The Eventual Republican Nominee Will Be One of These Six Candidates

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, John KasichIt seems as if there are 3,742 people campaigning to be the Republican Party’s nominee for president in 2016. But when you look at history, environment, and the candidates’ various strengths and weaknesses, only six have a real shot at being the party’s eventual standard-bearer.

Although the first official votes in the process won’t be cast in my home state of Iowa for another 162 days, you can already see the fault lines forming in the race that will dictate its outcome. While it’s true Iowa doesn’t always pick the nominee, it has selected one of the major party’s nominee 75 percent of the time (including the last four general election winners). Plus, the GOP has never nominated somebody who didn’t finish in the top three in Iowa.

So even if we’re not quite as sure about their identities, I believe it’s possible to predict which three types of candidates will get their tickets punched out of Iowa to continue forward to New Hampshire and beyond.

Come February 1st, Iowa’s top three will represent these factions:

The Conservative Candidate

Right now the conservative base is mostly splintered. But the next phase of the process this fall will be conservatives determining which candidate they should coalesce behind for the final push of the campaign. While several decent conservatives are running this cycle, only three have any shot at being the conservative champion by the time Christmas rolls around — Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker. They are the only three conservatives who can put an organization on the ground here capable of winning Iowa.

Endorsements will play a big role in my home state because conservatives are going to have a difficult time choosing between these three. Momentum has been gathering around Walker’s record, Cruz’s courage of conviction, and Huckabee’s likeability and winsomeness. The two most important endorsements in the Iowa Caucuses are pro-family activist Bob Vander Plaats and Congressman Steve King. If a candidate were to land both of their endorsements, there is little doubt they would win Iowa because conservatives – especially evangelicals – dominate Iowa Caucus turnout.

The Establishment Candidate

Jeb Bush is toast in Iowa. He’s already worked the state much harder than Mitt Romney’s stealth campaign did in 2012, and it’s gaining him no traction. Iowans just aren’t buying what he’s selling, and historically if you’re not competitive in Iowa you’re just not competitive—period. Instead of being the Romney of 2016, Bush is more like the Rudy Giuliani of this cycle. He’s mostly a media-driven “frontrunner” that collapses like a house of cards once the campaigning gets underway.

Republican-in-Name-Only Governor Terry Branstad and the GOP establishment in Iowa actually favor Chris Christie. There is a personal relationship there and they’ve even shared staff. Yet Christie is damaged goods as a candidate, so I think the GOP establishment will eventually go with Marco Rubio instead. He also has a personal rapport with Branstad, and Team Rubio was instrumental in helping Joni Ernst get elected to the U.S. Senate last year. It was Team Rubio who conjured the famous “squeal” ad that went viral and made Ernst a household name.

Overall, Rubio is probably more conservative than the establishment would like, but he’s also moved their way on the two issues the GOP establishment wants most to be to the left of the Democrats on—immigration and marriage. So he has shown he will play ball when push comes to shove.

The Outsider Candidate

Due to the GOP establishment’s failure to truly offer the American people a second party alternative to the Democrats, there is a bloc of traditional GOP voters this primary cycle looking for a third party option to their own party.

Just look at Donald Trump. He’s still leading the phony polls (you shouldn’t put much stock in) despite the fact he’s not truly pro-life, he’s not in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, he’s taken no position on religious freedom, and now he’s to the left of Chuck Schumer on Obama’s Iran deal. But people see his brashness and his wealth as symbols that he can’t be bought off by the corporatists on K-Street and the amnesty-pimps at the Chamber of Commerce.

Then there’s Ben Carson, who has name I.D., likability, money, and organization. He’s sort of Trump’s alter ego. If Trump is using bombast and “Flight of the Valkyries” to sell his outsider candidacy, Carson is going with dignity and smooth jazz.

Nonetheless, while they’re the top two in the phony polls right now, one of the hardest things to do in politics is to mobilize new voters to take part in a partisan process. That’s especially so in the Iowa Caucuses, which are unlike a primary in that they can take a commitment of a couple of hours on election day. Furthermore, celebrity candidates often learn in the end there’s a difference between “admirers” and “supporters.” One of these two will learn that lesson in Iowa and be sent home, while the other one will be encouraged to press on.

Conclusion

Sunday’s latest Fox News poll is a bellwether in the race. If you add up the support for the least conventional candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Carly Fiorina), it’s more than double what all the other candidates have combined. Furthermore, all the conventional candidates have lost support since the pre-debate survey.

It’s also clear none of the attacks on Trump have hurt him but instead have actually hurt his attackers. GOP primary voters are sending the following message to his campaign rivals: We don’t want you to attack Trump while he’s attacking the GOP Establishment/Liberal Media cabal – we want you to outdo him. (Re-posted with permission, “The Eventual Republican Nominee Will Be One of These Six Candidates”, originally appeared HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Clinton Email Count: Hundreds of Documents Contain Classified Information

HillaryClinton_c0-0-2503-1458_s561x327By Stephen Dinan. In the new court filing, the State Department said it is getting back on schedule for publicly releasing the Clinton emails after falling more than 1,000 pages behind in July, when the need to screen messages for secret information overwhelmed the department.

Now, the screening process is running smoothly, with five security agencies involved in the review. They have been through 20 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s messages, the department said. Officials told the court that they have found 305 messages — about 5.1 percent — that needed to be referred to the security agencies to determine whether they did, in fact, have secret information that needed to be redacted before public release.

“We’re taking this very seriously,” department spokesman John Kirby told reporters, though he refused to call the revelations of classified emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server “troubling” at this point.

The department’s next challenge will come later this week. A federal judge has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, when officials will have to detail the steps they have taken to try to track down all of the messages, and any other electronics that might still hold messages, from Mrs. Clinton and two top personal aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, who served in the department with her.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at those communications, said the department has refused to say how thorough its search has been despite Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s demands for more information. (Read more from “New Clinton Email Count: Hundreds of Documents Contain Classified Information” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton Says She Did Not Send or Receive Emails With Material ‘Marked’ Classified

______________________________________________________

Clinton’s Shaky Email Defenses

By Jenna Adamson. After Hillary Clinton provided her much-discussed private server to the proper authorities last week, her campaign sent out an email blast to supporters and posted on its website a fascinating briefing to bring all the “facts” about the email “nonsense” together. Yet, the links the briefing provided to clear Clinton’s good name are a bit curious.

If you follow them, you’ll find that when Clinton is given every benefit of the doubt, she is innocent of specific deliberate falsehoods. At the same time, the links indict her for a campaign of deliberately misleading statements, dating to a news conference in March. Consider some of the key questions, and the answers provided by the fact-checking websites cited by the Clinton campaign:

Was using a private email account allowed?

“Yes,” the campaign said, citing a PolitiFact post. Here’s what Politifact found:

“We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she ‘complied’ with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend.”

(Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Not Enough Inspectors to Check Iran for Nukes [+video]

SWITZERLAND-IRAN-US-NUCLEARBy Paul Bedard. The Iran nuclear deal being promoted by President Obama comes with an additional hidden tax of $36 million to watch the terror-nation’s nuclear program, according to a bipartisan budget analysis.

At $50 million, that is nearly three times, or 257 percent, more than the $14 million the United Nation’s spends now on Iran nuclear surveillance, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

What’s more: The International Atomic Energy Agency doesn’t even have enough experienced inspectors and will likely have to call some out of retirement to keep an eagle eye on Tehran, said the report from analyst Jessica Michek.

“To implement the interim agreement, the IAEA reportedly had to bring former inspectors back from retirement — it is unclear where the agency will find the manpower to carry out its increased workload in Iran while maintaining its verification programs around the world. If the IAEA’s expanded workload and additional inspectors increase costs in a manner similar to the interim agreement, implementing the [agreement] may cost $3 million a month in addition to the IAEA’s regular budget, or $36 million more a year,” wrote Michek. (Read more from “Report: Not Enough Inspectors to Check Iran for Nukes” HERE)

________________________________________________________

Sen. Blumenthal on Iran Deal: ‘There May Have Been a Better Deal If We Had Different People Doing It’

By Craig Millward. During a meeting with constituents in Cornwall, Conn., last week, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said there were “weaknesses” with the Iran nuclear agreement and added that, “there may have been a better deal if we’d had different people doing it.”

While speaking at an event hosted by the Democratic Coalition of Northwest Connecticut, Blumenthal said, “I have not made a decision about whether I will vote to reject the agreement or not. And I think that there are weaknesses in this agreement. The president has said, he’s right, no agreement is perfect. The Secretary of State has said, negotiations always involve compromise.”

“That’s true,” said Blumenthal. “The question is whether those weaknesses justify voting against the agreement. And the key question is what will happen if Congress rejects, what are the alternatives?”

“What will happen as a practical matter because the question is not whether we would have — you or I — negotiated a better deal,” said Blumenthal.

“There may have been a better deal,” he continued, “if we had different people doing it. But the question is what happens if this agreement is rejected?” (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Report: Massive Immigration Surge From Mexico

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CROSS US/MEXICO BORDER INTO ARIZONAThe Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has published another blockbuster report on immigration numbers, and their analysis foreshadows a troubling trend of growing illegal immigration. Using the most up-to-date census data, they have uncovered a trend that has been lost from some of the traditional immigration-related data published by the Department of Homeland Security, which tends to lag behind the most recent trends.

To begin with, this report reaffirms the known reality of record high levels of immigration across the board and from Latin America, and the trend is only growing. Among the highlights of the report are the following:

The nation’s immigrant population has grown 4.1 million from the second quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2015, with roughly 2.1 million of the growth coming from Latin America, of which 1 million are from Mexico.

Over the past year alone (second quarter of 2014 through second quarter of 2015), the immigration population has grown by 1.7 million. Seventy-one percent of this growth has come from Latin America (1.2 million) and 44% (740,000) from Mexico alone.

Overall, there are 42.1 million immigrants in the country, 13.3% of the nation’s total population, which is the largest share in 105 years. As I noted in my immigration report in June, that trajectory is projected to explode. By 2060, the immigrant population will grow to 78.2 million – 18.8% of the total population.

Record Legal Immigration, Particularly from Latin America

First, this report demonstrates, once again, that the record high levels of legal immigration are continuing to spike. Moreover, the largest increases continue to be from the very countries that send us the most illegal immigrants. As the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler, note, an estimated eight out of 10 illegal immigrants are from Latin America. According to DHS, as of 2012, 59% were from Mexico alone.

Liberals and many faux conservative supporters of amnesty defend illegal immigration as a natural consequence of “a broken legal immigration system” where it is impossible to come here legally. The problem is that the period of illegal immigration has overlapped with the most protracted period of legal immigration expansion and has originated from the countries that have had a monopoly on our legal immigration. According to Pew, 50% of all immigrants since 1965 have come from Latin America – 29% from Mexico alone. What this new CIS report shows is that the trend has continued, and in fact, over the past year there has been a massive spike – with 44% of our entire growth in the immigrant population originating from just one country – Mexico – and 71% coming from Latin American overall.

mexican foreign born chart

If anything, it is clear that the liberal premise is antithetical to the reality – that the more we hand over the keys to immigration to a particular area, the more people will come through all available channels – both legal and illegal – to join their friends, families, and communities.

The Likely Resurgence of Illegal Immigration from Mexico

Camarota and Zeigler rightly concludes that “while the impact of illegal immigration is often the subject of intense national debate, the much larger flow of legal immigrants has seen almost no discussion, even though its impact on American society is much larger.”

However, there is another disturbing trend parsimoniously dealt with in this report that hints towards a new massive increase in illegal immigration both from Mexico and Central America over the past year. Apologists for open borders have long promoted the talking point that net migration from Mexico has gone down to zero since the Great Recession and that most of the new illegal immigration is only from Central America. It is now clear that this trend has completely reversed itself and it is incontrovertibly due, in part, to Obama’s policies and the national push for the Gang of 8 bill (promoted and cheered on by many presidential candidates) that sent the message to the world that if they come here now – either through the border or by overstaying a temporary visa – they are home free and will eventually reap the windfall of mass amnesty.

The presentation of the CIS immigration data by the inimitable Camarota is eye opening because it appears that the recent spike in immigration from Mexico is even more than indicated by the raw numbers counting green cards. The numbers that are typically cited throughout the web are 1 million immigrants overall per year and roughly 135,000-145,000 from Mexico alone – almost twice the second highest recipient country of U.S. green cards. These numbers come from the Department of Homeland Security, but the most recent year with full data is 2013.

Although these numbers are huge, the CIS report (using census data) reveals that there have been 1.7 million new immigrants over the past 12 months, 740,000 from Mexico alone – much higher than the 135,000 green cards granted to Mexican nationals the previous year (calendar year 2013). Camarota notes that the number of immigrants from Mexico grew 449,000 in just the first 6 months of 2015! How can this be?

Remember, the census numbers already account for the fact that a number of people have left or died (unlike the numbers from DHS that measure raw admissions and issuance of documents). Which means that if the net increase in immigration from Mexico was 740,000, the number of new arrivals could easily be 900,000-1,000,000. That trajectory appears to be growing even from last year based on the first half of 2015. Moreover, less than half of the 135,000 green cards for Mexican nationals (as well as the 1 million overall green cards) reflect new arrivals; they are adjustments of status for those already here on non-immigrant visas or other temporary legal categories.

Included in the survey are also student visas and work visas. For the most recent academic year, 14,779 student visas were granted to Mexican nationals. During fiscal year 2014, which already overlaps a few months with the year we are studying (July 2014-June 2015), roughly 140,000 H guest worker visas were given to Mexicans, the highest number on record. In totality, this should mean that if the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas issued over the past 12 months held stable at the pretty consistent trend from the previous few years; roughly 215,000 new Mexican foreign nationals arrived in the country legally this past year.

How then does the census data indicate that there has been a 740,000 net increase in migration from Mexico in just 12 months, which would likely reflect a reality of up to 1 million new arrivals? There could have been a spike in more legal immigrants and guest workers (and we won’t know until DHS publishes the data in late 2016), but only within the margins because the existing trend is already close to the statutory caps.

Clearly, if the census data is anywhere close to being accurate, there has been a massive surge of illegal immigration from Mexico alone that has been covered up by the Administration and most media outlets. The complete suspension of enforcement and all of the sundry amnesties, particularly for relatives of the millions of Mexican American citizens and LPRs, has likely encouraged hundreds of thousands more to either cross the border or come here on tourist visas and disappear into the population. This seems to jive with reports of a new border surge this summer.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine that there were 600-800k illegal aliens from Mexico alone last year. As Camarota demonstrates in table 1 of his report, the margin of error in the CPS for Mexico is about ±200,000 (both the start date and end date), which could theoretically mean there are 400,000 fewer Mexican immigrants than indicated in the survey. Nonetheless, it’s very possible that upwards of 400,000-500,000 illegal aliens entered the country from Mexico.

Why this Matters

The reason this report is so important is that we have very little data from this administration that can be used to accurately measure the damage of his dismantlement of our immigration enforcement over the past two years. While we are painfully aware of the epidemic of 360,000 known criminal aliens roaming the streets, what is less evident is how many new illegal immigrants are arriving because of the public incentives that are being made to illegal aliens and their relatives.

The last year of full administrative data on legal immigration is 2013 and the last year of full data on illegal immigration is 2011. If there is a massive surge of illegal immigration – over and beyond the tidbits reported in the conservative media – we will not find out for quite some time.

At that point it will be too late to stop the flow and we will be entreated to the same sanctimonious arguments in favor of granting yet another wave of illegals rights that Americans enjoy. Armed with this report, it’s time for Congress to do some digging and add this as reason number 12 million to defund Obama’s amnesty, lest we be saddled with yet another endless wave of illegal immigration. (Re-posted with permission from the author, “New Report: Massive Immigration Surge From Mexico”, originally appeared HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Mike Huckabee Asked If Denying Abortion to 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Is ‘Too Extreme’, Here’s How He Responds

101123_mike_huckabee_ap_328After Paraguay’s recent decision to deny an abortion to a 10-year-old who was raped by her stepfather, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was asked by CNN host Dana Bash how he would respond as fellow Republicans say that policy is “too extreme.”

The former Arkansas governor acknowledged during his “State of the Union” interview Sunday that what happened to the girl is “horrible” and a “terrible tragedy,” but then made a strong argument for allowing the child to be born.

“Does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child?” he asked, adding later: “When I think about one horror, I also think about the possibilities that exist, and I just don’t want to think that somehow we discounted a human life … Let’s not compound the tragedy by taking yet another life.”

Huckabee added that well-known Pastor James Robison was conceived as a result of a rape, and that his mother “begged” doctors in the 1940s to give her an abortion — but they refused. Now Robison heads a Christian relief organization Life Outreach International which cares for “hundreds of thousands of people across the world,” Huckabee said, adding that none of that would have happened if Robison was aborted. (Read more from “Mike Huckabee Asked If Denying Abortion to 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Is ‘Too Extreme’, Here’s How He Responds” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nuclear Facility in U.S. On Lockdown After Security Incident

Savannah-Nuclear-facility-913x512By Randy DeSoto. The Savannah River Site nuclear facility, approximately 60 miles southeast of Columbia, S.C. is on lockdown following a “security event.”

The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office has notified the public that no one is allowed in or out of the facility. Barricades now block the entrance.

According to the Aiken Standard, a bomb-sniffing dog alerted security personnel to explosives potentially present onboard a vehicle.

Savannah River Site (SRS) issued a press release stating: “a potential security event is in progress that has triggered emergency response activities at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site,” and the release is “being sent to you as part of our emergency response organization information process.”

SRS also stated there is no indication of a “consequence beyond the Savannah River Site boundaries.” (Read more from “Nuclear Facility in U.S. On Lockdown After Security Incident” HERE)
______________________________________________

UPDATE: Both “Electronic and Canine Scans” Registered Positive for Explosives on a Delivery Truck

According to a local Fox News affiliate, the Savannah River nuclear facility security personnel used both electronic scanning and the use of dogs to determine the probability of explosive residue on a delivery truck that attempted to drive into the plant. Although there is no further information on whether the electronic and canine positives were confirmed by any subsequent examination of the vehicle, the lockdown was recently lifted.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Give Shell Permission to Drill for Oil in Alaska for First Time in 20 Years

<> on July 9, 2015 in Shishmaref, Alaska.The federal government on Monday gave Royal Dutch Shell the final permit it needs to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska’s northwest coast for the first time in more than two decades.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement announced that it approved the permit to drill below the ocean floor after the oil giant brought in a required piece of equipment to stop a possible well blowout.

The agency previously allowed Shell to begin drilling only the top sections of two wells in the Chukchi Sea because the key equipment, called a capping stack, was stuck on a vessel that needed repair in Portland, Oregon.

Since the vessel arrived last week, Shell is free to drill into oil-bearing rock, estimated at 8,000 feet below the ocean floor, for the first time since its last exploratory well was drilled in 1991.

“Activities conducted offshore Alaska are being held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards,” agency Director Brian Salerno said in a statement Monday. “We will continue to monitor their work around the clock to ensure the utmost safety and environmental stewardship.” (Read more from “Feds Give Shell Permission to Drill for Oil in Alaska for First Time in 20 Years” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TSA Spent $160 Million on Failed Body Scanners, ‘Naked’ X-Rays

Airport SecurityThe Transportation Security Administration spent $160 million on body scanners that have largely failed to detect airport security threats.

Politico reported that the government agency paid $120 million for the body scanners currently in place at airport checkpoints across the country in addition to another $40 million on the “naked” X-ray scanners removed from airports two years ago amid health and privacy concerns.

The TSA, which recently disclosed the costs to members of Congress probing the agency, on average spent over $150,000 per unit of body imaging technology since it first began purchasing the scanners in 2008.

The acting TSA head was reassigned in June after a security audit revealed that the agency’s devices failed to detect fake weapons and explosives 96 percent of the time in secret tests . . .

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said that the scanners are so unsuccessful–“These things weren’t even catching metal,” he warned–that they should be preceded by metal detectors. (Read more from “TSA Spent $160 Million on Failed Body Scanners, ‘Naked’ X-Rays” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California Plans to Take Land for Huge Water Tunnels

640x0 (1)State contractors have readied plans to acquire as many as 300 farms in the California delta by eminent domain to make room for a pair of massive, still-unapproved water tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, according to documents obtained by opponents of the tunnels.

Farmers whose parcels were listed and mapped in the 160-page property-acquisition plan expressed dismay at the advanced planning for the project, which would build 30-mile-long tunnels in the delta formed by the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers.

“What really shocks is we’re fighting this and we’re hoping to win,” said Richard Elliot, who grows cherries, pears and other crops on delta land farmed by his family since the 1860s. “To find out they’re sitting in a room figuring out this eminent domain makes it sound like they’re going to bully us … and take what they want.” (Read more from “California Plans to Take Land for Huge Water Tunnels” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Skips Public Forum to Tell Reporters That Regular Voters Don’t Care About Email Scandal

clinton-e1439584814871Hillary Clinton asserted at the Iowa State Fair Saturday that average voters don’t care about her use of a private email server as secretary of state.

But the Democrat avoided testing out her theory, opting to answer questions from reporters rather than attending The Des Moines Register Presidential Soapbox, a forum nearly all of the other candidates for president will have attended by the time the fair ends next week.

“We’ll see how this all plays out, but it’s not anything people talk to me about as I travel around the country. It is never raised in my town halls. It’s never raised in my other meetings with people,” Clinton told reporters at the fair when asked about the FBI’s investigation into her home-brew email server . . .

Clinton’s qualification that she did not receive any emails that were “marked classified” is a relatively new wrinkle in her explanation of the use of a private email account.

The FBI seized Clinton’s home-brew email server from a New Jersey data center earlier this week. That’s after I. Charles McCullough, the Intelligence Community inspector general, found two emails he believes contained “top secret” information at the time they were sent. Clinton did not send the emails, but they traversed her server, which was housed at the time in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y. home. (Read more from “Hillary Skips Public Forum to Tell Reporters That Regular Voters Don’t Care About Email Scandal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.