Member of Bush Family Makes Surprising Presidential Endorsement Announcement

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One Bush family member has announced whom he intends to endorse for president in the upcoming election.

Marvin Bush, brother to former President George W. Bush and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, revealed Wednesday he will be supporting Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and his vice presidential running mate, William Weld.

Speaking on WJFK-FM in Washington, Bush stated that both Johnson and Weld served two terms as governor of their states, and both balanced their states’ budgets.

He continued, saying, “So they’re fiscally conservative and their essential message is get bureaucracy off our backs. It used to be a part of what the Republicans believed.”

The president’s brother has been critical of Republican nominee Donald Trump as well as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

He criticized Clinton, saying, “I think she’s one of the most dishonest people that’s ever been in politics.”

Pointing to the controversies and scandals that have plagued Clinton, Bush suggested a pattern of deception, adding, “That’s the reason her trust ratings are lower than almost any politician around.”

Bush’s criticism of Trump lies mainly in the way he has chosen to run his campaign.

He accused Trump of portraying to young people that the only way to succeed is to tear apart your opponent and belittle them. Trump had harsh words for candidate Jeb and other members of the Bush family during the primary campaign.

When the comment was made that voting for Johnson equaled a vote for Trump, Bush said, “First of all, I want to have a conscience. I want honest leadership. I want proven, effective people running this country, and so I want to be able to go to bed at night. And so I don’t really care about that.” (For more from the author of “Member of Bush Family Makes Surprising Presidential Endorsement Announcement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Putrid, Cop-Hating BLM Hecklers Erupt During Moment of Silence for Fallen Officers

/0 Comments/in , /by

DNC attendees acted completely classless and vile when they interrupted a moment of silence for fallen police officers Thursday night.

Shouts of “Black Lives Matter!” were shouted more than once during the tribute. Even Democrats on Twitter were disgusted at the lack of respect.

One observer reminded the #DemsinPhilly to get their hate in order!

Nice that some liberals have their priorities straight. (For more from the author of “Putrid, Cop-Hating BLM Hecklers Erupt During Moment of Silence for Fallen Officers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Baghdad Bob Speech Suitable for a Different Era

/0 Comments/in , /by

By all objective measures, the prose and delivery of Obama’s convention speech last night were excellent. If its intended purpose was to unify the Democrat Party and reconstitute the liberal base turnout that benefited Obama in 2008, this speech was likely a success. But if this speech was designed to slow the bleed of moderates and white blue-collar voters from the party, it was completely disjointed from the reality starring those voters in the face.

Obama tried to deliver a 1988-style “passing of the baton speech” much like Ronald Reagan did for George Bush. The problem for him is that while the snobby elite demographics of his party might view the present as the 1988 equivalent for Democrats, in the eyes of most swing voters this is more like 2008.

In 1988, nobody could deny that it was a tranquil and prosperous time for the country. The economy was experiencing the most protracted period of growth post-WWII and the Soviet Union was defeated. People were not looking for fundamental change. Reagan just had to pass the baton to his successor and project his popularity on his Vice President while assuaging some of the concerns from GOP base voters. Swing voters never had a problem with Bush. That was essentially a convention speech for Reagan’s third term. The crowd even chanted “four more years” – not referring to four more years of GOP governance, but of Reagan himself.

Fast-forward 28 years later and we have a similar dynamic with a two term president attempting to pass the baton to the “next in line” in his own party for a third term of his presidency. Sure, they can post slick videos demonstrating some successes, such as killing Osama bin Laden (but not the assassination of SEAL Team Six just three months later!). But no swing voter in this country believes we are living in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous era. While the economy recovered from the deep recession, it recovered in the most lethargic way imaginable, inducing an indefinite period of stagnation instead of the traditional boom we experience following a sharp economic downturn.

More important than the economy, nobody outside of the gender studies lecturing rooms in elite colleges believes we are living in a period of safety and security. In fact, most voters, including Democrats, likely believe we have never faced a time where our nation was confronted by such an existential threat. The killing of Bin Laden has been rendered moot by the rise of ubiquitous terror attacks throughout western countries. Just 18 percent of the country believes we are on the right track; 73 percent believe we are on the wrong track.

There is no way to sugarcoat reality; most voters, even those who are not appalled by Obama’s values and governance, do not want a third term of Obama. They want a dramatic change. As I noted following Trumps’ acceptance speech, the weakness of the GOP nominee is not his diagnosis of the problem; it’s some of his solutions or the lack thereof on many issues, along with his character. To attack his diagnosis and deny the problems is akin to Saddam Hussein’s Minister of Information, otherwise known as Baghdad Bob, telling the press that the American military was being defeated even as they entered Baghdad.

The crisis we face in this election is the national security equivalent of the economic meltdown in 2008 after 8 years of Republican rule. And it’s not like the economy is great now either. Tack on the domestic insurrection in our major cities and we are experiencing the convergence of the worst elements of many periods of our history. It is for this reason why the McCain convention in 2008 relegated the sitting president to a short video message rather than a blockbuster prime time speech like Reagan did for George H. W. Bush in 1988. If Democrats wanted to project a new image and chart a new path, something the voters are demanding, they would have followed the 2008 model rather than 1988.

But that is not what the DNC was trying to accomplish. This speech was about the triumph of liberalism; the triumph of their vision. This was a culture war/values speech. And there is no doubt Obama has been an unrivaled success at implementing the fundamental transformation, thanks in large part to the collapse of the Republican Party. While the country is experiencing stagnation, rising crime in major cities, and the worst homeland security threat of our generation, Obama has been unflinching in leading his movement to victory after victory in remaking the country in their extreme ideology. He reminded those base voters who are not excited about Hillary or who badly wanted to see Bernie Sanders accept the nomination, that the party has already adopted the “Bern,” and his vision is already well on its way to changing America. He left no doubt that Hillary is committed to that agenda as well.

The question that remains is can Democrats, thanks to the demographic changes, succeed in winning a base turnout election even in a macro political climate that would have destroyed an incumbent party in any other era. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Baghdad Bob Speech Suitable for a Different Era” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

PIC: Say, I Wonder If Joe Biden’s Had Any Work Done

/0 Comments/in , /by

With no disrespect to the LGBTQ community intended, I must say that the dumbest Vice President in American history looks like a transgendered version of Nancy Pelosi.

160728-joe-biden

As an aside, I’ve been listening to bits and pieces of the Democrat convention and have yet to hear a single true statement uttered. They’re gonna protect our borders (right), destroy ISIS (sure), fix the economy (mmm hmmm), and serve as squeaky clean public servants (rimshot, please).

Everything these leftist kooks say is a lie — and that includes the words and, the and or. (For more from the author of “PIC: Say, I Wonder If Joe Biden’s Had Any Work Done” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Two Giant Reasons the IRS Is Investigating the Clinton Foundation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

News recently broke that Hillary Clinton’s foundation is under IRS investigation, and at least part of that investigation centers on two companies.

This follows reports that Laureate Education and Uranium One have paid out (in the tens of millions) to the Clinton Foundation and in return have received immense taxpayer-funded benefits.

The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world.

Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One.

Before the Rosatom acquired the Canadian mining stakes, UrAsia had to obtain the vast uranium stakes it held at the time of the merger.

[dcquiz] Frank Giustra, a major mining investor in Canada and owner of UrAsia, won a landmark uranium deal in Kazakhstan just days after visiting with Mr. Clinton, reports the New York Times. The two men boarded Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Kazakhstan where they met with the country’s autocratic president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton, in addition to helping Giustra, undermined American foreign policy by expressing his personal support for Nazarbayev’s desire to head an international elections monitory group, reports the New York Times.

Shortly after the former president and Mr. Giustra visited the nation, the then embryonic UrAsia signed a preliminary contract “giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.” Following this very private visit, Mr. Giustra donated some $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and five months later Mr. Giusta held a fundraiser for the joint Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative where he alone pledged $100 million dollars.

UrAsia merged with Uranium One and almost immediately the new company began picking up uranium holdings in the United States. The company soon purchased in excess of 38,000 acres of across Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and other western states as well. Following this large acquisition, Uranium One stated it’s intent on making itself a “powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” reports the New York Times.

Some $8.65 million dollars in donations were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One and former UrAsia investors between 2008 and 2012.

The new rising global uranium conglomerate experienced a sharp and decisive blow when it’s stock fell 40 percent. Fearing the loss of their holdings in Middle East, Uranium One looked to the US embassy in Kazakhstan to negotiate for them with the nation’s officials, reports the New York Times. These discussions would have gone directly through Secretary of State Clinton, but the Clinton campaign did not respond to inquiries about this deal.

A few days after these negotiations, a subsidiary of Rosatom purchased “17 percent of Uranium One.” Not even a year later the Russian government offered Uranium One stakeholders a “generous offer,” that would give the Russian agency a “51 percent controlling stake.”

The US government had to sign off first, a decision that must go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes executive members of the cabinet, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state.

John Barrasso, a Senator from Wyoming where Uranium One had its largest operation, wrote President Barack Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” During this time, a Russian bank that would assign a “buy rating to Uranium one stock” paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 dollars to speak in Moscow.

The decision had to go through the Committee, which included Secretary Clinton. At the time, her husband, in addition to the speaking arrangements, was “collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” The Committee approved the deal in October of 2010.

The only reported Uranium Official to give to the Foundation was the chairman, Ian Tefler, who gave in 2007 less than $250,000. Mr. Tefler’s family charity the Fenwood Foundation, however, donated millions of dollars from 2009 to 2013, reports the New York Times.

The Committee approved sale of the Canadian mining stakes provided the Russians with direct control of “one-fifth of all uranium production” in the United States, reports the New York Times. While the Russians were taking control of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, Canadian records highlight a “flow of cash made its way” into the pockets of the Clinton Foundation.

Rosatom took 100 percent stake in Uranium One in 2013 and shortly thereafter privatized the company.

The other company that could get Hillary into hot water is Laureate International Universities. Laureate hired former President Clinton for $16.5 million dollars over five years to act as their “honorary chancellor.” The company also donated between $1 and $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to the foundation’s website.

While Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill was drawing a check from Laureate, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), invested $150 million into the company marking the largest single contribution the IFC has made in education. The largest contributor to the IFC is the US government, which during the same period contributed $55 million to the International Youth Foundation (IYF). Coincidentally, or not, the IYF, IFC, and the Clinton Foundation all participated in foundation programming.

The IFC also made a $150 million dollar contribution to a company owned by Frank Giustra.

“The Clinton Foundation board mainly consists of close friends, business colleagues and big donors to the Clintons,” Richard Pollock of TheDCNF reported. (For more from the author of “The Two Giant Reasons the IRS Is Investigating the Clinton Foundation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The History of the United States, as Told by Young Democrats

/0 Comments/in , /by

Young Democrats appear to be part of the coalition championing that dictum from William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

I expected the youth caucus meeting at the Democratic National Convention, which I attended Wednesday, to focus almost entirely on current liberal concerns such as student loans, jobs, LGBT issues, and climate change. (Given the near absolute lack of mentions of terrorism on the convention’s main stage, I wasn’t so naïve that I expected any talk about the Islamic State terrorists or national security.)

But this was no MSNBC event, and far from leaning forward, two of the three participants on a panel went on extended diatribes about the United States’ history to a room with enough empty chairs to satisfy an army of Clint Eastwoods.

Sitting about half a mile from Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, I got a whirlwind course in Liberal History 101.

“We understand that we have never had a fully participatory democracy,” said Catalina Velasquez. “We understand that democracy, the way it’s defined in the United States, has been about contracting, disenfranchising. The more we disenfranchise, the better. And we are tired of it.”

Velasquez is the director of Young People For, a group that declares on its website that it is “taking a stand for progressive values.” Earlier in the event, Velasquez got enthusiastic applause after boasts of being “undocumented and unafraid” and “transgender and unashamed.”

Nor was the earlier statement the sum of Velasquez’s criticisms about the United States.

“We are really looking introspectively about how this country came about,” Velasquez said. “This country’s built off the backs of native, indigenous people, the genocide of such. This country’s built off the backs of black people … this country is built on the backs of immigrant labor.”

Velasquez added:

And we are tired, and we are tired because history continues to repeat itself over and over again. We are not seeing the change and we are being told to wait. And we don’t want to wait. We’re ready and we’re coming.

Velasquez then proceeded to tick off how long it had taken different groups to be able to vote in the United States.

“And some of us who are undocumented, let’s not forget, are still fighting for suffrage rights.”

Curiously—or perhaps not curiously, given that Eleanor Roosevelt is still enough in the good graces of the left to be given an enthusiastic shoutout by Meryl Streep on the convention’s main stage—there was no mention of the Japanese being thrown into internment camps by Franklin Roosevelt.

At any rate, I’m under no illusion that the history of the United States is free from injustice, immorality, and bad decisions.

But what was striking about the account Velasquez gave was, by my memory, the complete absence of any mention of the strikingly great parts of our country’s history. (And of course, the view that somebody who came to the United States illegally should not only be entitled to live here, but also to vote.)

It was unmentioned how the U.S. championed freedom, how our Founding Fathers created a government system that sought both to avoid mob rule and to push citizens to truly govern themselves, to have a government of, by, and for the people, and to have a founding document that recognized the equality of men.

There was no discussion of how the United States had promoted freedom abroad, and had helped other nations with both financial resources and our soldiers’ lives. There was no consideration of how many immigrants had fled lands where opportunity was limited and found the United States to be a place where they and their children and their children’s children could truly live the American dream.

While Velasquez focused on the more distant past, another panelist offered a narrative (equally depressing) about the past few decades.

Nelini Stamp, who describes herself as an “organizer,” “agitator,” and “believer in community centered liberation” in her Twitter bio, detailed her views on past presidents:

Our parents saw [Ronald] Reagan, saw what happened, and then when … [Bill] Clinton gets elected, and everybody’s like ‘Oh, we’re here, this is amazing.’ And then we had [George W.] Bush. Eight years of Bush. And we went to war. We started to prioritize Washington [over] … Main Street. In 2008, we bailed out the banks instead of breaking them apart and they stole 60 percent of the wealth of African-American communities.

But don’t think Stamp’s dislike of the banks bailout means she has any empathy for or interest in exploring the views of the tea party:

A lot of folks thought … Obama gets elected, we kind of packed up. We were like ‘Oh, black president, yes, like I’m so happy.’ And then the tea party came along. And a lot of people thought we were this post-racial society and the tea party came along, and … white supremacy starts to become on the rise.

“If we don’t have a black liberation, black movement in this country … we won’t get anything accomplished,” Stamp added.

Nor was it just young Democrats who championed a narrative obsessed with America’s imperfections.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is 47, appeared at the event. Booker quoted “the late, great Langston Hughes,” a poet who flirted with communism at one point, to discuss America. Booker focused on these lines from Hughes’ 1935 poem “Let America Be America Again”:

O, let America be America again—

The land that never has been yet—

And yet must be—the land where every man is free.

The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—

Who made America,

Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,

Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,

Must bring back our might dream again. …

O, yes,

I say it plain

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath—

America will be!

“Let us swear that oath,” Booker concluded. “Let us stay strong in faith.”

Stamp also grounded her call to young adults in her historical perspective.

“We are the warriors and … the visionaries of the Great Society that people talked about in the past, of that New Deal that went unpromised for communities of color,” she said.

“So I think that the reason we’re going through this is because it’s just history leading up to this moment where we need to take it.” (For more from the author of “The History of the United States, as Told by Young Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

ISIS or Climate Change: Which Worries Democrats More?

/0 Comments/in , /by

As delegates and other attendees came and went outside the Democratic National Convention, The Daily Signal asked some of them what issue they are more concerned about this election season—climate change or the threat of terrorism. Here’s what they had to say.

(For more from the author of “ISIS or Climate Change: Which Worries Democrats More?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Clinton Aide Reveals ‘Nightmare Scenario’ That Could Hurt Her Chances in November

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Hillary Clinton could soon be hit by an “October Surprise,” consisting of a release of even more sensitive information to the Clinton campaign by Russian hackers.

Democratic Party officials have already been hit by hackers.

“That is a nightmare scenario, and let’s hope that we don’t see an October surprise — emails from Hillary Clinton’s server that have either been in the press, or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen,” said retired Adm. James Starvis

The Russian hackers have not been confined to hitting just the DNC in their efforts. They have also hacked the Joint Chiefs as well as the private email servers of some Clinton campaign staffers. Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation itself has been hacked. Security officials believe that Clinton’s private server while she served as secretary of state has also been hacked.

Fiona Hill, a former intelligence official and author of the book Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, stated, “It’s much more nuanced than just influencing the election; it’s more about putting a spotlight on the United States’ failings and damaging the credibility of our political system and our political elites.”

Hill went on, “The advantage of that (for Putin) is that it will be extraordinarily difficult for whoever comes into office in January to forge a coherent foreign policy. The United States will be pretty wounded on the global stage.”

Mark Galeotti, a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, said of the Russian government, “I don’t think they necessarily want or expect to see a Trump presidency. Rather, they want a weak Clinton White House that is too mired in domestic disputes and struggling to achieve a mandate at home to be that effective or aggressive abroad.” (For more from the author of “Top Clinton Aide Reveals ‘Nightmare Scenario’ That Could Hurt Her Chances in November” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie Sanders Leaves the Democratic Party

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The nomination was barely sealed up at the Democratic National Convention before Bernie Sanders, who had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for the party’s nod, went back to being an Independent.

Sanders, who considers himself, officially, an Independent in Congress because his views lean further left than the Democratic party’s platform, caucuses with Democrats. But until declaring an intention to run for the presidency in 2015, he had rarely, if ever, identified as a member of the Democratic Party (he’s been in politics since 1979).

And now, despite pleading with his base to support Hillary, even though they’re concerned that she’s too moderate, Sanders will return to Vermont and to his seat in the Senate, and he’ll do it with no official party affiliation.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign as Chairwoman of the DNC after leaked emails revealed she’d tried to keep Sanders from challenging Clinton for the party’s nomination, might even be vindicated—sort of.

Sanders has struggled all along with whether to call himself a Democrat, even ducking the question of his party affiliation, raised by local Vermont media, just days after he declared. He later tried to reinforce that he was, indeed, a Democrat. But Sanders certainly wasn’t a party player—and that’s exactly the concern Wasserman Schultz voiced in the Wikileaks document dump. (Read more from “Bernie Sanders Leaves the Democratic Party” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Meet the GOP Billionaire Behind the LGBT Push

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It is not surprising that those seeking to advance the LGBT agenda would work through left-leaning organizations, but one billionaire who has his eye on millennials has begun partnering with Hobby Lobby and its Museum of the Bible. Paul Singer has been targeting Republican candidates, lawmakers and the Republican Party platform. Now, he is reaching out to Christian students on college campuses.

Singer has an elaborate funding and organizational scheme that appears to support Christians and gain their goodwill while at the same time working against them to advance his same-sex marriage and LGBT agenda. One of the organizations Singer heavily funds created false propaganda that was published in the Washington Post by editorial board member Jonathan Capehart.

Purporting to show an interconnecting “enemies of equality” network, Capehart’s article is based entirely upon a chart created by Freedom for All Americans. Capehart refused to respond to multiple attempts to set the record straight. As an out homosexual who regularly appears on MSNBC, truth about LGBT issues must not matter to Capehart.

The chart and Capehart’s article depicting a vast “right wing conspiracy” are false. The chart also makes false allegations about Liberty Counsel and the other named people and groups. But, as will be discussed below, the inclusion of Hobby Lobby raises special attention to Singer’s activities and reveals how he uses a well-known Christian organization.

Billionaire New York hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Tim Gill are behind Freedom for All Americans, which produced the false propaganda. Singer and Gill, the founder of Quark, are leading financial supporters of same-sex marriage and the LGBT agenda. Singer is also behind the American Unity PAC, which works to elect pro-LGBT advocates to public office, and American Unity Fund, a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization whose mission is to advance the LGBT agenda. This group hosted a “Big Tent Brunch” at the Republican National Convention featuring Montel Williams, Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner, elected officials and delegates. (Read more from “Meet the GOP Billionaire Behind the LGBT Push” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.