What the Media Sycophants Won’t Tell You About Murkowski’s Primary Victory

/0 Comments/in , /by

At first glance Lisa Murkowski’s Republican Primary election victory seems pretty impressive. But it is anything but the grand comeback story the Establishment media would have you believe.

Consider the competition.

Paul Kendall, local political activist, conspiracy buff, and self-acclaimed expert of all things futuristic. Nobody considers him a serious candidate, and I mean nobody. Yet he received almost 8% of the vote. No campaign, no advertising, a website that still reads “under construction” the day after the election. He wouldn’t even respond to media questions about his campaign platform.

Thomas Lamb, blue collar worker, Air Force veteran, local blogger, unsuccessful candidate for the Alaska State House, and all around good guy. But his campaign consisted of a few scattershot radio ads and social media. He garnered between 5-6% percent of the vote.

Bob Lochner, a veteran and former mechanic who works on the North Slope. He didn’t have a traditional campaign, and spent a grand total of about $20K, reportedly most of it on signs, pocket Constitutions, and campaign expenses. Unlike his fellow challengers, Bob had the good fortune of being from the Mat-Su Valley where the highest concentration of conservatives in the state reside. He garnered a very respectable 15%.

All good men I’m sure, but the obvious truth is that Lisa Murkowski didn’t have a legitimate challenger. Still almost 29% of the electorate from her own party wouldn’t vote for the sitting US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair in a state whose lifeblood is the energy industry, and that doesn’t include those who voted and chose to leave the Senate portion of their ballot blank.

So what do the numbers really say? I’m glad you asked.

Lisa Murkowski decided to run against her party’s nominee in the last cycle, ostensibly because only a small number of Alaskans voted for the nominee and that sample wasn’t representative of the state. Joe Miller’s 55,878 votes were only 11.5% of registered voters at the time. So maybe she had a point?

Well, neither of Alaska’s sitting US Senators have ever won that many votes in a Republican primary, nor represented that much of the electorate in a general election. (Dan Sullivan received 44,740 votes, 9% of registered voters in 2014.

In 2004 Lisa Murkowski won a contested primary with – wait for it – 45,710 votes, just 9.98% of registered voters.

Fast forward to 2016. With 99.8% of precincts reporting, Lisa Murkowski cruises to an overwhelming landslide victory with 71% percent of the vote – drumroll – and a grand total of 35,208 votes, just 6.8% of registered Alaska voters.

And that was after she spent an astonishing $4.6 million, or over $130 per vote!

Not since 1974 when Alaska dominated by Democrats and Mike Gravel was a sitting United States Senator has a Republican nominee won less votes. Joe Miller’s 32% second place finish in the three-way 2014 primary garnered more votes.

Clearly, by Senator Murkowski’s standards, this is not a legitimate outcome, and clearly isn’t representative of the Alaska electorate.

Perhaps Alaskans deserve another choice in the general election. After all, isn’t that the gospel according to Lisa Murkowski?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton’s Doctor Refutes Claims of Candidate’s Ill Health

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s doctor released a statement on Tuesday debunking the validity of documents purportedly leaked from her office, claiming the candidate has serious medical problems.

According to FactCheck.org, fake documents represented to be from Dr. Lisa Bardack’s office appear to have originated from a since deleted Twitter account.

The documents contained information claiming Clinton continued to suffer from the effects of a 2012 concussion that she suffered after fainting. The symptoms included “blacking out,” “uncontrollable twitching” and “memory loss.”

The documents further claimed that Clinton suffers from “complex partial seizures” and “early-onset subcortical vascular dementia.”

In a statement released on Tuesday, Bardack said, “As Secretary Clinton’s long time physician, I released a medical statement during the campaign indicating that she is in excellent health.”

“I have recently been made aware of allegedly ‘leaked’ medical documents regarding Secretary Clinton with my name on them. These documents are false, were not written by me and are not based on any medical facts,” she continued. “To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Bardack released a letter about Clinton’s health in July 2015, which describes the candidate as “a healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies.”

The letter also addresses Clinton’s concussion noting that she experienced double-vision after the fall for a period of months and was placed on an anticoagulant medication to dissolve a clot in her brain.

According to the doctor, follow up testing in 2013 “revealed a complete resolution of the effects of the concussion” and a “dissolution” of the clot. Clinton remains on anticoagulant medication as a precaution.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity reported extensively on Clinton’s potential health issues on his program last week. He aired photo showing Clinton being helped up stairs by a Secret Service agents last February.

“You see from our picture up there that it looks like she can barely get up stairs without two people carrying her,” Dr. Marc Siegel, a Fox medical expert said of the photo. “I want to know what her neurologist says. I’ve reached out to her neurologist at Columbia after she had that fall. No comment. I want to know what her neurological records show.”

The Clinton campaign has dismissed the reporting by Hannity and others as “deranged conspiracy theories,” CNN reported. (For more from the author of “Clinton’s Doctor Refutes Claims of Candidate’s Ill Health” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Newly Released Poll Numbers Suggest Landslide Among One Voting Bloc

/0 Comments/in , , /by

With Election Day approaching, voter polls are constantly being considered as the litmus test of how each candidate is faring in their campaign.

A poll among the Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservatives (SAGE Cons), revealed that most of those polled are concerned with the actions of the current administration.

According to the poll, 82 percent of the SAGE Cons participating in the survey strongly agreed that “corruption is widespread throughout the federal government of the United States,” while an additional 15 percent moderately agree.

As a result of this concern, the percentage of SAGE Con voters who say they will support Republican Donald Trump rather than Democrat Hillary Clinton has risen from 11 percent earlier in the race to 84 percent today.

The majority of those surveyed consider Clinton “a prime example of a corrupt politician,” thus assuring that Trump receives their support.

When asked if the stakes in this election were higher than those of previous elections, 98 percent agreed while 82 percent of those “strongly agreed.”

Asked about the significance of the outcome of this election, 96 percent said they felt it would be significant; 72 percent responded the outcome would make a “big difference” in their lives; 24 percent said it would make some difference; and 4 percent felt the outcome would be insignificant.

While this poll shows the majority of SAGE Cons have chosen to support Trump, it also indicates that they do not expect much from either candidate.

The poll revealed 20 percent felt Trump would do a “great” job as president, while 41 percent said he would do a “good” job. Of those remaining, 26 percent gave Trump a “fair” rating compared to 13 percent who have low expectations of his ability to be president.

One area in which Trump received high marks was the issue of his assertion that the country was at war with ISIS.

Of those asked to respond, 96 percent said they felt the statement was correct.

When asked whether they had liberal friends, 84 percent stated they did but were hesitant to discuss politics with them;
32 percent said they occasionally talk politics with their liberal friends, while only 6 percent said they often do so often.

According to market researcher and pollster George Barna, the election will likely be based on how much emphasis the voters place on the character of their choice for president.

“Mr. Trump is not running a very effective campaign, but he has one major benefit to his advantage: the perceived range and nature of the character flaws of his opponent,” Barna said. “In considering the challenges that both candidates pose, many voters are being forced to ponder how much a leader’s character matters, which character traits matter most, and how to balance character against performance.” (For more from the author of “Newly Released Poll Numbers Suggest Landslide Among One Voting Bloc” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Planned Parenthood Ad Attempts to Downplay Its Abortion Involvement

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood is trying to distract the public from the fact that it is the largest abortion provider in the United States with a slick new TV ad.

Adweek reports:

A new ad by the Seattle agency Wexley School of Girls for the org’s Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands branch reminds viewers of those other services while playing on the assumption that anything involving the name Planned Parenthood will eventually turn into a heated all-or-nothing debate over birth control.

The 30-second video spot shows a group of people doing normal, everyday things like drinking coffee, painting, and clothes shopping. After rattling off typical reasons that people choose to get abortions such as career aspirations and the perceived inconvenience of pregnancy and childbirth, each one of the actors gives a different reason for going to Planned Parenthood, none of them to receive an abortion.

Planned Parenthood – :30 from Wexley School for Girls on Vimeo.

“A flu shot,” says one actor. “Controlling asthma,” says another.

“There are just a lot more reasons than you think,” claims a voiceover in the final frame.

“The ad will almost certainly not end the frequently contentious debates surrounding the Planned Parenthood organization,” reads the Adweek story. “But it does provide a somewhat restrained pushback against those who would reduce the organization to a single word.”

It’s clever marketing, but it’s also a huge red herring.

Yes, both women and men can get vaccinations at a Planned Parenthood, as well as other services that don’t involve terminating the life of a pre-born child, but that doesn’t make the abortion giant any less of an abortion giant.

Firstly, the organization’s own reports show that a vast majority of its revenue comes, in some degree, from abortions, with some estimates as high as 86 percent. When asked about this at a Congressional hearing last year, CEO Cecile Richards was unable to give a straight answer about the revenue percentage when pressed about it under oath.

Additionally, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute — which was founded by Planned Parenthood — the organization is responsible for nearly a third of abortions performed in the United States, at over 300,000 per year.

Finally, let’s not forget the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos from last summer which show Planned Parenthood employees and executives in multiple states engaging in what appears to be a fetal tissue trade.

Put simply, the fact that someone can obtain an asthma inhaler at a Planned Parenthood shouldn’t distract from the organization’s involvement in abortion at all.

Similarly, you may be able to cash a check, get a flu shot, or buy a pack of cigarettes and a lottery ticket at your local grocery store, but it is still a place where people primarily go to buy food.

The Department of Defense may provide meals and housing to active duty personnel, but only a fool would ever think that that the primary purpose of the United States military was anything other than national defense because of this.

Attempts like the video ad above are nothing new. Planned Parenthood has long tried to distract from the reality of its bloody business whether by attempting to normalize abortion by draping it the seemingly innocuous mantle of “reproductive health,” endlessly repeating the widely-debunked talking point that only ‘3 percent’ of its services are abortions, or even producing a “virtual reality experience” that maligns the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors.

None of these, however, change the facts about abortion, its current place in American public discourse, or the fact that Planned Parenthood performs a plurality of the procedures done in the United States.

Neither will 30 seconds of pretty people talking about flu shots. (For more from the author of “New Planned Parenthood Ad Attempts to Downplay Its Abortion Involvement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Elite’s Ultimate Goal Is to Elect Democrats

/0 Comments/in , /by

To the GOP elite, tactics are bad only if they’re used to damage the Democrats.

Last fall Rand Paul R-Ky. (A, 92%) predicted the end of Ted Cruz’s political career blaming Cruz’s “personal relationships or lack of personal relationships” in the Senate. Cruz, Paul explained, has no way of getting anything done because of his tactics: calling out leadership for its dishonesty and in doing so, violating the unofficial rules of the Senate.

When Ted Cruz R-Texas (A, 97%) demanded the defunding of Planned Parenthood, senators like John Cornyn R-Texas (F, 44%) and Kelly Ayotte R-N.H. (F, 32%) lambasted his tactics for daring to use must-pass budget legislation to accomplish his goal. Cruz pleaded with Republican senators to stand together and fight for principles, but they weren’t interested. National Senatorial Republican Committee Chairman, Roger Wicker R-Miss. (F, 30%) criticized Cruz’s approach saying, “I just don’t know if this is the ditch we need to die in.” In the end, Republican opposition to Cruz’s efforts left the abortion giant — caught butchering and selling baby parts for profit — alone and even stronger.

Sen. Bob Corker R-Tenn. (F, 45%) spoke disparagingly of Cruz after the infamous Obamacare defunding filibuster, saying that Cruz’s tactics amounted to grandstanding and prematurely drawing attention to what the Senate was doing. Heaven forbid.

Like many fellow Republicans who vigorously tried to tamp down the tea party, Steve LaTourette (may he rest in peace) equated Cruz’s tactics to lobbing bombs, and he wished Cruz would leave the Republican Party.

Members of the media, academia, and others often repeat what GOP critics say about Cruz. For example, one commenter for the news outlet, McClatchyDC made a familiar, sweeping argument against Cruz. Mark Jones of Rice University said, “Many in the GOP establishment resent his grandstanding and tactics which they believe have negatively affected govern-ability in the United States and adversely affected the Republican Party’s image among swing voters.”

Okay, we get it. It’s the tactics they don’t like. They won’t stand for principle because of tactics: unseemly tactics, scary tactics, unheard of tactics.

On Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier,” George Will said he has no intention of voting for Trump. Not only did Will publicly announce that he has left the Republican Party, but he also told the GOP to ensure Trump loses:

BRET BAIER: Hillary Clinton … seems to be going after disaffected Republicans in big ways, and is having some success according to the polls. Is it concerning for the Democratic Party on the progressive side, watching Hillary Clinton make those moves?

GEORGE WILL: Well they had to expect this, it’s a classic move that you move to the left in the primaries if you are a Democrat, and to the center to scoop up an enormous potential audience. Mitt Romney had 93 percent of Republicans voted for him, and Donald Trump has down around 60, maybe 70 at this point, that simply will not get him to the White House. I think they understand where her heart is, that she is probably more progressive instinctively than her husband was, and will understand this is tactics.

Will wants to reassure progressives who might be alarmed that Hillary is pursuing (and getting) Republican voters: Don’t be alarmed. It’s a tactic for Hillary to go after them, just as it’s a tactic that Republicans are willing to vote for her and raise money for her as well. After all, according to Will, we have to, “make sure Trump loses.” It’s an interesting list of people who feel similarly as Will.

Former GOP EPA chiefs are voting for Hillary, for they are obviously aligned with Obama’s coal-industry- crushing agenda and happy to help Hillary keep the boot on their (and our) necks.

Former Romney staffers are voting for Clinton.

GOP Congressman Richard Hanna R-N.Y. (F, 27%) is voting for Hillary. (Interestingly, he is the only Republican Planned Parenthood supports.)

Meg Whitman, who lost in the California gubernatorial race to the spectacularly bad Jerry Brown, is not only going to vote for Hillary, but she’s also going to fundraise on her behalf. Meg’s last job was to be part of Chris Christie’s finance team.

The Washington Post has compiled a list of nearly 50 beltway GOP who believe Hillary is vastly superior to Trump and plan to support and vote for her.

Just in case anyone was wondering who to blame if Trump loses, it’s these so-called Republicans who are coming out of the woodwork praising Hillary and shouting to the rooftops that they want to exercise their American privilege to vote for her.

These are the same cowards who made sure that there was minimal opposition to Obama for the past eight long years. They condemn tactics meant to expose and create backlash against Democrats while praising tactics that would elect the worst Democratic candidate who could become president. These cowards — and those like them — are what the current leadership of the Republican Party and columnists friendly to their worldview really want as model members, precisely because they are what the Democrats want.

They support Hillary because they won’t be hurt by it. But we, the American people, will. (For more from the author of “GOP Elite’s Ultimate Goal Is to Elect Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TRUMP FIRES BACK AT JIHAD: The ‘Ideology of Death Must Be Extinguished’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump delivered a major foreign policy speech Monday in Youngstown, Ohio, entitled “Understanding The Threat: Radical Islam And The Age Of Terror.” He lashed out strongly against the Obama-Clinton foreign policies that have led to turmoil in the Middle East, unleashed ISIS and allowed Iran to enhance its power in the region and globally. However, rather than dwell on the mistakes of the past, Trump also outlined his own forceful approach to defeating radical Islamic terrorist organizations once and for all, which includes, but is not limited to, just ISIS alone.

“We cannot let this evil continue,” Trump declared. He decried “the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers” in a way that President Obama and Hillary Clinton have utterly failed to do. “Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country,” Trump said. “Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.”

While Trump’s words were measured, the moral clarity of his vision and strategies to achieve it were crystal clear. “We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat we have faced in every age before,” he declared.

Trump offered a number of specific proposals to counter radical Islamic terrorism, which he said he would implement as president both abroad and at home. He said that the era of nation-building will be “brought to a swift and decisive end,” if he becomes president. All actions, he added, should be oriented around the goal of halting the spread of radical Islam.

Trump acknowledged the need for international cooperation in achieving this goal, and even called for an international conference with our allies in the fight against radical Islamists. His administration, he said, will “aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS.” (Read more from “TRUMP FIRES BACK AT JIHAD: The ‘Ideology of Death Must Be Extinguished'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Marriage Reduces Child Poverty, but Our Welfare System Penalizes Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

According to a recently released study from the American Enterprise Institute, 82 percent of lower-middle-class families with young children face “marriage penalties” in the welfare system.

Couples who marry would lose all or some of their welfare benefits because their combined income is often greater than each of their independent incomes.

The study found that couples with young children are less likely to marry if they face a significant marriage penalty. Furthermore, nearly a third of Americans between the ages of 18 and 60 reported that they personally know someone who has chosen not to marry because of the marriage penalty.

And this study only examines welfare marriage penalties for a few means-tested welfare programs: food stamps, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. There are over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide other food, medical, and cash assistance, as well as housing assistance and social services to poor and lower-income Americans. Marriage penalties exist throughout the welfare system.

Marriage is one of the greatest protectors against child poverty. It is counterintuitive to have a welfare system that penalizes this institution.

Children in married-parent homes are more than 80 percent less likely to be poor, compared to their peers in single-parent families. Tragically, far too many American children live in single-parent homes. One in four children is born to an unwed mother, and more than half of U.S. teenagers aged 15 to 17 live without married parents.

Not only are these children at greater risk of poverty, but they are at greater risk of social conditions that would hinder their ability to thrive.

Children who grow up with their married parents have better life outcomes compared to children who grow up in single-parent homes. For example, children raised by their married mothers and fathers generally obtain more education and have better emotional health. They also have lower rates of delinquency and teen pregnancy.

How can we reform our welfare system so that it does not penalize marriage?

First, policymakers must avoid policy changes that would increase marriage penalties. This would include preventing increases in the earned income tax credit for childless adults. Such an increase would only further incentivize parents to remain single.

Second, we should implement stronger work requirements to decrease the appeal of welfare as a long-term substitution for both work and marriage. Fostering a sense of self-reliance and pride in one’s work encourages parents to move away from welfare and toward the kind of financial independence found in marriage. This, in turn, results in greater economic opportunities for both parent and child.

Marriage is a strong tool against poverty and also provides the best setting for children to thrive. Policymakers have an opportunity to improve conditions for the American family. They must work toward reducing and eliminating the anti-marriage policies of the current welfare system. (For more from the author of “Marriage Reduces Child Poverty, but Our Welfare System Penalizes Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Telling the Left Targets Only This State Law on Public Restrooms

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pop quiz: Which of the following sentences comes from North Carolina’s new law protecting privacy in public schools and government buildings?

1. “The provision of separate facilities or schedules for female and for male patrons, does not constitute a discriminatory practice when such separate facilities or schedules for female and for male patrons are bona fide requirements to protect personal rights of privacy.”

2. “Nothing contained in this chapter that refers to ‘sex’ shall be construed to mandate joint use of restrooms, bath houses, and dressing rooms by males and females.”

3. “Nothing in this subsection prohibits separate treatment of persons based on sex with regard to public toilets, showers, saunas and dressing rooms for persons of different sexes.”

If you guessed “none of the above,” you would be correct.

These three provisions are from statutes in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, respectively

Now let’s compare the provisions with some of the actual language from the North Carolina law, known as HB2:

Designating multiple or single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities according to biological sex … shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination.

These four state laws are nearly identical. The laws each allow a business or public accommodation to have separate locker rooms and restrooms for men and women, rather than requiring either to give people who identify as transgender access to the facility of their choice.

At least a dozen states have similar laws. And in the remaining states, common sense was allowed to rule, resulting in a society-wide consensus that businesses can (and should) maintain distinct restrooms for each of the sexes.

The same principles are enshrined in the plain language of Title IX, a federal law that opponents of these commonsense laws often cite. Actually, though, it recognizes that federally funded schools and colleges can maintain separate facilities on the basis of sex.

So why the uproar and contentious litigation over HB2, a law that does little more than follow what has been the norm across our nation (and our laws) for hundreds of years?

The same question can be asked over Mississippi’s recent conscience protection law, which ensures that individuals who work in the wedding industry cannot be compelled to create expression that violates their beliefs or personal convictions.

Existing laws provide conscience protections in other contexts, such as ensuring that a medical professional is not forced to participate in abortions.

Or consider a recently enacted law in Tennessee that allows counselors to refer a client if the client is pursuing goals that conflict with the counselor’s beliefs.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission recognized that a baker or cake artist could not be compelled to produce a cake with a message opposing same-sex marriage, while at the same time refusing to extend the same protection to Jack Phillips, who declined to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.

Mississippi’s law was a necessary response to efforts to punish those who hold the time-honored view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It sought to guarantee that a person’s personal convictions are not trampled in the stampede to impose same-sex marriage on our nation.

While opponents of the North Carolina and Mississippi laws aim to portray them as radical new types of laws, the truth is that both laws are modeled on similar legislation that is decades old. Yet rather than take a wait-and-see approach to see how the two laws would operate in practice, opponents rushed to court.

Why? Because that is their modus operandi. When they can’t win through the normal legislative process, they rush to court seeking a judge who would strike down the law that they were unable to defeat through the representatives of the people.

Despite no evidence of discrimination under either law, and despite no documented instances in either state of someone being denied goods or services based upon their sexual orientation or gender identity, opponents of the laws reject the will of the people and, via judicial fiat, seek to impose their own will on everyone.

We all should be troubled by what this portends for democracy. Laws with solid legal foundations and decades of precedent in other states are challenged immediately by activists as unconstitutional—a word that has been redefined to mean “a law that they disagree with.”

Indeed, the fact that activists are challenging these two laws, and not the dozens of other, similarly worded laws in both red and blue states, reveals their true colors.

These activists are not concerned with what is or is not constitutional. They are not concerned about the rule of law. They are focused on defeating their enemies, those with whom they disagree, by any means necessary.

We should all hope and pray that the courts on which these activists so heavily bank their hopes will see through the façade and rule in accordance with the law and in favor of common sense. (For more from the author of “It’s Telling the Left Targets Only This State Law on Public Restrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lifelong, Conservative Alaskan Acquires Rights to Most of Nome Gold Fields, Expects Huge Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

Earlier this summer, Andrew Lee and a business partner purchased 26 State of Alaska offshore mining leases from a South African mining company. This purchase grants them exclusive mining rights to over 16,500 acres of the shallow sea floor of the Bering Sea, and returns these leases to local control.

Combined with another purchase earlier this spring, Lee now has an ownership stake in nearly two thirds of the offshore Nome gold field. “This feels like a huge victory for the little guy,” said Lee. “Eleven years ago I had one hobbled together eight-inch dredge on the Rec Area, now I have rights to most of the ground.”

Among the several State of Alaska Recreational Mining Areas, open to anyone for a small fee, two are offshore of Nome. One created in 1998 is 320 acres for eight-inch and smaller suction dredges. In 2010, a second 250 acres area was added, limited to six-inch dredges. Gold dredging operations are classified by their suction intake diameter, and water pump horsepower.

Andrew Lee got his start hunting gold as a teenager, going with his father to open mining areas near the family homestead in South Central Alaska. “We had a small in-stream sluice, a small inner tube mounted suction dredge and a few hand tools,” Lee recalls. “We never found enough gold to pay for fuel, but everyone has to start somewhere.”

According to the 1999 publication “Handbook of Marine Mineral Deposits” some of this area was mined by the world’s largest bucket line dredge, the Bima, collecting over 118,000 troy ounces on 530 acres from 1987 to 1990. Lee added, “The Bima only mined 3%, the other 97% hasn’t been worked.”

“The amount of previous mining is minuscule,” says Jim Halloran an Alaska geologist familiar with Nome. “There is considerable volume that would take many lifetimes to mine.” Having studied the extensive exploration data, Halloran adds, “The key is to find the best ground. The pay is in the top yard of the seafloor and can be as thick as six yards.”

“We need to go bigger, much bigger than anything that exists in Nome now,” said Lee when asked how he plans to capitalize on the untapped resource. “Think of an operation that can produce twenty times as much gold per year as the Christine Rose,” a reference to Nome’s most famous offshore gold mining operation. “My gold mining company, Tagiuk Gold, LLC is going to make this happen.”

“I have the expertise and the land, now I’m looking into ways to raise the rest of the funds needed.” One idea he explains is to take prepaid orders for gold, in order to fund the startup costs. Similar to how various gadget makers have used sites like Kickstarter. “I would like to sell my gold direct to the American individual, right now I’m exploring the interest and legalities of doing that.”

Andrew Lee’s gold mining company, Tagiuk Gold, LLC can be contacted through their website, tagiukgold.com

***This is a sponsored article by our advertiser, Tagiuk Gold***

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

America NEVER Voted for This Type of Refugee Program

/1 Comment/in , /by

How is it that nearly 50 percent of our refugee intake this year, and for most of the past decade, is Muslim when most of the people being persecuted are other religious minorities at the hands of Islamic factions? And how is it that so many Muslim refugees are being settled in an overwhelmingly Christian country when the wealthy Muslim countries of the Persian Gulf have declined to take in a single refugee?

This is especially salient given the fact that it costs 12 times as much to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. Put another way, we can save 12 times the number of people caught in the Syrian civil war by paying to resettle them in Saudi Arabia and Qatar than in America.

According to a Pew analysis released today, 46 percent of all refugees admitted to this country for FY 2016 are Muslim. Using data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center, Pew found that 28,957 Muslims were admitted as refugees for the first ten months of this fiscal year, slightly more than the 27,556 Christians.

religion Refugees

Here is the breakdown of Muslim refugees by country of origin:

Syria – 8,511

Burma – 2,554

Somalia – 7,234

Afghanistan – 1,948

Iraq – 6,071

Other countries – 2,639

These numbers do not include other categories that are similar to refugee status, such as Special Immigrant Visas (SIV). Several thousand SIV’s are admitted from Afghanistan and Iraq each year, and Congress is in the process of approving another 4,000 from Afghanistan in the upcoming defense authorization bill. While it is hard to ascertain the exact number of Muslim immigrants overall, given that other categories are not tracked by religion, Pew cites its own 2013 survey which pegs the number at roughly 100,000 per year. Several months ago, I cited Census data that indicates the number has likely grown to 150,000 per year.

As Europe has taught us, numbers matter when it comes to Middle Easter immigration, cultural assimilation, and security risks. Why would we repeat their mistakes? When did the American people ever vote for such radical social transformation? So many small towns and counties are being seeded with refugees from radically divergent cultures with values that are often hostile to our constitutional republican political values and enlightened views on human rights.

religion Refugees origin

It is quite evident that if the American people ever had a chance to vote on these policies — if Congress had to renew refugee resettlement policies every year —
this fundamental transformation would be rejected.

Moreover, the entire prevailing practice of bringing in predominantly Muslim refugees from the Middle East violates the spirit of the refugee statutes.

According to existing law, a “refugee” means “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion …[.] [Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title 8, U.S. Code]. Refugee laws were designed to protect persecuted religious and ethnic minorities, such as Iranian Jews or pro-democracy dissidents in the former Soviet Union.

In Syria and other places in the Middle East, on the other hand, it is Muslims who are doing the persecuting. The laws were not designed to invite in any person caught in a sectarian civil war. Take Somalia, for example. It is almost exclusively a Muslim country. Much like Syria, it is a miserable place to live and is marred in endless civil wars. However, most of the people coming from these countries do not qualify as refugees since they are not personally being persecuted because of their religion, ethnicity, or political views.

What is really going on? Democrats are pushing a Muslim resettlement program on America in order to repeat the mistakes of Europe for their own political gain. It makes no sense from a security or cultural standpoint, or from a humanitarian standpoint to do so, especially when no pressure it being placed on Muslim countries to take in people with similar backgrounds. Rather, this social transformation is being perpetrated on our society without the proper input of the people and their elected representatives, as I note in chapter 8 of Stolen Sovereignty. Much of this is being done at the behest of private taxpayer-funded resettlement groups who have everything to benefit from illegally expanding the definition of a refugee. Given that there aren’t enough Christian or Jewish refugees to pay their salaries (because most have already been driven out of these countries), these groups felt compelled to transform refugee resettlement into a Muslim resettlement program — a program for persecuted minorities into a wholesale population transfer of countries engulfed in civil war.

As I write in Stolen Sovereignty:

[G]iven that the policies are all set by the private refugee resettlement agencies, which see their taxpayer-subsidized salaries and revenue grow commensurate to the number of refugees admitted to the United States their goals will always be to bring in as many refugees as possible – no matter the cost, security risk, the underlying need, or the prudence of settling them here rather than in their regions.

How does the scheme work? More from page 175 of my book:

As far back as 2000, David M. Robinson, a former acting director of the refugee bureau in the State Department, described the insidious power of the contractors as follows: The agencies form a single body [that] wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year and at the same time provides overseas processing for admissions under contract to the State department. In fact, the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget. If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned.

If Republicans ever win back the White House, they must reform the Refugee Act of 1980 so that it expires every other fiscal year. As a result, our nation;s default position would be such that no refugees are resettled unless the people’s representatives pass a new law. Local governments also need to be empowered to veto any resettlement within their respective jurisdictions. For now, Republicans at least hold the power of the purse and when they return in September, they must cut off funding, at a minimum, for Syrian and Somali refugees. Obama already unilaterally expanded the refugee cap by 15,000 for the current fiscal year and is planning to increase it by another 15,000 — to at least 100,000 total in FY 2017. Congress can and must refuse to fund it.

It’s time vulnerable GOP senators get off the mat, uncurl from their fetal position, and hang this unpopular transformation around the necks of their opponents. If Democrats really want to shut the government down in order to follow in the footsteps of Germany, that is an election fight Republicans should embrace. (For more from the author of “America NEVER Voted for This Type of Refugee Program” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.