mostly functioning X chromosome.

When Jesus discusses briefly “eunuchs (eunouchoi) who were born so from the womb of their mother” (Matt 19:12) he rejects neither the binary male-female foundation for marriage nor the principle of duality of number secondarily derived from the foundation that he had just established (19:3-9). On the contrary, he presumes that if “born eunuchs” cannot enter the covenant of marriage as “men” they must remain celibate.

It is lamentable that the Washington Post is more interested in propaganda for the “transgender” cause than in credible scholarship. If they don’t like what the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have to say, then they should just say so rather than attempt to distort the witness of these texts in order to service their tainted ideological objectives. When the ends justify the means, all trust is lost in the integrity of the alleged journalism. (For more from the author of “Memo to the Washington Post: The Bible Does Reject ‘Transgender’ Behavior” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.