New UK Petition Calling for New Brexit Vote

/0 Comments/in , /by

No sooner has the Brexit vote passed, the referendum withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Union, than a new referendum has been called to modify the referendum results, post-passage.

In other words, those who were opposed to the U.K. withdrawing from the EU have started a petition to call into question the Brexit results. And as of the writing of this story, nearly 2 million signatures have been added to the petition.

The Brexit vote resulted in 51.9 percent of UK residents demanding the U.K. pull out of the EU, while 48.1 percent voted to remain in the EU. But the new petition is asking for a new referendum to be issued.

According to Lizzie Dearden of the Independent, “Signatories are calling for a new rule to be implemented stipulating that polls on the European Union with a majority under 60 percent and turnout under 75 percent must be re-started.” They’re not petitioning for a recount, but a re-vote.

According to the BBC, “The petition’s website states it was set up by an individual called William Oliver Healey, and says: ‘We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60 percent, based on a turnout less than 75 percent, there should be another referendum.’ Thursday saw a 72.2 percent turnout, significantly higher than the 66.1 percent turnout at last year’s general election, but below the 75 percent mark suggested by Mr. Healey as a threshold.”

At this point, the parliament is not considering another follow-up referendum according to recently resigned British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Further complicating matters is the fact not everyone in the U.K. wanted to withdraw from the EU. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. “The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 had a turnout of 84.6 percent — but there has not been a turnout above 75 percent at any general election since 1992,” the BBC stated. (For more from the author of “New UK Petition Calling for New Brexit Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Makes Promise to the British After They ‘Declared Their Independence’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday applauded Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and vowed to work closely with the United Kingdom in the future.

“The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples,” Trump said in a statement posted on Facebook. “They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy.”

“A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration,” Trump’s statement said.

“Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again,” Trump’s statement said.

On Twitter, Trump issued three tweets about the vote.

Trump, who was in Scotland Friday for the reopening of his Turnberry golf resort, called Britain’s vote to leave the European Union “a great thing.” He added, “People are angry, all over the world, they’re angry. They’re angry over borders, they’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over. Nobody even knows who they are. They’re angry about many, many things.”

(For more from the author of “Trump Makes Promise to the British After They ‘Declared Their Independence'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time for an American Brexit?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tired of our country being flooded with too many refugees from the Middle East and illegal immigrants from all over the world? How about creating our own Brexit?

While many conservatives are celebrating the deadlocked Supreme Court decision on Obama’s “DAPA” amnesty, resulting in the 5th Circuit’s injunction against the illegal act remaining in effect, now is the time to keep up the pressure on Congress to act more than ever.

To begin with, the effects of Judge Hanen’s injunction are less consequential than what is widely perceived. The lawsuit only dealt with one amnesty and it only stopped Obama from issuing work permits and Social Security cards to DAPA recipients. Obviously, a court has no ability to stop Obama from suspending deportations. In fact, Obama already announced that he will continue with his policy of ordering immigration agents not to follow the law and deport most illegal immigrants. And even as it relates to the affirmative benefits, the Social Security cards for DACA recipients were not a party to the lawsuit and will continue to be issued. Obama has already illegally granted at least 700,000 Social Security cards to people who have no constitutional right to be in this country.

Thus, rather than GOP leaders using the court decision to wash their hands of this fight, the outcome leaves them with no excuses not to fight. While Obama unilaterally making citizens out of illegal immigrants was patently unconstitutional to even a non-constitutional scholar, now that the courts have spoken (after all, the courts are everything in our post-constitutional society), how can Republicans pass a budget bill in September that does not contain a provision defunding DACA. Let’s not forget DACA is just as unconstitutional as DAPA; it merely applies to a slightly younger demographic of illegal immigrants. However, it was not officially halted by the courts because it wasn’t the direct subject of the lawsuit. Obama is handing out work permits and Social Security cards every day and will continue to do so. How can Republicans fund it for even one more day?

This is different from any other odious policy that conservatives want to defund. We now have the much-vaunted federal judiciary confirming that it is completely unconstitutional. Let’s not pretend that the immigration issue was solved with this court ruling.
In addition to defunding DACA (in the operative bill that funds the government in late September), Republicans must also leverage any funding towards the re-instatement of the Secure Communities Program, which cuts to the heart of Obama’s refusal to detain and remove criminal aliens, an issue that was obviously not addressed in the lawsuit. They must also bar DHS officials from preventing ICE or CBP agents from apprehending and deporting illegal aliens pursuant to statute.

Moreover, Republicans have an obligation to stop Obama from enlisting illegal aliens in the military. Not only did they vote down an amendment to the NDAA to block the Pentagon’s recent policy, there is a provision in the bill explicitly blessing this action that has clearly been deemed unconstitutional.

An American Brexit on Refugee Resettlement

Finally, Congress has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the states in the other big immigration problem – Islamic refugee resettlement. Despite the fact that Obama is violating immigration statutes by resettling refugees in states without advanced consultation (or any consultation) with state officials, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton. The people and the states are sick of this social transformation without representation and they are certainly warry of the security risks. News continues to trickle out about the alleged rape of a 5-year-old special needs girl in the small heartland city of Twin Falls, Idaho at the hands of what appears to be several refugees.

When did the American people ever vote to transform their society to this extent? As I demonstrate in my upcoming book, Stolen Sovereignty, all of the transformation through immigration has been foisted upon us by the courts and the bureaucrats. To the extent there was ever legislation that led to harmful immigration policies, those bills were sold to the American people as the exact opposite of their desired result. The 1980 Refugee Act was advertised as a way of clamping down on mass influxes of refugees.

I don’t claim to be an expert on British affairs, but the obvious undercurrent of the #Brexit referendum in a general sense was the desire for self-governance, popular sovereignty, and to clamp down on social transformation without representation. Isn’t it time for our own Brexit? Instead of relying on the courts, which will be a net liability on immigration in the long run, Congress must take the power over sovereignty back from the executive branch and return it to the people and the states.

Last year, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the State Refugee Security Act of 2015 (S. 2363), which allows governors to block refugee resettlement in their respective states if they believe it poses a security risk to their residents. Although we are not governed by an international body the same way Great Britain was controlled by the EU, states suffering from refugee resettlement face a similar predicament to those European countries flooded with refugees. Refugee resettlement is controlled by the UN, unelected bureaucrats, and taxpayer-funded private resettlement contractors – without any input from the states or Congress. If Congress had to approve the refugee program today, there is no way it would pass either chamber.

It’s time for Congress to do its job and restore the sovereignty of the people, the states, and the federal union. As it relates to illegal immigration or refugee resettlement, the courts are not the solution. If Republicans truly desire to change the narrative from gun control, they can easily harness the security and sovereignty concerns of the American people by reclaiming authority over all aspects of immigration policy. (For more from the author of “Time for an American Brexit?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ban on Transgender Troops to Be Lifted July 1

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Pentagon plans to announce the repeal of its ban on transgender service members July 1, a controversial decision that would end nearly a year of internal wrangling among the services on how to allow those troops to serve openly, according to Defense officials.

Top personnel officials plan to meet as early as Monday to finalize details of the plan, and Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work could sign off on it by Wednesday, according to a Defense official familiar with the timetable but who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly about it. Final approval would come from Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and the announcement will be on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend.

The plan would direct each branch of the armed services over a one-year period to implement new policies affecting recruiting, housing and uniforms for transgender troops, one official said.

Carter announced last year that the ban, which affects a fraction of the military’s 1.3 million active duty members, would be lifted unless a review showed that doing so would have “adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness.”

That phrase raised concerns on Capitol Hill where a key lawmaker questioned whether an “honest and balanced assessment” could be made of the effects on “military readiness, morale and good order and discipline” under Carter’s guidelines for the review. (Read more from “Ban on Transgender Troops to Be Lifted July 1” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dr. James Dobson: Donald Trump Has Accepted Christ

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Donald Trump, according to a new report, has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

No, you didn’t accidentally click on The Onion. That’s a factual statement, according to a well-respected evangelical faith leader.

Dr. James Dobson, who was among the more than 900 evangelical faith leaders who met with the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting in New York City, says it happened fairly recently. He also said he knew who led the businessman to Christ.

“I don’t know when it was, but it has not been long,” Dobson told Godfactor’s Michael Anthony in an exclusive interview. “I believe he really made a commitment, but he’s a baby Christian. We all need to be praying for him, especially if there’s a possibility of him being our next chief executive officer.”

“I think that he’s open,” he added. “He doesn’t know our language, he really doesn’t, and he refers a lot to religion and not much to faith and belief.” (Read more from “Dr. James Dobson: Donald Trump Has Accepted Christ” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.K.’s Thursday referendum on European Union membership means that the United Nation’s global warming plans need to be rewritten, according to the executive secretary of the Paris global warming deal.

The referendum, often called Brexit, significantly changes the agreement, which assumed Britain would remain part of the EU.

“From the point of view of the Paris Agreement, the UK is part of the EU and has put in its effort as part of the EU so anything that would change that would require a recalibration,” Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the Paris global warming deal, said the day before the Brexit vote. “In principle, it is actually, historically, we say, as humankind, we are moving towards larger and larger tents of collaboration […] rather than in the opposite way.”

Progressive outlets like The Guardian are already claiming that Brexit will reduce environmental protections and create more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The U.N.’s Paris global warming agreement will cost a minimum $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists. However, these estimates are likely low, as they exclude energy efficiency measures which will bring the total to $16.5 trillion, according to projections from the International Energy Agency.

That’s almost as much money as the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.

The deal, which was heavily encouraged by the Obama administration, encourages nearly 200 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, slowing global warming. Secretary of State John Kerry however admitted that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and the developed world will not help the environment or even slow down global warming. (For more from the author of “UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Tweets Opposition to ‘Tearing Apart Families’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood’s political action committee ironically condemned the Supreme Court’s 4-4 split on President Obama’s immigration executive order Thursday in a tweet saying the mega abortion provider opposes “tearing apart families.”

The Supreme Court tie has the effect of upholding a lower court which ruled Obama’s order freezing certain deportations was an illegal use of executive power. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, a sister organization to Planned Parenthood that focuses on political advocacy, was deeply distressed by the tie, declaring on Twitter that “human dignity has no borders.”

A few other Twitter users noted the statement’s irony, given Planned Parenthood’s status as America’s largest abortion provider. Some referenced the fact that many abortions specifically rely on a procedure in which a fetus is torn apart so that its pieces may be safely removed from the mother. Others observed that Planned Parenthood apparently does believe in borders for human dignity.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund also condemned the ruling in a statement on its website, where it continued to use rhetoric that could also be applied in an abortion context.

“It could … rip millions of families apart,” spokeswoman Daniela Ramirez said. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Tweets Opposition to ‘Tearing Apart Families'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How McConnell Botched the Senate’s Response to Orlando

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s, R-K.Y. (F, 44%) handling of the fallout from the Orlando terrorist attack in recent weeks has been an unprecedented disaster. Here’s why.

The floor of each chamber can be a powerful tool, just ask Senators Rand Paul, R-K.Y. (A, 95%) and Ted Cruz, R-K.Y. (A, 97%) who through epic speeches captivated the attention of the country. Just last week Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, D-C.T. (F, 8%) was able to draw the attention of the national media to his cause of gun control by commanding the Senate floor in a 15-hour-long filibuster.

The goal of competent Republican Senate leadership after the Orlando attack should have been to respond by controlling the debate and defining the narrative on its terms. After all, Republicans control the Senate floor and thus the agenda.

The preferred way of Republicans defining the narrative on their terms would have been for McConnell to announce that because of the threat of radical Islamic terrorism in the United States the Senate would immediately move to consideration of the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Defense. A bill that literally funds the troops who will take the fight to radical jihadists.

Doing so would have unified Republicans and split Democrats. Democrats would have been left with the choice between funding our nation’s troops or filibuster their funding in an effort to push forward a radical gun control agenda — an agenda that would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Orlando attack. Instead, McConnell divided Republicans on the issue of guns and allowed Democrats to have the upper hand in controlling the narrative and legislative agenda.

If Republicans had successfully moved the Department of Defense funding bill, they would have been able to offer a series of amendments that deal directly with radical Islamic terrorism and would have defined the debate on their terms. Media coverage would be about amendments intended to address ISIS, domestic terrorism, and an immigration system that is arguably one of our nation’s biggest national security threats, instead of the gun control theatrics we’re seeing today.

As a byproduct of moving to the Department of Defense funding bill, Rule XVI in the Senate would have precluded Democrats from bringing up any of the gun control amendments, which Republicans are currently being forced to vote on. Thereby protecting any vulnerable GOP members in tough general election races.

Instead, to show that Republicans can “govern” McConnell opted to stay on the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) funding bill. A huge tactical blunder.

Because spending bills must originate in the House, the House version of the CJS funding bill is used to determine what amendments can be offered in the Senate. And the House CJS funding bill has provisions that have allowed Democrats to successfully achieve their goal of gun control votes and pushing their message of more gun control.

Committed to his course of seeing through the CJS funding bill to prove Republicans can “govern,” McConnell on Monday agreed to allow two votes on Democrat gun control proposals, along with two Republican side-by-sides. Significantly, these side-by-sides are not pro-gun designed to highlight the GOP standing up for Second Amendment rights. Rather, they are gun control lite proposals.

But Thursday, things got even worse as McConnell stumbled into his biggest blunder yet, forcing a vote on a motion to kill the latest gun control proposal from fellow Republican Senator Susan Collins, R-M.E. (F, 12%).

Collins’ gun control proposal survived the motion as 54 senators voted to keep the proposal alive, but the vote also demonstrated Collins proposal did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Therefore, not having 51 votes to table the proposal or 60 votes to pass the Collins proposal, the Senate is effectively stuck.

And stuck on a debate of gun control, not terrorism, or protecting the Second Amendment, but gun control. The exact topic and terrain that Democrats want to discuss. The result? A divided Republican party in the Senate and forcing vulnerable Senators in general election races to take high profile gun control votes. Meanwhile the media runs with the preferred Democrat narrative that their proposal has bipartisan support.

The overall narrative on display to the Republican base plays into the critique and reality that Washington Republicans are not principled, they will do anything to show they can “govern”, and absolutely incapable of standing on principle.

The sad truth is that this entire scenario was absolutely avoidable if Republicans in the Senate had competent leadership. (For more from the author of “How McConnell Botched the Senate’s Response to Orlando” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered

/0 Comments/in , /by

Janet Yellen should send a note of congratulations to Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, the British politicians most responsible for pushing the Brexit campaign to a successful conclusion. While she’s at it she should also send them some fruit baskets, flowers, Christmas cards, and a heartfelt “thank you.“ That’s because the successful Brexit vote, and the uncertainty and volatility it has introduced into the global markets, will provide the Federal Reserve with all the cover it could possibly want to hold off on rate increases in the United States without having to make the painful admission that domestic economic weakness remains the primary reason that it will continue to leave rates near zero.

For months the corner that the Fed has painted itself into has gotten smaller and smaller. It continues to say that rate hikes will be appropriate if the data suggests the economy is strong. Then its representatives continually cite (arguably bogus) statistics that suggest a strengthening economy, which cause many to speculate that rate hikes are indeed on the horizon. But then at the last minute the Fed conjures a temporary reason why it can’t raise rates “right now,” but stresses that they remain committed to doing so in the near future. But each time they conduct this pantomime, they lose credibility. Sadly, Fed officials are discovering that their supply of credibility is not infinite, even among those who would like to cut them a great deal of slack.

But the Brexit vote saves them from all this unpleasantness. Now when critics question the Fed’s unwillingness to deliver on the suggested rate hikes, given what they believe to be a strong economy, all the Fed needs to do is point to the “uncertainty” that will be in play now that the world’s fifth largest economy is disengaging from the European Union. And since this process is bound to be long, messy, and fraught with uncertainties (as there is no precedent for a country leaving the EU), this will be a handy excuse that the Fed will be able to rely on for years.

Brexit could also place severe strains and uncertainties on the global currency markets. The fear of financial losses could encourage investors to seek safe haven assets like gold and, at least for now, the U.S. dollar. Given that there is already much concern that the dollar is valued too highly against most currencies, and that this has created imbalances in the global economy, any surge in the dollar that results from Brexit may have to be fought by the Federal Reserve through lower interest rates and quantitative easing. This would rule out the potentially dollar-strengthening interest rate hikes that they supposedly planned on delivering. So as far as Janet Yellen is concerned, the British have given her the gift that keeps on giving.

On another level, the vote in the UK illustrates the fundamental inefficacy of the monetary and financial policies that have been implemented by the world’s dominant central banks and central bureaucracies. For years, global elites have been telling us that deficit spending, government regulation, and central bank stimulus is the best way to cure the global economy in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis. To prove these points, elite economists associated with the government, academia, and the financial sector have pointed to all kinds of metrics to show how their policies have been successful. But the man on the street perceives a very different reality. They know that their living standards have fallen, their cost of living has risen, and that their job prospects have deteriorated. They see a loss in confidence and economic stagnation when they are being assured the opposite.

This disconnect has fueled anti-establishment sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, it has given rise to the insurgent candidacies of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The unexpected successes of both reflect a deep distrust of the establishment. Such discontent would not be in play if the positive stories being told by the elites had made any resonance with rank and file voters.

The same holds true with the unexpected strength of the anti-EU voters in Britain. The “Remain” camp had the support of virtually all the elite members of the major UK political parties, the media, and the cultural world. In addition, foreign leaders, including President Obama in a state trip to England, harangued British voters with warnings of economic catastrophe if the British were to make the grave error of defying the advice of their “best” economists.

Given all this, poll numbers that suggested the vote could be close had been dismissed. The elites, as evidenced by recent drifts in currency and financial markets, had all but assumed that British voters would fall into line and vote to remain. Instead, the people revolted. After having been misled for so many years by the very elites who urged them to remain, the rank and file finally asserted themselves and voted with their feet.

British voters may not know what they will get with an independent Britain, but they knew that something was rotten, not just in Denmark, but all over the European Union. The same holds true in the United States. Until our leaders can paint more realistic pictures of where we are and where we are going, we should expect more “surprises” like the one we got [last week]. (For more from the author of “BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Obama: “Our founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”

No they didn’t. They didn’t conceive of the … who said it’s a refuge for the … who said that? They conceived of the nation. So they conceived the nation so it would be a refuge for the world. Who says? They conceived a Republic, where the people would have a say!

President Obama: “More than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful.”

No. It didn’t work that way. It wasn’t just wave of wave of people who wanted to come in. Now, if you’ve listened to this program you know the history.

We had waves at some point, and we also had long periods, like the 1930s to 1970s, where there weren’t waves, where there were periods of assimilation. But at all times prior to 1965, prior to the Great Society – which wasn’t so great – at all times the number one principle, the priority, was what’s in the best interest of the nation and the American people.

We didn’t have this obsession of waves and waves of immigrants coming to the country, changing the culture, changing the demographics, doing this, doing that. That wasn’t the drive behind immigration. Can anybody name a single Founder of this country who said otherwise?

And why is Obama citing them anyway? Some of them were slaveholders. I thought he hated them.

President Obama: “And dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character, and it has made us stronger.”

Some have made us stronger. Some have made us weaker.

President Obama: “I know a lot of people are going to be disappointed today, but it is important to understand what today means.”

I’m disappointed. What today means is separation of powers is hanging by a thread. That is, our constitutional system is hanging by a thread, and the greatest fear that the Framers had: this concentrated power in a centralized government is here. You’re staring at it.

President Obama: “We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gangbangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in.”

Oh he’s talking about immigrants. I thought he was talking about the illegal immigrants who he releases into society, that they prioritize criminals, gangbangers and so forth. Ask any local police department about MS-13 problems. Ask them! Just ask them.

He acts like everybody comes in hear picking lettuce and cleaning our homes. That’s not the way it works.

President Obama: “Millions of people who have come forward, and worked to get right with the law under this policy – they’ve been living here for years too, in some cases even decades. So leaving the broken system … .”

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa… So they have been defying the law for decades? And notice how he doesn’t differentiate, people who come here and violate their visa status, and others. Are all those people who come here on student visas, and teaching visas and entertainment visas and business visas – are they all picking lettuce? Are they picking lettuce, Mr. Producer?

How about all those Syrian refugees he wants to bring in? Are they going to be picking carrots? What are they going to be doing? How do they know they love America?

Is that part of the test when they come into this country: ‘Do you love America?’

President Obama: “That’s not a solution. In fact, that’s the real amnesty: pretending we can deport 11 million people, or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is abetting, what, really, just factually incorrect.”

“Factually incorrect?” You know, ladies and gentlemen, there is a law on the books – I believe it was passed in 2006 – where Congress said that they were going to build a wall and double fences and do all kinds of stuff with another 700 miles of that southern border, and they won’t do it.

Here’s my question: If Barack Obama won’t follow the law, if the bureaucracy won’t follow the law, if Congress won’t follow the Constitution and it keeps surrendering its powers, if the Supreme Court won’t follow the law and the Constitution, why should the rest of us?

If they don’t follow the law, why the hell should we? (For more from the author of “LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.