TRUMP’S PIVOT: Excellent, but Too Late?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump has actually been making some fantastic speeches over the past week, ones that stay away from the typical over-the-top rhetoric and wackiness we’d been seeing previously. This should be obvious by the limited coverage his speeches are garnering from the Credentialed Media. Wouldn’t want to see Trump in a good light, right? Maybe that has changed?

Regretful Trump pivots 107 days late

The Republican nominee delivers one of the most comprehensive, on-message rationales for his candidacy to date.

Three and a half months after sealing the Republican nomination, Donald Trump pivoted to contest the general election on Thursday night, expressing regret for his past failures to “choose the right words” and delivering one of the most comprehensive, on-message rationales for his candidacy to date.

Speaking from prepared remarks on the heels of another staffing shakeup, Trump positioned himself as the champion of voiceless Americans against a corrupt and incompetent elite and the leader of an inclusive movement who repeatedly condemned “bigotry.”

His address, delivered at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, presented the sort of message Republican leaders have been waiting months to hear. But with 82 days left until the election and early voting only weeks away, even a flawless sprint to the finish line may be too little too late for Trump to salvage his flailing campaign.

This may seem like typical liberal media spin, but, it is a good point: is it too late? His speeches have been pretty cogent, responsible, and provided excellent policy choices, while also imploring blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others to stop voting for the party which has been pandering to them while keeping them down, namely, the Democrats.

Can it work? He seems much more focused on policy and attacking Hillary and the Democrats while asking for the votes of citizens (not Conservatives, at least not yet. Maybe he will?). Will he stay focused in this manner? Time will tell. (For more from the author of “TRUMP’S PIVOT: Excellent, but Too Late?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Boycotters Say New Target Transgender Policy Still Allows Predators ‘Easier Access to Their Victims’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Target plans to spend $20 million adding single-stall, lockable bathrooms to all store locations after a controversy over a new policy that allows transgender people to use the restroom and fitting room that correspond with the gender they self-identify with.

“Across the board, our goal is to make sure that everyone feels welcome at Target,” Katie Boylan, Target’s vice president of communications, told The Daily Signal.

In April, Target announced the new transgender policy. Boylan said Target has openly listened to guest feedback since then.

“The feedback has been mixed,” Boylan said. Some guests have been very supportive of the bathroom policy, while others “less so,” she said.

In response to the bathroom policy, over 1.4 million people signed a pledge to boycott Target.

“We committed in the spring to making sure that every store across the country has a single-stall, lockable restroom for those who would like to use it,” Boylan said. The remodels in Target’s 1,800 store locations across the country have been under way since then, she said, and will cost $20 million.

The American Family Association, a nonprofit that supports Christian values, started the pledge in April to boycott Target.

“Target’s announcement that it is installing unisex bathrooms does nothing to address the objections of more than 1.4 million customers who are boycotting the retail giant,” Ed Vitagliano, executive vice president of the American Family Association, said in a statement to The Daily Signal. He added:

While AFA did suggest single-occupancy, unisex bathrooms as a way to help the retailer’s transgender customers, our major concern was that Target’s policy would grant voyeurs and sexual predators easier access to their victims by allowing men in women’s restrooms and changing areas, which puts women and girls in danger.

In July, a man who identifies as a woman videotaped an 18-year-old girl in an Idaho Target dressing room. Authorities arrested and charged the man, age 43, who told police that he previously made other videos of women undressing, Time reported.

“Unisex bathrooms are fine, but Target must maintain the gender-specific bathrooms as well—if the company is interested in guaranteeing the safety and privacy of women and girls who patronize the retailer’s stores,” Vitagliano said.

The $20 million investment does not change Target’s fitting room policy and accommodations.

“This partial backtracking proves what everyone already knew, that Target lost customers in droves after it announced that men would be allowed full access to women’s intimate facilities at its stores,” Roger Severino, director of the Devos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

In the immediate two weeks following Target’s announcement of the policy, Target’s stock declined by 4.2 percent.

Target announced its second quarter earnings on Wednesday. Sales decreased by 7.2 percent from last year.

“We have no evidence that says the bathroom policy has had a material impact on our business at this time,” Boylan said.

The policy has had no impact on business in both the last financial quarter and this quarter, Boylan added.

“For too long big businesses like Target have put the interests of loud gender identity activists over the legitimate safety and privacy concerns of its everyday customers,” Heritage’s Severino said. “Target is of course free to do what it wants, but so are its customers, and it is an open question as to whether they will return given that men are still allowed into women’s spaces at Target even under the new policies.” (For more from the author of “Boycotters Say New Target Transgender Policy Still Allows Predators ‘Easier Access to Their Victims'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Cash Deal Encourages Iran to Take More Hostages

/0 Comments/in , /by

The trickle of disturbing leaks about the Obama administration’s flawed and risky Iran policy continues to grow. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that “New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.”

Although President Barack Obama’s White House persistently has denied that the cash transfer amounted to a ransom payment, a State Department spokesman admitted Thursday that the U.S. government delayed making the payment “to retain maximum leverage” over Iran.

This concession confirms widespread suspicions that the negotiations over the release of four Americans were at least tacitly, if not directly, linked to negotiations over the return of frozen Iranian money that had been paid to the United States before Iran’s 1979 revolution for military weapons.

When the administration announced in January that the hostages had been released, it also announced that it had agreed to pay Tehran $1.7 billion to settle a longstanding claim at the U.S.-Iran claims tribunal, which was set up under the 1981 Algiers Accords that resolved the first Iran hostage crisis. But the White House insisted that the payment was made as part of the agreement that resolved the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, not the latest hostage deal.

The January hostage deal involved the release of four innocent Americans held on trumped-up charges in exchange for seven Iranians justifiably imprisoned or charged with sanctions violations and the dropping of criminal charges against another 14 Iranians arrested outside the United States for various offenses.

Such criminals-for-hostages swaps reward hostage taking and the deal was criticized for that reason when the hostages were released on Jan. 17, the day after the “Implementation Day” of the Iran nuclear agreement.

But subsequent revelations have put the prisoner exchange in an even worse light.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 3 that $400 million worth of cash was transferred to Iran on the same day the hostages were released, at the request of the Iranian officials involved in the hostage negotiations who “said they wanted the cash to show that they had gained something tangible.”

Senior Justice Department officials had objected to sending the cash at the same time as the hostage release, but their objections were overruled by the State Department.

Clearly, Iranian officials consider the cash payment to be a hostage ransom. The commander of the Basij, a volunteer force affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, gloated in January that the United States had bought the freedom of the American prisoners with the payment.

The Tehran regime has arrested at least six more foreign visitors since the payment was made in January, including Reza Shahini, a dual Iranian-American citizen, and Nizar Zakka, a Lebanese national with U.S. permanent residency.

Siamak Namazi, an Iranian-American businessman based in Dubai, was arrested in October while visiting a friend in Tehran.

Even more disturbing is the case of Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent who disappeared in Iran in 2007. Levinson went missing after interviewing David Belfield, an American convert to Islam who fled to Iran after he assassinated an exiled Iranian opposition leader, Ali Akbar Tabatabai, in 1980 in Bethesda, Maryland.

Clearly, Tehran has concluded that crime does pay.

The Obama administration’s hostage deal is a dangerous precedent that puts more Americans at risk of being targeted by Iran and its terrorist surrogates to extract ransom payments in the future.

This is part of the hazardous legacy that Obama will leave for the next president. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Cash Deal Encourages Iran to Take More Hostages” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian US Gymnastics Team Wins Gold, but Chooses To “Give All the Glory to God”

/0 Comments/in , , /by

“The Final Five” as they’ve nicknamed themselves, have done it! They edged out Russia and China by a few tenths of a point, leading the team to a tremendous Olympic victory. But with athletic success of such heights comes immense pressure. The athletes have talked about how God has remained central to their competing, reports CBN.

“I take my Bible with me, sometimes two of them, when I travel…I always pray at every competition, when the judge’s hand goes up I am praying, and there are little Scriptures I like to quote,” said star gymnast Gabby Douglas in her memoir “Grace, Gold and Glory: My Leap of Faith.” Another of the team, Simone Biles, talks openly about her Christian faith on twitter.

“God put you there. Be confident. Be humble,” she tweeted. As well as “If you’re praying about it, God is working on it.” Another of the team, Laurie Hernandez, uploaded this image to Instagram earlier this year.

Hernandez says that prayer often quells the pressure she feels before a performance. “Usually, before I salute the judge I’m able to just grab the event and I pray on it and that really grounds me. For some reason, once I do that, I am able to think clearly and I’m able to calm down right before I compete,” she said. (Read more from “Christian US Gymnastics Team Wins Gold, but Chooses To “Give All the Glory to God” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Does Trump Suddenly Think Clinton Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican candidate for president Donald Trump turned heads when he asked the American people to give his opponent Hillary Clinton “the benefit of the doubt” regarding the major controversies of the Clinton Foundation, such as the alleged hypocrisy of receiving donations from countries like Saudi Arabia.

“We know that gays and lesbians in Saudi Arabia can get the death penalty … would you ever take money from a country that treats gays, lesbians, Jews and Christians that way?” Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Trump in a town hall that aired Wednesday evening.

“Well, you don’t want to do that, and if they knew about it that would be one thing, and I assume they knew about it, big league. But certainly they know about it now so maybe they can give the money back,” Trump said in response.

“Wait a minute, they knew about it,” a seemingly confused Hannity interrupted, “because that has been Saudi Arabia’s practice for years.”

“But you know what, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. They certainly knew…” Trump said, as Hannity interjected: “You’re going to give them the benefit of the doubt? I’m not.”

Critics have attacked the Democratic presidential candidate for claiming to be a champion of gay and lesbian Americans while her controversial Clinton Foundation accepts foreign donations from countries that persecute the LGBT community.

Trump, himself, has called for Clinton to return the donations in the past, criticizing her for her hypocrisy.

So why is he now undermining a message he should be hammering Hillary Clinton with by calling on others to give his opponent “the benefit of the doubt”?

The incestuous relationship between the Clinton Foundation, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State at the State Department have been ripe for attacks from Republicans and the media.

Recent revelations from Hillary Clinton’s private email server showed that Clinton used her State Department to do favors for Clinton Foundation donors.

And as the Clintons’ tax returns revealed, Bill and Hillary Clinton have used the Clinton Foundation to give themselves kickbacks while pretending to donate to charity.

Why does Hillary Clinton deserve the “benefit of the doubt” when it is apparent she and her husband have repeatedly misused their “charity” for personal benefit? (For more from the author of “Why Does Trump Suddenly Think Clinton Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Regrets Remarks That ‘Caused Personal Pain’

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the first time since declaring his presidential run, Republican Donald Trump acknowledged that his caustic comments may have caused people pain, saying that he regrets some of what he’s said “in the heat of debate.”

A day after announcing a campaign shake-up and as he trails in the polls, the GOP nominee said that he recognized that his comments — which have angered minorities and alienated large swaths of the general election electorate — may have been ill-advised.

“Sometimes in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that,” the GOP nominee, reading from prepared text, said at a rally in Charlotte, N.C. “And believe it or not, I regret it — and I do regret it — particularly where it may have caused personal pain.” (Read more from “Trump Says He Regrets Remarks That ‘Caused Personal Pain'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Blames Colin Powell for Her Email Scandal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Why did Hillary Clinton use a personal email account with a private server in her home to traffic in state secrets and classified information?

That’s what the FBI wanted to know during its investigation.

Her story to the FBI, according to notes turned over the Congress this week, was that former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised her to do so.

But that, too, was a fib.

It seems another email from 2009 recovered by the FBI reveals she had already decided to use a private email account when she asked Powell about his own practices, the New York Times reports today. (Read more from “Hillary Blames Colin Powell for Her Email Scandal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Voter Fraud Suspected in Alaska – Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

LT. GOV. BYRON MALLOT HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO

On election night, all results in Alaska were slow to be posted. But the results from District 40 were the slowest to arrive. In fact, they never did arrive that night after the polls closed at 8 pm. This was the first time since pre-internet days that election observers can remember such delays.

Election watchers monitoring the postings by the Division of Elections were scanning the website for updates, to no avail.

There were precincts missing and it was too close to call. At one point Ben Nageak was up by 30 votes, and then he was down by just 5.

The three villages missing were Shungnak, Kaktovik, and Point Hope.

Because it’s the North Slope, one can expect things to be a bit slower. But 22 hours late in reporting results from a village? That’s dog-sled speed. And this was a summer day.

SHUNGNAK DID NOT REPORT UNTIL ALL OTHER VOTES WERE IN

What is unusual about the Shungnak reporting is that it came in well after all the other results were posted, and the votes went 48 for Dean Westlake, and 2 for Ben Nageak.

Westlake has been heavily favored by the Alaska Democratic Party over their incumbent Nageak, also a Democrat. Vast sums of money, including a big fundraiser by the Alaska Governor Bill Walker’s surrogate Robin Brena, have poured into the Westlake race.

The governor wants to get rid of Nageak, because he caucuses with the bipartisan majority that the governor does not control.

SHUNGNAK TURNOUT: 62.9 PERCENT

Even more unusual is that the voter turnout in Shungnak was nearly 63 percent, with the turnout for Democrats nearly 30 percent, making it either the most civic-minded community in Alaska…or perhaps there’s another explanation.

Shungnak has 159 registered voters, with 46 of them registered Democrats, 17 registered Republicans, and the rest fall into the “variety pack” categories. Fully 100 Shungnak voters actually cast a ballot.

It took 22 hours for the Shungnak results to be reported, leading observers to wonder if someone had withheld the ballots until all the others were reported.

As of this writing, Rep. Ben Nageak is trailing behind challenger Dean Westlake, with just five votes separating them. Districtwide, Westlake has 765 votes to Nageak’s 760 for the District 40 House seat.

We’re not ready to call this race, but if there was ever an example of how every vote counts, this is it. It also may be an example of voter fraud.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS WERE DISCOURAGED BY ELECTION WORKERS

Yesterday, Must Read Alaska received reports that for registered Republicans in District 40, voting was not a civic breeze. They tell us that election workers told them that if they wanted to vote the Democrats’ ballot, where Westlake and Nageak faced off, their ballot would be put into the “questioned ballot” stack.

Our sources are reporting that there are at least 40 of these questioned ballots in Barrow.

All of this raises questions about ballot custody, ballot security, and a possibly rigged election.

As for the other two villages that reported late, they are:

Kaktovik, where of the 33 votes, 4 went to Dean Westlake and 29 went to Benjamin Nageak. (The result is not surprising because this is Nageak’s hometown.)

Point Hope, where of the 19 votes, 6 went to Westlake and 13 went to Nageak.

Here’s a snapshot of the District 40 results:

Screen-Shot-2016-08-18-at-11.31.49-AM

HISTORIC RESULTS: LOTS OF VOTING IN SHUNGNAK

An analysis of voter history in Shungnak shows that they know how to turn out the vote.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-18-at-1.58.10-PM

ONE THEORY: BOTH BALLOTS

If 100 actually people voted, we see that 50 voters in Shungnak picked the Republican ballot, and 50 picked the Democratic ballot, according to the precinct results. In every other village in that region, the breakdown was much more weighted toward the Democratic ballot.

With a total of 100 cards cast, it appears that the election officials allowed 50 voters to vote two ballots — both the Democratic and Republican ballots.

For example, they could vote for Lisa Murkowski for Senate on one ballot, and Cean Stevens on the other. But only one of those ballots had the Westlake-Nageak matchup on it, which is why there are only 50 votes recorded for that race.

Not only does Shungnak have an extraordinarily high turnout, but the numbers simply don’t add up. (For more from the author of “Voter Fraud Suspected in Alaska – Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EPA Defies Law Requiring Verdict on Whether Biofuels Work

/0 Comments/in , /by

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials are ignoring a federal law requiring them to report to Congress and the public whether biofuels are helping or harming the environment, a government watchdog reported Thursday.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program “is a national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel, also known as biofuel, to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel,” EPA inspector general (IG) official Jim Kohler said in a podcast.

“It was created with the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil,” said Kohler, who is an environmental engineer. But the EPA never completed studies that would show whether biofuels are actually reducing greenhouse gases or otherwise helping the environment.

Forgoing these reports “impedes EPA’s ability to identify, consider, mitigate and make policymakers aware of any adverse impacts of biofuels,” Kohler said. “EPA, Congress and other stakeholders lack key information on biofuel impacts needed to make science-based decisions about RFS and U.S. biofuel policy.”

The required reporting “provides for an objective analysis on the environmental impacts and unintended consequences of U.S. biofuel policy. This analysis is important, given conflicting scientific opinions about biofuel impacts, potential impacts outside of the EPA’s regulatory control, and divergent RFS interests.” (Read more from “EPA Defies Law Requiring Verdict on Whether Biofuels Work” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

College Professors Admit Affirmative Action Is Failing Students, Get Called Racist

/0 Comments/in , /by

Professors at Smith College in Northampton, Mass. are being denounced as white supremacists after private messages were leaked in which they claim affirmative action sets up students for academic failure at the school.

The controversy in question concerns two letters sent by faculty in Smith’s School for Social Work to school administrators. Although the letters were initially private, they were leaked to students at the school by an unknown person, who said they wished to reveal the “violent, racist rhetoric directed toward students of color on the Smith campus.”

The first letter, sent by professor Dennis Miehls, warns that the school was failing in its “gatekeeper” function by admitting too many academically unprepared applicants.

“Why do you, as administrators, continue to offer differential outcomes to students of color, in spite of overwhelming data that demonstrates that many of our students, including white-identified students, cannot offer clients a social work intervention that is based upon competence, skills and ethics,” Miehls said in his letter. Miehls went so far as to call the admissions process “tainted” because of how willing it was to admit unprepared non-white students.

A separate letter, signed only “Concerned Adjuncts,” isn’t as explicit about race, but voices similar concerns that lowered standards for certain groups were setting them up for failure. (Read more from “College Professors Admit Affirmative Action Is Failing Students, Get Called Racist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.