Father of Slain Service Member Wants One Presidential Candidate to Apologize

CNN went hunting for comments Tuesday about a presidential candidate who owes an apology to the family of a slain U.S. service member.

The network got them, but probably not in the fashion for which it had hoped.

CNN Newsroom featured Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack. During the interview, CNN host Carol Costello repeatedly tried to get Woods to call for Donald Trump to apologize for his ongoing spat with Khizir Khan, the father of a slain Army officer, attacked Trump at last week’s Democratic National Convention, sparking a heated response from Trump that has since become controversial.

After playing a clip about the Khan spat, Costello asked Woods, “Should Mr. Trump apologize?”

Woods repeated an earlier statement that he didn’t know what Trump had said, then fired out a demand for an apology he knew was overdue.

“I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones as well as to the American public,” Woods said. “She hasn’t apologized for that yet. In fact, she’s even doubled down and called us liars which is not appropriate, not at all. Like I say, either she’s lying or she has a bad memory.”

Costello then asked Woods whom he would endorse.

“Well, my son would still be alive if Mrs. Clinton was performing her job properly as secretary of state. So in good conscience, I cannot vote for the person who was directly responsible for the death of my son,” he said.

He then explained his reasoning

“There is only two choices and obviously I support Donald Trump. The main reason is because national security, as well as the economy, are the two most important issues that voters are going to have to decide upon next November,” he said.

Woods has made it clear he has not forgiven Clinton for telling him that the Benghazi attack was related to a video when she knew it was not.

“She (Clinton) stood in font of my son’s casket and blamed the rage directed at American embassies on a video she said we had no part of,” Woods said Tuesday on America’s Newsroom. “When they had the casket ceremony she also lied to the American public. These are her words as best as I can recall, ‘rage was directed at American embassies as a result of that awful video that we were not responsible for.’ She said basically the same thing in private to the families that were grieving and then a half hour later she said basically the same thing as far as causation to the American public.” (For more from the author of “Father of Slain Service Member Wants One Presidential Candidate to Apologize” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Franklin Graham Warns the Nation That a Price Will Be Paid for Celebrating Sin

Once again the Rev. Franklin Graham issued a warning to the United States based on the word of God.

Graham’s warning comes in the wake of news that Vice President Joe Biden performed a same-sex marriage.

The marriage, between White House staff members Brian Mosteller and Joe Mahshie, took place Monday afternoon at the Naval Observatory in Washington.

On Wednesday, Graham posted a message on Facebook post that began, “Another first for America that we should not be proud of — the vice president of the United States presiding over a same-sex wedding.”

Graham continued, saying that America has gained the reputation for celebrating what God defines as sin. He also promised that “there will be a price to pay.”

He quotes the Bible, Isaiah 1:4: “Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers … given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.”

“This is why I’m going to eight more state capitols this month to pray for our nation,” Graham said. He urged people to come to his prayer rallies or to pray for America wherever they are.

In order for the vice president to officiate at the wedding, it was necessary that he obtain a temporary license from the District of Columbia authorizing him to perform the ceremony.

Following the event, Biden posted the following on Twitter:

The vice president’s wife, Jill, responded to her husband’s tweet:

Biden has been a supporter of same-sex marriage since endorsing it in 2012.

This was; however, his first opportunity to perform a wedding. (For more from the author of “Franklin Graham Warns the Nation That a Price Will Be Paid for Celebrating Sin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NIH Proposes Funding Human-Animal Hybrids

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is proposing a new rule that would lift the ban on federally funding experiments on human stem cells that splice them with animal embryos to create human-animal hybrids.

The federal government put a moratorium on funding the creation of such hybrids, known as chimeras, back in September 2015. The proposed rule would lift that ban for two specific types of hybrid-creation research.

Christian journalist Rod Dreher points out that the head of NIH is (widely proclaimed) evangelical Francis Collins. Dreher’s take: “Christian-run agency embraces pig-man.”

“On his watch, the NIH is going to create living creatures that are part human, part animal,” Dreher says.

As The New York Times so gently put it, “The idea of human cells developing inside an animal embryo and forming, in effect, a human-animal chimera, has alarmed some people.”

Indeed.

Leon Kass’s bioethics council, vindicated yet again: https://t.co/sU6DXDPmqT

“Scientists would never” line is always a farce.

— Jonathan Coppage (@JonCoppage) August 4, 2016

Catholic priest and blogger Father Matthew Schneider notes that the NIH is currently soliciting feedback on the proposed rule. His view: “It’s beyond immoral not only to allow but fund human-animal hybrids.”

My #ThursdayThoughts: Making animal-human hybrids & experimenting on them raises so many ethical problems… yet the NIH wants to fund it.

— Fr Matthew Schneider (@FrMatthewLC) August 4, 2016

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith says that our science sector does not uphold the intrinsic dignity of human life, and “we can’t trust our regulatory bodies — which can be more controlled by the sectors they are supposed to regulate than the other way around — to maintain strict boundaries.”

“Another problem is that society generally doesn’t seem to care much,” Smith said. “If you tell many people that biotechnology will cure their Uncle Charlie’s Parkinson’s disease, they won’t give much of a fig about the moral ramifications.”

According to Smith, we’re already on our way down this slippery slope.

I don’t think this work can be stopped. But identifying the lines that should not — and will not — be crossed is an urgent need so that legally enforceable standards can be delineated. I just don’t see anyone currently in power within the symbiotically connected science, government and big business sectors much interested in giving such work more than placating lip service at the moment.

The NIH is taking comments through September 4. (For more from the author of “NIH Proposes Funding Human-Animal Hybrids” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rinos for Hillary

A group of prominent Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) are rushing to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.

TIME reported on August 3, 2016 in a story titled “Here are 7 Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump,” the following:

During a week that has found Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump deeper embroiled in controversy, more disaffected Republicans have begun to voice their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Any Republican who is going to vote for Hillary Clinton is a RINO. Let’s make sure after these RINOs leave, they are not allowed back in the Republican Party.

Although Hillary will ruin the Supreme Court, take away Second Amendment rights and provide a de facto third term of President Barack Obama, these RINOs don’t care.

For Republicans who feel they can’t vote for Donald Trump, they can vote for Libertarian-lite candidate Gary Johnson or write somebody in, but don’t, under any circumstances vote for lyin’, corrupt Hillary this fall.

There are three different species of RINO that have decided to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton for president.

1. The Squishes

The squishes are the biggest species of the Republican politicos who are endorsing and proudly supporting a woman who lied to the families of the fallen in Benghazi and repeatedly lied on Fox News this past weekend about her email scandal.

Former advisor to Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) campaign for president in 2008 and Republican nominee for governor in 2010, Meg Whitman took to Facebook recently writing, “it is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America’s bedrock national values make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States.” If there was any doubt, Meg Whitman confirmed that she is a member of the liberal elite sect within the GOP after writing that Hillary represents “America’s bedrock national values.”

Another person that falls into the squish category was former President George W. Bush Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. Remember him? He was the guy who crafted the Wall Street Bailout in 2008 that saved jobs … on Wall Street … and caused politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 53%) to make bizarre statements like “Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles, but I’m gonna vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.” Paulson wrote in the Washington Post, “I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world.” Hank-Bailout-Paulson supports Hillary – should we really be surprised?

2. The Haters

This group includes angry, arrogant pundits like Mark Salter, former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain, who helped craft the 2008 failed campaign strategy that ushered in four years of President Obama.

Salter, a known hater of conservatives, wrote in Real Clear Politics that “whatever Hillary Clinton’s faults, she’s not ignorant or hateful or a nut. She acts like an adult, and understands the responsibilities of an American president.” Salter is motivated by pure hate and on separate occasions, has attacked strong conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Sen. Rand Paul. R-Ky. (A, 92%). It is a good bet that if you are a conservative or have every ridiculed John McCain in any way, Mark Salter hates you.

Bill Kristol was a long-time advocate for an independent candidate to run against Mr. Trump. However, he failed to recruit one and Kristol refused to man up and run himself. Although Kristol has yet to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, I do believe that he will wait right up until the days before the election before to throw his hat into the ring.

3. The Nation-Builders

These are the so-called “national security conservatives” derisively referred to as “neo-cons.” All they care about is an expansionist foreign policy that will result in American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq forever. These individuals are only Republicans because they have allied themselves with the party most likely to invade another country. That used to be Republicans but might be the Democrats under the Iraq and Libyan War supporting Hillary Clinton. The nation-builders and interventionists are willing to shift support to any candidate who will espouse a reckless foreign policy that ignores the consequences of endless wars.

Politico reported on June 16, 2016, that one former Bush Administration official is on board with Hillary:

Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, in one of the most dramatic signs yet that Republican national security elites are rejecting their party’s presumptive nominee. Armitage, a retired Navy officer who also served as an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is thought by Clinton aides to be the highest-ranking former GOP national security official to openly support Clinton over Trump.

Armitage is well known for exposing the identity of Valerie Plame, former Intelligence officer, because Plames’ husband questioned the justification for the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq.

Brent Scowcroft who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford also endorsed Hillary. He was quoted in Politico saying that, “Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader. She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage.”

These were merely the first herd (or is it crash) of RINOs to charge towards Hillary for President. There will be more. They will not be missed. (For more from the author of “Rinos for Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can

States don’t have standing to sue Obama for illegally colonizing their cities with Syrian refugees, but illegal immigrants and criminal aliens have standing to sue for public benefits. That is the state of play in the modern judicial system and the contemporary legal profession.

One of the most basic principles of the social compact theory, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, is that only the existing members of a civil society, through their duly elected representatives, can determine who may enter and become part of that society or under what conditions that individual may become a member. As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy and why the courts, before they became autocratic in recent years, conceded that they have no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature on any immigration decision.

In Stolen Sovereignty, I warn that the unelected executive agencies and the courts are engaging in social transformation without representation by violating immigration statutes in order to achieve their de-civilization goals. As Conservative Review has observed throughout the past year, Obama is breaking statutes and abusing his power to use parole, refugee, asylum, and temporary protected status – and of course – executive amnesty – to bring in more immigrants against the consent of the people. Likewise, the courts are illegally overturning congressional immigration statutes and granting standing to illegal aliens and criminal immigrants to block deportations and even petition for affirmative rights, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and gun rights.

Yet, at the same time, American citizens, states, law enforcement, and even ICE agents have been denied standing to sue in court when Obama is violating immigration statutes and the sovereignty of the states and the people. Thus, while the courts illegally venture out of their jurisdiction to overturn congressional sovereignty statutes – the most inviolate area of settled law – they refuse to actually grant standing to cases within their core purview, which includes striking down illegal executive actions that run contrary to existing law. Remember that Civics 101 class about courts applying the law instead of nullifying it?

As we’ve noted before, while the federal government controls the refugee process, they must engage in advance consultation with the states at every stage of the resettlement process. Yet, Obama’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in conjunction with taxpayer-funded private organizations, are engaging in the ultimate social transformation without representation – jeopardizing the security, culture, and public services of localities – without even informing them of the resettlement after the fact.

Unfortunately, federal judges already blocked Texas from suing the Obama administration. Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the state of Alabama standing to sue the Administration for not engaging in advance consultation. In a 28-page memo, Ott wrote:

Nothing in the Refugee Act requires defendants to provide plaintiffs with information necessary to assess security and other potential risks posed by refugees, or information necessary to adequately plan and prepare for the arrival of refugees in the state, in regard to security and requests for social services and public assistance.

As I noted last year, statute absolutely requires ORR to take into account security and economic considerations and engage in advanced consultation with the states.

This is yet one more reason why the courts will always be a dead-end for conservatives and why simply “appointing better judges” will not help. Even good judges feel compelled to abide by existing precedent governing rules of standing, which is so one-sided against Americans that illegal aliens have more standing to fight immigration actions than taxpayers and states.

It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate. If Trump and Republicans actually wanted to turn around this pending electoral disaster and defeat Hillary Clinton, the nominee would immediately call for GOP leaders to reconvene for the summer and pass legislation empowering states to reject refugee resettlement. This is even more powerful than placing a national moratorium on resettlement; it allows the people and states to decide the future of their communities. These are the decisions the individual nation-states of the European Union never got to make before their societies were transformed into microcosms of the Middle East and now incur daily terror attacks – to the point that they are no longer newsworthy.

Any takers? (For more from the author of “States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Transgender Bathrooms in Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled an interest in taking on the transgender bathroom debate on Wednesday, granting a Virginia school system temporary permission to keep its bathrooms separated by biological sex.

In a 5-3 vote, the justices issued a stay in the case involving a transgender student in Gloucester County who is suing his school board to gain access to the boys’ restrooms. The stay halts a lower court’s order that said the school board must allow the transgender teen, Gavin Grimm, into the bathroom that corresponds with the student’s gender identity.

Gavin, 17, was born female but now identifies as a male.

If the Gloucester County school board’s petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case is denied, the stay will terminate automatically, and Gavin will be allowed to use the boys’ bathroom. If the court decides to take the case, the stay will remain in effect until the justices reach a final decision.

The lawsuit alleges that by prohibiting Gavin from using the boys’ restrooms, the school board’s policy violates Title IX, the federal statute that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.

The U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia initially rejected that argument, and sided with the school board’s claim that Title IX does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit disagreed, and issued an injunction that required the school to allow transgender students to use restrooms in accordance to their gender identity.

Some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement downplayed Wednesday’s decision, calling it “just a temporary delay.”

“Across the country, courts and policymakers are recognizing that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination,” Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a prepared statement. “We are confident that if and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, the court will affirm that recognition.”

Conservatives, however, call the decision a significant step in their direction.

“It’s significant that the Supreme Court said we’re going to put a hold on that—we’re going to preserve the status quo as it’s always been in society, as it’s always been in schools,” Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “That boys use boys’ restrooms and girls use girls’ restrooms.”

The implications, Tedesco added, could reach far beyond Gavin and other students in Gloucester County.

In directing schools nationwide to open their showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms to students of the opposite biological sex, the Obama administration cited the Gloucester case.

The Department of Education wrote that its interpretation “is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” and linked to the case.

A total of 24 states are now challenging the legality of the administration’s mandate, in addition to dozens of private legal battles playing out nationwide.

“The Department of Education—in all the litigation that’s going on across the country and in their major, chief mandate that they sent out nationally to all the schools saying that Title IX requires schools to allow students of one sex to enter locker rooms and bathrooms of students of the opposite sex—they’re all relying on the Gloucester decision from the 4th Circuit to say that’s required,” Tedesco said. “What the Supreme Court has done is thrown that decision into serious doubt.”

Tedesco, who is involved in several of these challenges, said the decision is “a really important outcome” for Alliance Defending Freedom’s case in Illinois.

In that case, 50 families in the Chicago area are suing the Department of Education and the Justice Department for threatening to take away federal funding if the school does not comply with the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX.

Lawyers for the Obama administration, Tedesco said, “have been citing the Gloucester decision over and over again for why they should win.”

Now, he said, “it’s going to be a lot more difficult for them to rely on that case, with the Supreme Court putting the entire decision on hold and calling it into question.”

Gloucester County, located about 140 miles south of Washington, D.C., and just north of Newport News, Virginia, has more than 5,000 students in its eight public schools.

The Gloucester County school board welcomed Wednesday’s decision, saying in a press release that it “continues to believe that its resolution of this complex matter fully considered the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.”

Josh Block, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing Gavin, said he was disappointed by the decision because it will leave Gavin isolated from the rest of the student body.

In a blog post, Block wrote:

Gavin was preparing to begin his senior year with a fresh start. He would finally be able to use the restroom without being isolated. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to let the lower court’s decision stand, Gavin will have had to spend most of his senior year forced to use a separate restroom from the rest of his classmates, simply because of who he is.

The high court’s four conservative-leaning justices all voted in favor of the stay. They were joined by Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote that he granted the stay “as a courtesy” in order to “preserve the status quo.”

Only four justices are needed for the Supreme Court to review a case, making it likely that the bathroom fight could be decided soon. (For more from the author of “What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Transgender Bathrooms in Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About

States have passed so-called “medical marijuana” laws under the theory that pot has medicinal benefits that can’t be produced by other, legal means.

But what if there was a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug that gave you all the benefits of the active ingredients in marijuana, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol?

What if that drug had been rigorously tested through clinical trials to make sure that it worked as promised, was properly dosed, and had no unanticipated side effects?

And what if you could get that lawful drug from your doctor in pill or liquid form?

And what if there were three such different FDA-approved drugs, and two more on the FDA-approved fast track?

Would it surprise you to know there already are three FDA-approved THC drugs and that at least five more are on the way? We suspect so, because the pot pushers—those that push smoked and edible marijuana as “medicine”—don’t want you to know about these safe alternatives.

Some of those FDA-approved drugs have been around since the 1980s.

That’s right—the dirty little secret they hide from you is that you don’t have to smoke marijuana, eat it in a brownie, or chew it in a marijuana-laced gummy bear to reap the medicinal benefits of THC.

The three FDA-approved drugs are Marinol, Cesamet, and Syndros. Drugs like Syndros show great promise for countering today’s dangerous “medical marijuana” movement.

In early July, the FDA approved Syndros as the first orally administered liquid form of THC. Like Marinol, the original oral cannabinoid to gain FDA approval in 1985, Syndros treats anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS, as well as nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy.

Epidiolex is one drug currently on the FDA fast track. According to a recent press release from GW Pharmaceuticals, a study of 171 randomized patients suffering from Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes found that Epidiolex decreased seizure occurrence, was relatively well tolerated among patients, and generated no unexpected adverse effects.

Other cannabinoid-based medications on the international market today include Cesamet, another synthetic drug that treats nausea and vomiting stemming from chemotherapy; Cannador, which is currently used in Europe and has demonstrated potential to relieve multiple sclerosis symptoms and postoperative pain management; and Sativex, another GW Pharmaceuticals drug on the FDA fast track that treats spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis.

Since these are all medical cannabinoids, they do not require smoking. They are also safer to use because levels of THC can be monitored.

Knowing these safer alternatives exist, ask yourself: Why? Why have the pot pushers kept this secret and why don’t they want you to know this?

“The medicinal marijuana system in this country has become a bad joke, an affront to the concept of safe and reliable medicine, defying the standards that we have come to expect from the medical establishment,” Dr. Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama’s drug policy office, wrote in his book, “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana.”

We can thank Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan for creating the current public perception of the so-called “medical marijuana” marketplace.

In a video filmed many years ago, which we highlighted in this 2010 blog post, Rosenthal (former editor of High Times magazine) and Cowan (former director of NORML—the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law) joked about the nationwide “scam” they started. They realized that if they convinced enough people that smoking marijuana was “medical marijuana,” that would be the beginning of a movement toward full legalization.

“Once there’s medical access, if we continue to do what we have to do and we will, then we’ll get full legalization,” Cowan explained.

“I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically,” Rosenthal joked. “I have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed, and the reason why its never been diagnosed is because I’ve been treating it.”

But, according to Rosenthal, pleasure trumps any medicinal benefit he should derive from marijuana anyway.

“There is a reason why I do use it,” he said. “And that’s because I like to get high. Marijuana is fun.”

Sabet acknowledges that THC has potential therapeutic effects, but these do not come from smoking pot. (We don’t light any of our FDA-approved medicine on fire and smoke it, after all).

With the average strength of marijuana being five to six times what it was in the 1960s and 70s, the repercussions of marijuana and legalizing it are more evident than before. Some of these include higher risks of motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, and impaired immune systems and short-term memories. Evidently, the pot pushers don’t want you to know this truth.

“America is being sold a false dichotomy: ‘We can either stick to our current failed policies, or we can try a ‘new approach’ with legalization,” Sabet said. “Sadly, this kind of black-and-white thinking conceals the fact that there are better, more effective ways than either legalization or incarceration to deal with this complex issue.”

Cannabinoid-based drugs are better alternatives because they reap the benefits of marijuana’s therapeutic components safely, as well as have the potential to become FDA approved if they aren’t already.

So the next time a pot pusher encourages a state to enact so-called “medical marijuana” laws, or goes for full legalization in violation of federal law, ask them: Why are they pushing an unsafe, untested product instead of pushing FDA-approved THC? (For more from the author of “The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Happens If the Trump ‘Drop out’ Rumors Are True?

The internet, as it is wont to do, is filled with rumors today. The rumors are specifically swirling about the seemingly preposterous notion that Donald Trump is on the cusp of dropping out of the presidential race.

Even ABC News has glommed onto the bandwagon.

Republican officials are exploring how to handle a scenario that would be unthinkable in a normal election year: What would happen if the party’s presidential nominee dropped out?

ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump’s erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.

What happens if Trump were to surprisingly tell himself, “you’re fired?”

That’s when rule nine of the Republican National Committee would come into play. Rule nine deals with how the GOP would fill vacancies in nominations. Here’s the rule from 2012, which Conservative Review has learned was unchanged in 2016.

RULE NO.9

Filling Vacancies in Nominations

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

Here is how that would work in plain English.

First off many have wondered if that means Mike Pence automatically becomes the nominee. The answer is no.

Either the Republican National Committee (RNC) would chose the new nominee, or it could call for a new convention that would see all 2472 delegates reconvene to pick the nominee. The former is probably what would happen; the RNC would pick a new nominee.

In that scenario, the individual RNC members from a state would vote as if they were all of the delegates from their state. For instance the three members of the RNC from Texas would vote as if they were all 155 delegates from the state, and the three RNC members from Ohio would vote as if they were the 66 delegates from the state.

Furthermore, if the three RNC members didn’t vote for the same candidate, each one of them would get votes equal to 1/3 of their committee (including fractional votes). This means that, in effect, each Texas member of the RNC’s vote would be equal to 51.66 delegates, and each Ohio member would be equal to 22 delegates.

The members of the RNC would continue voting until a candidate emerged with 1237 delegates.

That doesn’t end it though. While that’s how the RNC would select a new nominee, it does not mean that the new nominee would replace Trump’s name on every state ballot. Each state has different laws on the deadline by which a party can replace their nominee on the ballot. Ballotpedia has put together what they believe to be the deadline for each state. They are careful to note that this is what they “gleaned from reviewing relevant state statutes and other government documents.” Of course as with all election law, it could be challenged.

Here’s how the team at Ballotpedia explained what happens after the RNC would replace a candidate.

The bulk of the dates for certifying the names of major party presidential candidates are in August and September—35 states in total. The GOP would have until about mid August to find a replacement nominee and still be able to get his or her name on the ballot in enough states to be competitive in November. For example, if Trump dropped out in late August, his name would already be certified to appear as the Republican candidate for president in at least 18 states. If he dropped out in September, that number could rise to more than 30 states. The Republican Party would have few options available to it, at this point, to remove Trump’s name and replace it with their new nominee.

If the rumors are true, Trump would essentially need to drop out by next week to allow a new nominee to be chosen and appear on enough ballots if lawsuits were unsuccessful.

Granted, this is probably going to never happen, but now you know how it would. But then again, it is 2016. (For more from the author of “What Happens If the Trump ‘Drop out’ Rumors Are True?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Clinton Leads Trump by 10 Points, Both Seen as Flawed

Sixty-one percent of voters think Hillary Clinton is dishonest, yet she’s opened up a big lead over Donald Trump in the latest Fox News Poll.

Here’s why: majorities think Clinton is nevertheless qualified to be president, and has the temperament and knowledge to serve effectively. It’s the opposite for Trump: over half feel he is not qualified, and lacks the temperament or knowledge to lead the country. And his 62 percent dishonesty rating tops hers.

After the conventions, the Clinton-Kaine ticket leads the Trump-Pence ticket by 10 points (49-39 percent) in the race for the White House. Clinton’s advantage is outside the poll’s margin of error. A month ago, Clinton was up by six points (44-38 percent, June 26-28).

This is the first time the Fox News Poll included running mates. Trump announced his vice presidential pick of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence July 15. Clinton told supporters she’d picked Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine July 22.

Since last month, Clinton’s position is improved with most groups, as she gained ground among men, women, whites, Democrats, young voters, and seniors. (Read more from “Poll: Clinton Leads Trump by 10 Points, Both Seen as Flawed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Obvious Question No One’s Asking Obama

It’s clear Obama has no use for Donald Trump. But that’s not really the point here . . .

The question this harsh, unprecedented attack by a sitting president on a major-party nominee to succeed him raises should be obvious: What happens if Donald Trump wins the election in November?

Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two centuries of transitions of power?

These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.

Should we not be concerned about what Obama might do? (Read more from “The Obvious Question No One’s Asking Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.