Report: Elizabeth Warren’s Ancestors May Have Actually Helped Slaughter Indians

For over a quarter of a century, Elizabeth Warren has described herself as a Native American. When recently asked to provide evidence of her ancestry, she pointed to an unsubstantiated claim on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application by her great-great grand uncle William J. Crawford that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother, was a Cherokee.
After researching her story, it is obvious that her “family lore” is just fiction.

As I pointed out in my article here on Sunday, no evidence supports this claim. O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford had no Cherokee heritage, was listed as “white” in the Census of 1860, and was most likely half Swedish and half English, Scottish, or German, or some combination thereof. (Note, the actual 1894 marriage license makes no claim of Cherokee ancestry.)

But the most stunning discovery about the life of O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford is that her husband, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandfather, was apparently a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees from their family homes in the Southeastern United States and herded them into government-built stockades in what was then called Ross’s Landing (now Chattanooga), Tennessee–the point of origin for the horrific Trail of Tears, which began in January, 1837.

This new information about Ms. Warren’s true heritage came as a direct result of a lead provided to me by William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection, who in turn had received the information from one of his readers. Jacobson, who has questioned Warren’s explanation for her law faculty listing, calls this discovery “the ultimate and cruelest irony” of the Warren Cherokee saga. . .

These were the troops responsible for removing Cherokee families from homes they had lived in for generations in the three states that the Cherokee Nations had considered their homelands for centuries: Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. (Read more from “Report: Elizabeth Warren’s Ancestors May Have Actually Helped Slaughter Indians” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Whoa: Jimmy Kimmel Endorses a Longtime Friend Running for Local Office…As a Republican

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is no stranger to politics. He’s often very vocal about his disapproval of the GOP and President Donald Trump. Kimmel, however, changed his tune on Monday when he endorsed a longtime friend who is running as a Republican for Constable of North Las Vegas.

Kimmel appeared in an almost six-minute video with Jimmy Vega, where the two talk about how long they’ve known each other, Vega’s military service and his calling to run for public office.

“Never did I imagine that I would be doing this and that you would potentially be doing this,” Kimmel told Vega. “I did want to say that I’m proud of you for doing this.” . . .

Although Kimmel is an outspoken opponent of President Trump’s Vega believes his position isn’t political in nature.

“It’s not about what party affiliation you’re with … it’s just doing the right thing and helping the people, and that’s what I plan to do,” he explained. “This race shouldn’t be a partisan race anyway. We’re law enforcement, we don’t create law, we just enforce law.” (Read more from “Whoa: Jimmy Kimmel Endorses a Longtime Friend Running for Local Office…As a Republican” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LOL: Clinton Preaches About the Constitution and the GOP’s Lack of ‘Ethics’

If there’s one person in progressive politics who loves to preach to the choir, look no further than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a recent interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Clinton had the audacity to lecture the Republican Party about upholding ethics…and the Constitution. . .

“When the Republican Senate denied the right of President Obama to have his nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, heard –” Hillary said.

“I think you even wrote that they stole a justice from the Democratic Party,” Amanpour interrupted.

“I-I think they did,” Clinton said. “I mean, to keep a Supreme Court seat open for a year, to deny a distinguished jurist – they could have voted him down, they could have said ‘well, for ideological reasons, philosophical reasons, we’re not going to vote for him.’ But, no. They stonewalled. And that was such a breach of Senate ethics and the Constitutional responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent on nominations.” . . .

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe that if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again,” Clinton explained. “Until then, the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength. (Read more from “LOL: Clinton Preaches About the Constitution and the GOP’s Lack of ‘Ethics'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Shows That Limiting Immigration Is Extremely Popular With Voters

Do Republicans want to win?

A Harvard-Harris poll from August showed that voters believe immigration is the most important issue of this election. Among Republicans, no other issue even comes close. Now, a new poll commissioned by Numbers USA shows that voters in every state subscribe to the conservative view, which has been adopted by the president, that immigration should be lower across the board and more merit-based. Why is this not a priority among Republicans both in their legislative work and on the campaign trail? Why are they prioritizing weak-on-crime laws, which are also opposed by a majority of voters, before dealing with true immigration reform?

That we have brought in too many immigrants too quickly for too long and that our system is random and oriented more toward chain migration and the third world than those with extraordinary merit is not lost on the public, even as it’s lost on the political elites in both parties. Polls have consistently shown that this is one major issue that has broad bipartisan support among all demographics and ideologies, yet there is no movement in Congress toward true immigration reform. The Americans people want less immigration and a smarter legal immigration policy, while Congress continues to define “immigration reform” as amnesty for illegal immigrants. According to the new poll, the majority of voters in 25 key states for this election cycle chose immigration levels at least 25 percent lower than the current one as their ideal levels. In most states, it was a supermajority.

The favorite choice among all options was a level requiring at least a 75 percent cut in annual numbers, from 1 million annually to 250,000. Our official level of immigration every year is about 1.1 million, but with other de facto permanent programs, as many as 1.8 million immigrants were likely admitted in 2016. The American people clearly reject it and would never support it if the numbers were advertised.

The problem with immigration polling trending the opposite way, disseminated by the media and credulously believed by the GOP, is that it is leading questions built on straw men. For example:

“Are we a nation of immigrants?”

“Do you think immigrants are good?”

“Should we deport those who served in the military?”

These are obviously politically biased and leading questions.

Isolating a largely abstract and mythical population of immigrants and encapsulating it into a poll doesn’t reflect where people’s hearts and priorities are on this issue. But the answers to very straightforward polling questions of whether we have too much or too little immigration, whether immigrants should assimilate, whether immigrants should get welfare, whether immigrants should learn English, and whether immigration should be merit-based as opposed to family-based are indeed very reflective of where the national mood is on immigration. And deep down, Democrats know this.

The question in the new Numbers USA poll was very straightforward with absolutely no bias or pretext. There was no mention of the fact that our system is not merit-based and that the sheer numbers are unprecedented:

Current federal policy adds about one million new immigrants with lifetime work permits each year. Which is closest to the number of new immigrants the government should be adding each year — less than 250,000, 500,000, 750,000, one million, one and a half million, or more than two million?

This is the question none of the policymakers want to grapple with, but the voters are clear. Overall, the combined average for the 25 states polled — a mixture of red, blue, and purple states — was 62 percent in favor of cutting immigration by at least 25 percent. Only 25 percent of respondents were in favor of the same level or more immigration. Some red states like West Virginia (72 percent-16 percent) and Louisiana (70 percent-20 percent) had lopsided margins. But even in blue states with large numbers of immigrants, such as California (56 percent-32 percent, New York (57 percent-33 percent), Illinois (51 percent-36 percent), and Nevada (63 percent-24 percent), a clear majority supported cuts to current levels.

The 25 states were polled over a 15-month period between 2017 and 2018, but the results have been amazingly durable and stable for years.

Tom Cotton’s Raise Act (S.354), which has been endorsed by the president, would reorient our system towards a merit-based points system rather than one built on chain migration and would cut immigration by 30-40 percent. It would also end the diversity visa lottery. It is simply astounding that one year after a Bangladeshi national who came here through the diversity visa lottery attempted to blow up a New York subway, there was not even a committee-level vote on ending this cloddishly random program overwhelmingly opposed by the public.

Polls have consistently shown that when respondents are asked unbiased and intuitive questions about immigration, they overwhelmingly oppose the status quo of the political class. Several months ago, a comprehensive poll from Harvard-Harris showed that voters favored a merit-based immigration system over a family-based one by 79-21 with supermajorities in support among self-described Hispanics, blacks, and liberals.

The GOP is sitting on its best issue and refuse to adopt it and message it hard every day. Imagine what Republicans’ electoral prospects would look like if they’d spend every day militating against our stolen sovereignty at the border and against the backward immigration system?

There’s an important lesson for the silent majority of the country. Aristide Zolberg, one of the leading immigration historians of recent memory, asked the question in his scholarly book, “A Nation by Design,” how it is that during every immigration battle since 1965, the public wanted a cool-off but the legislation wound up “moving in the opposite direction.” Citing other commentators, he noted that “while public support for a reduction in legal immigration was broad, it was not well-organized. … In contrast, a liberal coalition of well-organized organized groups, including ethnic organizations, churches, and employer associations, articulated strong opposition to proposals for restricting legal immigration.”

Conservatives need to get organized every day between every other November to focus on the pending legislative, budget, and primary fights rather than hibernate between every election. We can’t afford to go back to sleep after submitting our ballots. Voting Republican does nothing if the franchise is not followed up with accountability. If Republicans lose the House, rest assured they will issue another “autopsy report” suggesting the need to move further left on immigration. Lindsey Graham, the big “conservative hero,” is already pushing another round of amnesty.

As it says in Proverbs 4:19, “The way of the wicked is like pitch darkness; they do not know on what they stumble.” We must be ready to shine light on the truth of this important issue and finally demand true immigration reform. (For more from the author of “New Poll Shows That Limiting Immigration Is Extremely Popular With Voters” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779b Deficit

The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement. . .

The previous record for individual income tax collections in a fiscal year was in fiscal 2015, when the Treasury collected $1,634,657,240,000 in individual income taxes (in constant September 2018 dollars). . .

Despite the record amount collected in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018, overall real federal tax revenues in fiscal 2018 were lower than in any of the previous three years. In fiscal 2018, total tax collections equaled $3,328,745,000,000, according to the Treasury statement. That was less than the $3,446,613,230,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) that the Treasury collected in fiscal 2015; less than the $3,415,674,450,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2016; and less than the $3,390,373,210,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2017.

While the federal government was collecting more income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2018, it was collecting less from corporations. Total corporation income tax collections in fiscal 2018 were $204,733,000,000. In fiscal 2017, they were $303,811,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). In fiscal 2016, they were $313,233,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars); and in fiscal 2015, they were $364,738,790,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). (Read more from “Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779B Deficit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win

Within the span of a week, two high-profile Democrats verbalized their party’s perspective on politics. “When they go low, we kick them,” former attorney general Eric Holder frothed to a group of loyalists. “That is what this new Democratic Party is about,” Barack Obama’s former cabinet official proclaimed to shouts of “fight, fight, fight.” (Holder later backtracked.)

Then a few days later Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” Holder and Clinton have finally voiced the reality: There’s politics. There’s dirty politics. And then there’s the trifecta of progressive politics—lying, cheating, and stealing to win. . .

With the filibuster gone, Democrats play politics with a different detail: Senate rules that, absent consent, require a formal “cloture” vote for any presidential appointee subject to confirmation, followed by a day without action, then 30 hours of post-cloture debate. This tactic, so perfected by Democrats that The New York Times branded their efforts the “art of the delay,” translates into “an average of three and a half days spent considering each nominee.” To put that into perspective, it would take a full “11 years and four months to fill all possible Trump administration spots.”

But that’s politics. Politics might not be pretty, but it’s fair and it’s the American way. Republicans have the power to alter the rules or use them against the Democrats should the left ever regain power. That’s one thing.

Then there’s dirty politics: the sensationalistic election-year advertisements that portray opponents as tossing a wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff; or icing a debate opponent with a surprise news conference featuring Bill Clinton sexual assault accusers Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick. (Read more from “Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet

By Townhall. Politicos on both sides of the aisle have talked about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) DNA test results throughout the day. After all, the fact that she might be 1/1,024th Native American is mind-blowing. But, remember, she really touts herself as a “minority.”

Republicans saw through her act right from the beginning. Everyone wanted to see DNA test results for how long? Months? Years, even?

Once it was finally released, everyone harped on her, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He took to Twitter to mock her DNA test. All I can say is… Well played, Senator. Well played.

(Read more from “Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet” HERE)


Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018

By The Daily Caller. Former Obama campaign strategist Jim Messina questioned the timing of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren releasing a DNA test Monday.

Warren released the results Monday after being mocked and attacked by Republicans for claiming Native American heritage with no verification for decades. Warren’s results showed that she may have between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Indian DNA, though the test that did not use Native American DNA.

Messina, who served as President Barack Obama’s White House deputy chief of staff for operations and 2012 campaign manager, was not happy about the media storm that Warren created by releasing the results into the contentious 2018 election cycle. (Read more from “Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention

Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Northeastern University came together to study the correlation between states’ gun ownership and officer-involved shootings. The researchers published their findings in the Journal for Urban Health. Their grandiose takeaway: if you live in a state with “looser” gun laws – AKA you’re allowed to utilize your Second Amendment rights – then you’re more likely to be shot by police officers.

Their abstract has three main points that are rather troubling:

Although numerous studies have examined how rates of police killings of civilians are related to several ecologic determinants of these events, no peer-reviewed study to date has examined the extent to which variation in police involved firearm homicides is explained by firearm prevalence while adjusting for violent crime rates (the most well-established ecologic factor associated with fatal police shootings).

What do researches consider a “violent” crime? Are they using the FBI’s definition which includes “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault”? . . .

The researchers are using data from the Washington Post, a liberal, anti-gun publication. You know what that means: they’re going to cherry pick which “data” they include. And you know the data they store is going to fit their gun control narrative. (Read more from “What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias

Attorney General Jeff Sessions unleashed a blistering assault on federal judges Monday, saying anti-Trump bias has led some to abandon their role as legal referees and become “political actors” erecting roadblocks to the president’s policies.

In unusually stark language, Mr. Sessions suggested judges could soon face “calls for their replacement” if they don’t cool it.

He blasted one judge who called the president’s policy toward illegal immigrants “heartless,” and said another judge put “the inner workings of a Cabinet secretary’s mind” on trial to pave a path to block the government from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census.

“Once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back,” Mr. Sessions said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation. “We are seeing it in case after case. When a hot-button policy issue ends up in litigation, judges are starting to believe their role is to examine the entire process that led to the policy decision — to redo the entire political debate in their courtrooms. . .

Others, including a majority of justices on the Supreme Court in this year’s ruling upholding the president’s travel limits, looked chiefly at the policies themselves, saying that’s the crux of their judiciary’s role in the government overall. (Read more from “Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Uh-Oh: It’s Not Looking Good for Keith Ellison in Minnesota

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota, but it no longer appears he’ll sail to victory, in part thanks to allegations of domestic abuse that have surfaced in recent weeks.

As Democrats urged Americans to “believe all women” during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, they were quietly trying to ignore allegations that Ellison had abused his longtime girlfriend (and possibly his ex-wife).

The oversight has led to questions about whether the Democratic Party — and, in particular, Minnesota’s state party — is really interested in fully investigating allegations of sexual assault and “believing all women” who suggest they may have been physically abused.

Last month, The Hill reports, Ellison was running five points ahead of his Republican challenger, Minnesota state Rep. Doug Wardlow. . .

The allegations against Ellison surfaced in a Facebook post published over the summer by the son of Ellison’s former girlfriend. Recently, outside sources close to the woman suggest she has evidence in the form of photos and videos but hasn’t brought the information forward to police. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party says they conducted an investigation into the matter but that they could not substantiate the claims of abuse. (Read more from “Uh-Oh: It’s Not Looking Good for Keith Ellison in Minnesota” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.