These New Yorkers Prefer Martial Law to Trump

In case you missed it, last week TV comedienne Rosie O’ Donnell called for President Obama to impose martial law and stop the inauguration of Donald Trump:


— ROSIE (@Rosie) January 12, 2017

There are no charges pending against the President-Elect, so it is unclear what Ms. O’Donnell means. Perhaps she is referring to the unproven assertions that Russia was involved in leaking authentic, damaging emails from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. In any case, the impact of those emails on the election themselves is unclear, and there is no Constitutional provision for preventing the inauguration of a president because of alleged foreign influence on public opinion — influence of the kind which the Obama administration apparently tried to exert in Israeli and Ukrainian elections. Meanwhile, Politico has reported that the government of Ukraine leaked documents damaging to the Trump campaign, in an attempt to aid the Clinton campaign.

On Fox News Jeanine Pirro responded to O’Donnell in stinging terms:

How many anti-Trump voters would rather see soldiers patrolling our streets to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, than allow Trump to take power on Friday?

New Yorkers Who Want a Military Coup

Anti-Sharia group the American Freedom Defense Initiative decided to find out. It sent a camera crew on to the streets of New York City, which went heavily for Hillary Clinton, to see what New Yorkers thought of O’Donnell’s proposal.

Let’s tally up the left’s post-election hissy fit:

Anti-democratic calls like O’Donnell’s for a military coup,

frenzied attempts by media elites to delegitimize our country’s political process with baseless reports that Russia “hacked the election,”

browbeating and threats aimed at getting entertainers to boycott the inauguration, including a death threat aimed at blind opera singer (and Trump family friend) Andrea Bocelli,

plans for an acid attack on the inauguration itself.

This was not an election the left was prepared to lose. After eight years of Obama’s executive arrogance, liberals have begun to take power for granted, to treat the presidency as a perk that naturally comes to those with “correct” opinions. The frenzied response of elites to their rejection by the voters vindicates all the more those of us who warned before the election how critical its outcome would be. It points up how foolish were those conservatives who preferred a Hillary victory.

Survey the crassness and recklessness that the left is displaying in defeat. Now imagine how haughty and aggressive it would have proven had it triumphed. (For more from the author of “These New Yorkers Prefer Martial Law to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Pro-Life Student Group at Colorado State University Denied Grant for Event, Sues

A pro-life student group at Colorado State University is suing the school after it allegedly denied funds for an event simply because of the slated speaker’s pro-life views.

Students for Life at CSU is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a non-profit law firm based in Arizona. The lawsuit was filed with a U.S. District Court Tuesday.

“A university is supposed to promote free speech,” Emily Faulkner, president of Students for Life at CSU, told CBS Denver Wednesday. She said she was “shocked” and “angered” upon receiving an email from the administration denying the Diversity Grant she requested.

According to CSU’s website, the Diversity Grant provides funding to official student organizations to help “establish a multicultural environment,” “celebrate diversity” and “raise awareness of differing perspectives.”

But when Faulkner requested a $600 grant last September to host pro-life speaker Josh Brahm of the Equal Rights Institute, she was denied.

The university explained in an email to Faulkner that Brahm did not “appear entirely unbiased” and that “folks from varying sides of the issue won’t necessarily feel affirmed in attending the event,” according to CBS Denver’s report and an ADF news release.

Students for Life at CSU raised the money on their own and held the event anyway, but Faulkner enlisted the help of ADF to sue the university.

In the lawsuit, Students for Life at CSU are asking the court to declare that CSU violated their constitutional rights, and that CSU pay the full $600 they were denied, as well as reimburse the mandatory fees they paid to join the organization. Those fees, paid by every official student organization, go toward funding the Diversity Grant program.

The lawsuit claims it is wrong for pro-life students in the group to be forced to help fund events they may disagree with, while being denied funding for events that express their own views.

“Universities should encourage all students to participate in the free exchange of ideas, not play favorites with some while shutting out others,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a news release.

Other events listed on CSU’s calendar would seem to indicate some diversity, with a lecture on the intersection of Christian faith and science scheduled for January, and community drag show scheduled for April. According to the calendar, both events will be held in the Lory Center, the campus building where most Diversity Grant events take place.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, believes that “CSU played favorites while stifling free speech, a typical response of abortion advocates who prefer to silence opposition rather than have a free exchange of ideas.”

CSU’s grant denial is the latest among recent examples from around the world of pro-life censorship. In December, The Stream reported that a university in Scotland banned pro-life groups like from becoming official clubs.

Additionally in December, The Stream reported that the lower house of the French parliament passed a bill criminalizing French websites that “deliberately mislead, intimidate and/or exert psychological or moral pressure to discourage recourse to abortion.”

Most recently, the Women’s March on Washington, scheduled to take place this weekend, removed a pro-life feminist organization from its official list of partners, despite the march’s espoused celebration of “intersecting identities.” The Women’s March revoked the pro-life group’s partnership status just two days after granting it, responding to women who tweeted outrage at the idea of pro-life feminism. (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Student Group at Colorado State University Denied Grant for Event, Sues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Pro-Life Women Explain Why They’re Still Going to the Women’s March

On Saturday, the day after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, thousands of women are expected to gather in the nation’s capital for the Women’s March on Washington. The march was founded on principles of diversity, dignity, and inclusion.

But over the course of the past few days, several pro-life groups have been ousted as partners due to their position on abortion. Despite this, pro-life women tell The Daily Signal they’ll still attend the historic march. Watch the video to hear why. (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Women Explain Why They’re Still Going to the Women’s March” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Pro-Lifers Should Start to Imagine What a Post-Roe World Would Look Like

Dare we think that in the not too distant future, Roe v. Wade will be corrected?

Let us assume that whoever almost-President Donald Trump appoints to the Supreme Court believes that unborn children have value under the law and merit the right to life. Or, at least, that Roe was decided wrongly.

A case then comes before the Court challenging the validity of Roe which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 60 million children within the wombs of their mothers.

First, some background regarding our anti-natal culture. As my former Family Research Council colleague Cathy Ruse and I wrote a few years ago, Roe “did not create a limited right to abortion but a virtually unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy.” Indeed, the Supreme Court

ruled that abortion must be permitted for any reason a woman chooses until the child becomes viable; after viability, an abortion must still be permitted if an abortion doctor deems the abortion necessary to protect a woman’s ‘health,’ defined by the Court in another ruling issued the same day as ‘all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient’. In this way the Court created a right to abort a child at any time, even past the point of viability, for ‘emotional’ reasons.

Unrestricted access to abortion on demand became the national norm that grim day in January 1973. Under President Obama, that access became even easier: As noted by the director of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity, Arina Grossu, the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) subsidizes abortion through a number of funding streams.

In 1973, the Supreme Court said the foundation of Roe is that abortion is an element of the “right to privacy.” The Court admitted that such a right was not explicit in the Constitution but only resident in a conceptual haze of implicational rights. Using that criterion, this “zone of privacy” should include my right to receive free Internet services, psychiatric treatment, multivitamins or anything else I can convince at least one federal judge is necessary for my well-being.

Justice Blackmun also noted that another reason for jettisoning all state laws against abortion “is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”

Interesting criterion. How about the distress to the child herself, dismembered without anesthetic in her mother’s womb? How about the distress of the couple who desperately want a child and are denied her because so few babies are available for domestic adoption? And how about the untold numbers of families which, thinking they are “unable” to rear a child, have been enriched and filled with love because the “unwanted” baby has become the apple of its eye?

It is my hope that these arguments will become, if not mute, at least dormant in light of a Supreme Court decision to bring legal sanity back to the jurisprudence of abortion.

After Roe?

So: Imagine it’s the first day of a post-Roe America. What then?

According the respected legal scholar Paul Linton, “the immediate impact of such a decision (overruling Roe) would be far more modest than most commentators — on both sides of the issue — believe.” According to Linton, “More than two-thirds of the States have repealed their pre-Roe laws or have amended those laws to conform to Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion for any reason before viability and for virtually any reason after viability.

Pre-Roe laws that have been expressly repealed would not be revived by the overruling of Roe. Only three States that repealed their pre-Roe laws (or amended them to conform to Roe) have enacted post-Roe laws attempting to prohibit some or most abortions throughout pregnancy. Those laws have been declared unconstitutional by the federal courts and are not now enforceable. Of the less than one-third of the States that have retained their pre-Roe laws, most would be ineffective in prohibiting abortions.”

Linton concludes that only seven states (Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin) “would be able to enforce their pre-Roe statutes prohibiting most abortions should Roe be overturned.”

At the same time, Tim Bradley of the Charlotte Lozier Institute notes that just four states have “enacted ‘trigger’ statutes that would prohibit abortion in the event that Roe is overruled: Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. In Mississippi, however, the state Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in the state constitution in 1998, meaning that its trigger statute will not be allowed to go into effect.”

Could Congress Prohibit Abortion?

Could Congress pass a law prohibiting abortion except in rare cases? Yes. But as Bradley observes, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would find such a law constitutional. If the Constitution is silent on abortion, its silence extends not only to acceptance of the procedure but also to rejection of it. In other words, it becomes a state issue.

It is also unlikely that there would be any quick enactment of a constitutional amendment to prevent abortion-on-demand. Amending the Constitution is a laborious process and given the passions aroused by the abortion debate, inclusion of a pro-life amendment in the Constitution is far from a certainty.

The Guttmacher Institute, once an adjunct of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, noted last year that “states enacted 334 abortion restrictions between 2011 and early July 2016. According to the analysis, the new laws account for 30 percent of all abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973.”

These state provisions include such things as banning dismemberment abortions (performed on fully-formed unborn babies), health regulations for abortion centers, and mandatory viewing of ultrasound photographs of their unborn children by women considering abortion.

These common-sense and compassionate provisions are partial steps toward a culture of life. But now is the time when pro-life leaders in all 50 states need to be planning how to safeguard unborn children and their mothers from a predatory abortion industry in a post-Roe America.

This should include a careful review of all existing state laws concerning abortion and what specifically needs to happen to build a wall of legal protection around women and their unborn little ones. This should take place even in states like California, Washington and New York, where the sanctity of unborn life is barely discussed in their statehouses.

Public Persuasion

Additionally, public persuasion is essential. Part of this is exposing the predatory nature of the abortion industry, as has been demonstrated by the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos regarding the sale of the body parts of aborted babies. The pro-life movement also needs to make strong public arguments about the injustice of encouraging women in crisis to abort their unborn children, as if the lives within them were similar to infected appendices or swollen tonsils. As has been said, women deserve — always deserve — better than abortion.

The late Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and a courageous champion of the unborn, said, “The fight for the right to life is not the cause of a special few, but the cause of every man, woman and child who cares not only about his or her own family, but the whole family of man.”

Now is the time for the right-to-life movement to think about our post-Roe strategy. The fight for the unborn and the women carrying them is one we must win. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers Should Start to Imagine What a Post-Roe World Would Look Like” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Once Again, Feminists Silence Pro-Life Women

It’s 2017 and women are still being silenced.

The twist is that it’s now by other women.

The Women’s March on Washington, scheduled to occur the day after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, had listed a pro-life group, New Wave Feminists, as a partner organization. After The Atlantic highlighted the group’s participation as a partner in the march, the Women’s March took the group off the list, saying its inclusion had been an “error.”

“The protest is pro-choice and that has been our stance from Day One,” the Women’s March said in a statement. “We want to assure all of our partners, as well as our participants, that we are pro-choice as clearly stated in our Unity Principles. We look forward to marching on behalf of individuals who share the view that women deserve the right to make their own reproductive choices.”

Never mind that the event’s organizers had told The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness in December that pro-lifers were welcome to participate in the Women’s March. “The message is not whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice,” said march organizer Tamika Mallory at the time.

It wasn’t entirely surprising they caved. Since Mallory spoke to The Daily Signal, Planned Parenthood has become a partner. And after The Atlantic published its article about the New Wave Feminists’ inclusion, liberal feminists tweeted their dismay:

The exact mission of the Women’s March, which started with Hawaii grandmother Teresa Shook’s Facebook comment on election night that “I think we should march,” has been somewhat … nebulous from its inception.

“What sparked the need for this movement was the rhetoric of the campaign was so demeaning to women,” Shook told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview. “I just felt women needed to stand up and say, ‘Here we are, hear our voice, we’re strong, we’re empowered, and we’re not going away.’”

But regardless of the mission that the event organizers finally settled upon—(assuming they did settle on one—the Women’s March is now in trouble with liberal feminists for removing a statement on rights for sex workers)—it shouldn’t be called the Women’s March if it isn’t meant to be inclusive for all women.

As much as the left (and some of their cheerleaders in the media) love to portray women as a unified bloc of pink-wearing Planned Parenthood cheerleaders who cherish no political right as much as they do the right to abortion, the political reality is far more complicated.

Four out of 10 women in America think abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases,” according to a poll released last year by the Pew Research Center. And two-thirds of women voters support legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, except if the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape and incest, according to a November poll commissioned by the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization.

In other words, the pro-choice position of the “Women’s March” is excluding a lot of American women.

And unfortunately, that’s all too common. In our political discourse, it’s regularly assumed that all women agree with the Lena Dunhams of the world.

It doesn’t matter how many women passionately believe that both female and male unborn children deserve the right to life, despite being small and dependent. It doesn’t matter how many women think all women deserve something better than the kind of treatment delivered by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, under whose care a woman undergoing a second-trimester abortion died.

It doesn’t matter how many women think that what can best help a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy is financial support and personal care, the kind delivered by pregnancy centers across the country—not a push that she end the life of her child.

Or at least that doesn’t matter to the liberal feminists who constantly demand pro-life women be excluded.

It’s time the left accept that women have a diversity of views on many issues, including on abortion.

And if liberal feminists are sincere about women’s rights, they’ll realize that means that all women, not just those they agree with, deserve a seat at the table (or a place in the march) to represent their views. (For more from the author of “Once Again, Feminists Silence Pro-Life Women” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Omar Mateen’s Wife Arrested for Aiding TERROR. So STOP with the Word Games, Media!

Earlier today the FBI announced the arrest of the widow of jihadi Omar Mateen, the man who ruthlessly killed innocent Americans — in the name of Islam — at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Florida. Noor Salman has been arrested on charges of aiding her husband in the planning of the jihadist attack. There’s one key point that the mainstream media has been leaving out of their headlines about the arrest. That’s right, instead of the headlines identifying Mateen as a jihadi, or even terrorist, they all scream some version of “mass shooter.”

Mateen’s wife was charged with “aiding & abetting the attempted provision of material support to a foreign terrorist organization.”

These are terrorism, not “shooting” charges.

Nevertheless, here is the how the New York Times reported it via headline.

nyt shooter vs terror

Here’s the CBS News headline.

cbs shooter vs terror

There are countless other stories that have some variation of the headline “mass shooter” instead of “jihadi” or “terrorist,” and this is nothing new. The American media has always preferred to keep the motive out of headlines regarding jihadi attacks so that they can push another narrative. This, purposeful headline writing is a subject we’ve covered extensively here at Conservative Review.

The word “shooter” is purposely used to push a gun control narrative. CR’s Chris Pandolfo wrote about the difference in coverage of foreign jihadi attacks by American news outfits compared to jihadi attacks on U.S. soil. Pandolfo also highlighted the difference in coverage of the Orlando ISIS inspired jihadi attack.

Other conservative writers have also pointed this out. Here’s what Charles C. W. Cooke tweeted at the time.

New York Times reporter Adam Goldman also took to Twitter to remind us all about his puff piece on Mateen’s wife.

The main stream media has made a lot of noise recently about “fake news.” There has also been pushback on misleading headlines.

In this fast paced, 24/7 social media culture, people do often just read headlines. The MSM knows this and uses it to their advantage when pushing a narrative. Today’s headlines are just another example. (For more from the author of “Omar Mateen’s Wife Arrested for Aiding TERROR. So STOP with the Word Games, Media!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump

Remember when conservatives thought President Obama was so pro-choice he would practically require women to have abortions to both show how thankful they were that they even had such a right and to demonstrate the importance of it? No? Me neither. That’s because President Obama never said such a thing — nor did any media, right of center, speculate he might believe that. To do so would have been false, dangerously reckless, and just plain absurd.

Yet, ever since President Trump won the election, the media has been anxiously predicting the era of a woman’s “right to choose” will soon be over, as all Republicans are apparently working to curtail access to the wonder of abortion. (Strangely, nothing is said of the lives of actual babies at stake.)

In this, the Left not only acts unfairly, but misses the point altogether of where much of the conservative movement stands on abortion. Hint: It’s not in the middle of a back alley, beckoning women to get abortions via coat hangers, risking life and limb.

What Trump will do

In this New York magazine cover story, “Warning: Abortion’s Deadly DIY Past Could Soon Become Its Future,” the writer all but predicts Trump will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade, forcing women to have abortions illegally in secret.

Upon his November election win, Americans Googled “abortion” so much it looked like the “manifestation of collective anxiety about what would become an early flash point in the Trump administration—and a first test of whether much of the social progress of the past 40 years can be undone over the next four.”

The piece describes how our great grandmothers had to seek abortions secretly and dangerously: “This isn’t ancient history; this was the lived reality of many of our mothers and certainly of our grandmothers. And it is entirely possible that it could become our future as well.”

One of the things they worry Trump will do is what Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 52%) has often said Congress will (and attempted to do last year) — defund Planned Parenthood. The New York cover story suggests that if this were to occur:

60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients — who rely on those programs for Pap smears, breast exams, STD testing, and, of course, contraception would no longer be able to get that care from Planned Parenthood. For many, that would mean not being able to get treatment at all.

This could not be more false. Defunding Planned Parenthood simply means they won’t receive taxpayer dollars. In fact, last year the House Oversight Committee found Planned Parenthood was able to function without taxpayer subsidies. If the absence of taxpayer dollars forces the group to shut down, perhaps they never should have been in operation in the first place.

So is this an attempt by Republicans to handle taxpayer dollars wisely that doubles as an attempt to save the lives of unborn babies? Absolutely. Bloomberg did report last February abortion clinics were closing at a “record pace.” Since 2011, 162 clinics closed, not all operated by Planned Parenthood.

And while most of those closings were due to legislation, some closed because they were not fit to practice medicine — a fact that doesn’t seem to bother the Left. By contrast, the number of crisis pregnancy centers, which typically steer patients away from abortion, are growing at an alarming pace.

Babies have rights, too

New York mag explains, “The truth is, conservative activists and legislators have been chipping away at American women’s access to reproductive health care for years, with more and greater restrictions in more and more states.”

While the above might appear to the Left as a strategic maneuver to strip women of the supposed right to choose, the statistics — abortion clinics defunded or closing and crisis pregnancy centers rising — more accurately show a two-pronged effort to stop murdering babies in utero.

The piece continues:

That the right wing’s focus is not simply opposition to abortion but also reducing women’s access to contraception gives away the game: Theirs is an effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children, and thereby to keep them from exerting agency over their families, their work, their partnerships, their sex lives, and their bodies.


Speaker Paul Ryan, when asked if birth control would still be free when Republicans repeal Obamacare, called it a “nitty-gritty detail,” and was lambasted for his callousness toward what is apparently a central issue in U.S. health care. The issue is neither central nor an “effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children.”

Remind me again why and with what logic should the government provide health care, birth control et al., for free? That’s the central issue. When my husband and I were newly married and just beginning to talk through if or when we might like children, it never occurred to me the government should pay for my birth control, just like the government does not pay for my dentistry.

While they’re not always successful at implementing this, the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility sometimes tries to enforce these ideas.

Ignorance is bliss

Despite the fact that Roe v. Wade was decided decades ago, the Left still feigns outrage when conservatives try to curtail abortions by any means, legislatively or otherwise. Articles like and the New York mag story show how they even pretend to not understand why.

Over the years, conservatives have embraced science from Princeton that shows when life begins, studies from Oxford that describe how babies feel pain in the womb, and how ultrasounds change women’s minds about their babies. The Right has encouraged marches, picketing, legislation, safe clinics, care for moms and babies postpartum, and adoption. In fact, conservatives are doing this so successfully it’s spawned abortion-armageddon hysteria.

It’s baffling as to how the Left continues to insist, after four decades, that Republicans — who have repeatedly fought for women’s rights over the last century — actually care more about limiting women’s freedoms than saving lives.

It’s such an obvious truth it’s hard to know if this ignorance is feigned or real. Only one of these efforts between the two political parties is beneficial for mom, baby, dad, and society. The other is harmful, if ever progressive and “liberating.”

Conservatives can and do care about women’s rights and babies’ rights — the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And doing both doesn’t mean women are going to be forced to have abortions in back alleys; it means women might actually think twice about aborting their babies, thus sparing emotional trauma, life, and making a difference in society’s cultural makeup. That’s what conservatives are trying to do. (For more from the author of “The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Graduate University Future Cap Graduation College

Here’s Why If You Have a College Degree You’re More Likely to Live in an Elite Bubble

Political scientist Charles Murray recently surveyed 130,919 Americans between the ages of 20-99 to determine how big or small of a “bubble” they live in. Participants took the “Bubble Quiz,” and answered questions like, “Have you ever lived for at least a year in an American neighborhood in which the majority of your 50 nearest neighbors did not have college degrees?” and “During the last year, have you ever purchased domestic mass-market beer to stock your own fridge?”

The lower the score a participant received, the bigger the bubble and more “insulated” they are from “mainstream American culture,” meaning that they don’t watch the same TV shows, drink the same beer, drive the same cars, and work in the same fields as people who received higher scores.

The most-bubbly zip codes in the United States are (unsurprisingly) in New York City, Boston, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Washington, D.C., and San Diego also have bubble areas too, but not on the same scale as New York City or Boston. As Murray notes, the zip codes with the biggest bubbles are “overwhelmingly Democratic strongholds.”

So what’s the root difference between Americans who live in a “bubble”? And why is there a difference? According to Charles Murray, the greatest divide is a cultural one. Murray argues that “mainstream American culture” is “conspicuously different from the culture of the new upper class” located in large-city bubbles. As a result of this cultural divide, there’s an “asymmetry of power” between those who live in big cities and those who don’t. Further, the quiz found that elite zip codes in America are predominately white and urban.

So, white urbanites who don’t drink mass-market beer, have never owned a pickup truck, and don’t eat at Ruby Tuesday, “run the nation’s culture, economy, and politics,” according to Murray.

And what makes someone “elite”? In short, a college degree makes a big difference.

Murray found that when he “controlled for the age of the respondent and the urbanization of the zip code, it turned out that virtually all the effect on the bubble-score is driven by the percentage of adults with a college degree in the zip code where the respondent lived.” The survey also discovered that the median family income of the zip code had “almost no independent effect” on the size of a bubble, which is significant.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that only 33 percent of American adults hold a bachelor’s or higher degree. For some, a four-year degree is too expensive to obtain, and for others who are drawn to technical or labor-intensive jobs, a bachelor’s degree may not be necessary or desirable. But in an increasingly divided country, American adults who don’t have a college degree feel powerless in comparison to those who have formed elite bubbles.

When people feel powerless, they feel like they have nothing to lose. Donald Trump made the powerless feel like they mattered once again, and that’s why he won the election.

So what should “elite” Democrats do if they want to connect with the rest of America? “Get out more,” says Murray. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why If You Have a College Degree You’re More Likely to Live in an Elite Bubble” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Chonda Pierce, ‘Queen of Clean,’ Responds to ‘Angry Haters’ about Her Inaugural Appearance

Toby Keith, Jennifer Holliday, 3 Doors Down, The Piano Guys, Lee Greenwood, DJ RaviDrums and The Frontmen of Country will be performing at Donald Trump’s inaugural welcome concert next week, The Associated Press reported Friday. Also performing around town at a series of inaugural events will be Christian comedienne Chonda Pierce. Unfortunately, Chonda has been hit with a flurry of hate posts since her participation was announced.

After Chonda accepted the opportunity to headline the Inauguration and participate in several events, “angry haters” came out of the woodwork. Chonda responded on Facebook that it was about being a patriot more than being a performer:

TO ALL THE ANGRY HATERS: Yep! I’m going to the Inaugural! I would have gone if Obama asked me. I would have gone if Hilary asked me. But they didn’t. (And I rarely agreed with them on anything.) And btw, their checkered past plays no part in my discussion or decision. Neither does yours or mine. So, yes … I am going. I go because I love America. I am a Patriot. I respect the process and the Office. I may never even see the President. I may never even get close enough to anyone to snap a picture. But I’m going. My performance may never make the news, the tabloids or the history books. But I’m going. I don’t need your agreement, your filthy language or even your blessing. I am going because at some point in life you must put aside your opinion, your politics and your anger and remember we are ALL Americans and thousands have died so that I might have the freedom to disagree, vote, protest and even dance at fancy parties.

She also posted on Facebook that people need to unify as Americans and stop the nasty language:

Action News 5 reported that Pierce will attend the Inauguration, the Inaugural Ball and the Inaugural Prayer Service at the National Cathedral. (For more from the author of “Chonda Pierce, ‘Queen of Clean,’ Responds to ‘Angry Haters’ about Her Inaugural Appearance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Ben Carson Doubles Down: LGBT Don’t Get ‘Extra Rights’

By Lisa Bourne. Dr. Ben Carson reiterated at his confirmation hearing Thursday that individuals identifying as LGBT shouldn’t get special rights.

All Americans deserve protection under the law, Carson said, but no one is entitled to “extra rights.”

Trump has appointed Carson as Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary.

Questioned during the hearing by Ohio Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown on whether he would enforce protections for LGBT Americans in public housing, Carson reconfirmed his previously stated belief.

“Of course, I would enforce all the laws of the land,” Carson said. “Of course, I think all Americans should be protected by the law.” (Read more from “Ben Carson Doubles Down: LGBT Don’t Get ‘Extra Rights'” HERE)


Report: Gay Rights Sympathizer Scaramucci Selected for Role as Key Adviser to Trump

By Peter LaBarbera. Anthony Scaramucci, who describes himself as a committed “gay rights activist,” has been picked for a top job advising President-elect Trump that is comparable to Valerie Jarrett’s preeminent role in the Obama White House, The Washington Post reported Friday.

As LifeSiteNews previous reported, Scaramucci told BBC in November: “I’m … a gay rights activist. … I’ve given to the [pro-“gay” Republican] American Unity PAC … to the Human Rights Campaign, I’m for … marriage equality.”

“We don’t want to be on the wrong side of history,” Scaramucci told the Huffington Post last April, explaining why his investment company, Skybridge Capital, gives to LGBT groups. Scaramucci, a 2012 Mitt Romney mega-donor, last year invited “transgender” activist Bruce (“Caitlyn) Jenner to speak at his annual SALT conference, which he describes as a “premier thought leadership and global investment forum” for fellow hedge-fund investors.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the nation’s leading homosexual-bisexual-transgender activist PAC. The D.C.-based group endorsed Hillary Clinton and heavily criticized Trump during the presidential campaign. It generally supports Democrats with donations.

HRC bought the web domain “Dump Trump,” said he is “unfit for the presidency” and that he “spews hate toward LGBTQ people.” Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Trump is the most pro-homosexual major Republican candidate in U.S. history. (Read more from “Report: Gay Rights Sympathizer Scaramucci Selected for Role as Key Adviser to Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.