Miller: Apparently Murkowski Would Rather Have A Hillary Clinton Presidency

Anchorage, Alaska. October 11, 2016 — Joe Miller reacted on Tuesday to Lisa Murkowski’s decision not to back Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and her forced resignation from the Alaska Republican Party State Central Committee.

On Friday, Murkowski stated, “I cannot and will not support Donald Trump for president. He has forfeited the right to be our party’s nominee.”

“Presumably Murkowski’s proclamation that she will not support Trump means she would prefer to see Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office,” said Miller.

“Though it’s now official, the truth is Lisa Murkowski left the Republican Party a long time ago,” he added.

She has now lost her right to vote in the Alaska Republican Party, and is officially a Republican-In-Name-Only.

In 2010, Murkowski reneged on her word and enlisted the help of Democrats to run against the Republican Party nominee for U.S. Senate.

She was the most liberal “Republican” up for re-election then, and she is once again now.

She voted 72 percent of the time with Obama during the last Congress, while touting in campaign ads that she’s “The Conservative Voice for Alaska” in Washington, D.C.

Her votes have earned her an “F” rating from the Conservative Review, FreedomWorks, and Heritage Action.

Even disgraced New York Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel earned a higher score with Conservative Review.

“A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the country, keeping us on Barack Obama’s road to ruin. If she wins, the Supreme Court will be lost for a generation,” said Miller.

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

HIDDEN CAM: Democrat Official Describes MASSIVE Voter Fraud Plans!

Project Veritas couldn’t have scripted a better video exposing voter fraud. Meet Alan Schulkin. He’s the Democratic Election Commissioner for Manhattan. Notice the word “democrat?” Ok, good.

Because it’s Democrats who tell us that none of this happens. And if you dare say it does, you’re a racist.

“He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Commissioner Alan Schulkin said in the undercover video recorded by a muckraker for conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.

“But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,’ ” he said in the bombshell tape.

“It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud . . . This is why I get more conservative as I get older.” (Read more from “HIDDEN CAM: Democrat Official Describes MASSIVE Voter Fraud Plans!” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Claims ‘the Shackles’ Have Now Been Taken off His Campaign

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is now celebrating his freedom from the GOP establishment, tweeting out a message on Tuesday declaring it’s “so nice” to be unchained.

Over the past few days, several Republicans have withdrawn their endorsement of the presidential nominee after a 2005 hot mic tape surfaced which showed him bragging about touching and kissing women without their consent. Trump later apologized in a video, calling it “locker room” banter.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he would no longer defend Trump, which has sparked a battle the two. Trump accused the nation’s top elected Republican of being a “very weak and ineffective leader.”

Ryan has not formally rescinded his endorsement of Trump, but his recent comments indicate he believes Republican members of the House are better off going their own way as they run for re-election.

“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” Ryan’s spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said in a statement Monday.

“Paul Ryan is focusing the next month on defeating Democrats, and all Republicans running for office should probably do the same,” another Ryan spokesperson added Tuesday.

Throughout Tuesday morning, Trump continued to tweet out attacks aimed at the political establishment.

Some Republican leaders have indicated they wanted Trump to step aside so that his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, can lead the ticket. But Pence said in a CNN interview Monday that he plans on staying loyal to Trump.

“As Trump’s numbers crater, many House and Senate Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of polling trends,” said Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University in Washington. “They can only distance themselves so much.” (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Claims ‘the Shackles’ Have Now Been Taken off His Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Limbaugh Has a Message for Republicans Who Abandoned Trump

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh lashed out at Republicans who bowed out of supporting Donald Trump after a tape leaked Friday revealed the GOP presidential nominee saying lewd things about a married woman back in 2005.

“If you want to throw Trump overboard, you know what you ought to do? You ought to just concede the presidency to the Democrats and apologize for ever trying, and hope that they forgive you,” Limbaugh said Monday.

One of the most prominent GOP critics of Trump’s remarks has been House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). On Monday, Ryan declared that he was no longer going to defend his party’s nominee and was instead going to focus on keeping a GOP majority in Congress.

“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong told The New York Times.

Limbaugh’s Facebook followers agreed with his assessment and noted that other people were furious with politicians like Ryan.

“WOW! Speaker Ryan and all the other RINO’s that came out against Donald J. Trump still not going to get behind him,” MinnieMae Pearle wrote. “It doesn’t matter b/c no matter what they dish out against Donald he has won the hearts and minds of Americans, the silent majority! You have to go to their Facebook pages they all are being hammered and the wild news about it is it’s majority are women!”

Limbaugh reminded his audience that he warned a while back things would get ugly when you try to take on the political establishment, saying because they are so entrenched in their own power, they are going to do everything possible to stop someone who could take it away from them.

“I kept telling people over the weekend when people were asking my opinion on it. I said, ‘This is what it looks like when you take on the establishment. This is exactly what it looks like.’ It isn’t going to be pretty. It isn’t going to be clean. It isn’t going to be pristine,” Limbaugh said during his Monday show.

“The establishment, with everything they are invested in the establishment, remaining the establishment and in power, they’re just … not going to sit back and trust this to your votes. They’re not going to trust this to an election, to a campaign,” the radio host said. “Not going to trust it at all. They’re going to do everything they can to destroy whoever it is that wants to take control from them. And in the process, they’re going to destroy that person so as to send a message to the next guy, ‘Don’t even think about it. Don’t even try. Look what we did to Donald Trump.’”

The radio host argued that you’ll never find a person who is untarnished by his or her past, and that people in power will do anything to blow past mistakes way out of proportion.

“You’re not going to get a perfect candidate. You’re not going to get somebody who doesn’t have any smudges or doesn’t have any smears on them. You’re not going to find anybody,” Limbaugh said.

He pointed to the left’s attacks on former President George W. Bush and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

“If they can turn Mitt Romney into a living, breathing devil, they can do it to anybody,” Limbaugh said. “Mitt Romney is, as I have said countless times before, one of the finest human beings, one of the finest men you will find alive today in terms of character, demeanor, manner, you name it. … If they were able to demonize Mitt Romney, and they demonized George W. Bush, they’ll be able to demonize anybody.

He also said Democrats get away with all kinds of hypocrisy, and that anyone who is perceived as on “outsider” will be considered as somebody unfit, unsuited and ill-tempered for the presidency because such a candidate runs the risk of exposing corruption.

“The purpose of last night — and it’s a failure today — was to take Trump out forever, not just his political campaign. Donald Trump the human being was to be humiliated and destroyed and rendered so humiliated and embarrassed he would never be seen in public again,” Limbaugh said.

The radio host added, “I think a whole lot of people are sick and tired of things like this determining the outcome of elections, these October Surprise kinds of things. It may not have been safe to say this back in the year 2000. It might not have been safe to say it in 2004, but a lot of ground has been covered, and there is so much hypocrisy on the left when you get to the subject matter of that open-mic tape, Access Hollywood, Trump running around there with Billy Bush.”

“The very people who applaud it and celebrated JFK, who had women trooped into the White House in droves,” he said. “Bill Clinton, you go through the list of Democrats and entertainers who have made their names on the basis of infidelity and catting around and being celebrated and protected and lauded and held up as great people. ‘Hey, that’s sex, it’s not their job. Hey, that’s just private life; it doesn’t matter to their leadership.’” (For more from the author of “Limbaugh Has a Message for Republicans Who Abandoned Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why I Serve on the Catholic Advisory Committee of the Trump/Pence Campaign

In the first presidential debate, Hilary Clinton paraphrased words attributed to the great French writer Alexis de Tocqueville: “America is great because America is good. If America ever stops being good, it will stop being great.” Those words were probably not written by him. Nor were these words,

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers — and it was not there. … in her fertile fields and bound less forests — and it was not there … in her rich mines and her vast world commerce — and it was not there. … In her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution — and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

I accepted the invitation to the Catholic Advisory group to Trump/Pence 2016 campaign because I believe these words are true, no matter who wrote them.

The American Founding

Our age is reeling under what Pope Benedict XVI called a “dictatorship of relativism.” Relativism says there are no objective truths. The American founders were not relativists. They declared independence with the bold words “We Hold These Truths.”

They affirmed that fundamental human rights were endowed by the Creator. The Catholic Church affirms these truths. But it just doesn’t affirm them in theory. It demands that we work to promote and defend them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (numbers 2239, 2240) says very clearly that we citizens have the duty to work for “the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom” as an act of gratitude for what we have been given. Then it says:

Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community. Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.

As a Catholic clergyman, I take this duty seriously. I am grateful to my country and love the United States, and very concerned for her future. This election matters. It also matters to the Republican Party that it hear the Catholic voice strongly.

The Right to Life and Religious Freedom

First among the truths our nation’s founders declared is the Right to Life. This is not a right our nation now fully recognizes. Abortion is legal in the United States. Innocent children in the womb are being killed by surgical instruments, chemical weapons or suction, at any time and for any reason. Every procured abortion is a violation of the Natural Law Right to Life.

We have no excuse. We know these children are our brothers and sisters. We offer surgery to them. We prosecute someone who takes their lives in the commission of another crime. We take 4D and 3D images of these children and send them to friends. We know what we are doing and are culpable as a Nation.

The next president could name four Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Those appointments will determine if this horrible practice continues. Even just two could shift the balance and change the law for generations. Donald Trump affirms the Right to Life and Hilary Clinton denies it.

The Constitution protects religious freedom. It requires the government to accommodate religious faith, but now we find it increasingly treated with hostility. I don’t need to go over the examples.

Just think of the baker who can’t bake a cake celebrating a same-sex “marriage” because of her deeply held religious conviction about marriage being persecuted and fined. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor. Or the growing effort to compel Christian institutions to deny sexual difference and conform to the radical gender identity agenda. There are many more examples, and the number is growing.

Our founding fathers understood that the nation they’d created couldn’t survive without a strong religious people. In 1798 John Adams proclaimed, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Our founders understood that the free exercise of religion goes beyond the freedom to worship within church buildings. They knew it included bakers baking cakes and nuns caring for the poor. Donald Trump affirms religious freedom. He will correct the abuses unleashed by the Johnson Amendment which gags the speech of the Church and support the First Amendment Defense Act. Hilary Clinton opposes both and is hostile toward the Church and religious freedom.

Marriage and Family and School Choice

The rights of children and the common good are best secured by recognizing the uniqueness of faithful monogamous marriage above all other relationships. The family is the first society, first economy, first school, first civilizing and mediating institution and first government, and the first place for the formation of virtue and character in children. This is both common sense and my Church’s teaching.

In rejecting marriage, the United States Supreme Court in its Obergefell opinion erred. In the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, he noted “the majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” He was correct.

Donald Trump will protect the rights of the Church to advocate for marriage and the family free from governmental coercion and persecution. Hilary Clinton will not.

The founders also understood the parents right and duty to direct their children’s education. So does the Catholic Church. The Catechism calls the right of parents to choose a school for their children “fundamental” and says that the government has “the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise” (number #2229).

Donald Trump supports school choice. Hilary Clinton is opposed to it.

Good Government and Economic Freedom

Finally, two other areas guided my choice to join the Catholic Advisory Group. They are matters of prudential judgement, meaning that people who hold the same principles may have different ideas about how to act upon those principles. In many cases of prudential judgment, I find myself in agreement with the Trump/Pence campaign and opposed to the Clinton/Kaine campaign.

First, I affirm the principle of subsidiarity. Governing should first occur at the lowest level and any other governing entity should defer and assist the smallest governing unit, not usurp their role.

Donald Trump will devolve government back to the state and local levels. He will recognize the necessity of supporting mediating associations, those groups like the family and churches that stand between the individual and the state, that make up what we call “civil society.” Hillary Clinton advocates increased centralization of power at the federal level and letting government over-ride mediating institutions.

Second, I believe in a truly free economy. By that I mean one that should not be controlled by either a federal bureaucracy or a corporatist class. The free economy will expand participation while promoting enterprise and awarding initiative. After reviewing the economic policies of Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, I determined Trump promotes economic freedom.

Conclusion

I accepted the invitation to the Catholic Advisory Group to the campaign of Donald J. Trump to offer the kind of policy analysis I have expressed in this essay to the campaign. (For more from the author of “Why I Serve on the Catholic Advisory Committee of the Trump/Pence Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

At Stake: The Constitution

This election is about a lot of things, but it is fundamentally about the U.S. Constitution and whether federal judges will adhere to their oath to “… faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me … under the Constitution and laws of the United States,” or dilute, attack and destroy our founding document.

That the Constitution is on the ballot in the persons of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who hold differing views of it and have pledged to appoint radically different judges to federal benches, is revealed in a recent op-ed for Slate by Richard Posner, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

In his op-ed, as reported by The Washington Times, Judge Posner claims to see “absolutely no value” in studying the Constitution because “18th-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.” I suspect if they had seen modern culture with our fixation on Kim Kardashian, they might have retreated to England.

Even the Bill of Rights, says Posner, “do not speak to today.”

Wow. Freedom of speech, assembly, the press, religion, no warrantless searches and more are outmoded concepts? Who knew? (Read more from “At Stake: The Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Immigration Insanity: This Federal Judge Just Turned Six States Into Sanctuary States

If you thought executive amnesty was bad, wait until you get a taste of judicial amnesty. A new order from a federal judge issued a week from last Friday will prevent ICE from placing detainers on many illegal aliens held in local jails in six states. This radical violation of American sovereignty — judicial tyranny on steroids — will have the effect of creating a judicial sanctuary for sanctuary cities and prevent the Obama administration from detaining even the few illegal aliens they are pursuing. You heard that correctly, a federal judge wants to grant de facto amnesty to those even the Obama administration wants to deport!

For the past decade, ICE has issued detainers on those suspected of being in the country illegally who have been arrested by local officials, but are about to be released. ICE asks local police to hold the individual for 48 hours if they have probable cause an individual is an illegal immigrant so they can apprehend any criminal alien without them being released into the population. Remember, in almost every case where an illegal is arrested, they were never apprehended for simply being an illegal alien. They have usually committed an additional crime. These are not your lovely housekeepers Democrats nostalgically speak of when stereotyping illegal immigrants.

On September 30, Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order voiding out thousands of such detainers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the states where plaintiffs filed a class action suit. In a pattern of interpreting statutes in the most stringent manner for American sovereignty and in the most lenient manner for illegal aliens (in other cases they downright overturn statutes), Judge Lee asserted that ICE is required to obtain a warrant for every individual before issuing a post-release detainer unless they can verify that each individual suspected alien is a flight risk. This ruling will essentially take the policy of Cook County and the City of Chicago of “we will not enforce the law” and expand it to six states, ensuring that the Feds can’t enforce the law, even when local officials want to cooperate.

To begin with, the Obama administration has reduced the number of monthly detainers from nearly 30,000 in 2011 to under 10,000 since announcing the DAPA amnesty. That part of DAPA has not been halted by the courts, and this latest court ruling will likely void out most of the remaining detainers. Keep in mind, for the Obama administration to issue a detainer, that individual has to be a pretty nefarious character, given the fact that he has declined to deport even most criminal aliens.

As has been the case throughout the Obama administration, there is a bit of kabuki theater between the DOJ attorneys and the liberal judges. While the DOJ has to defend the laws and practices of the federal government, the Obama administration has not put up a rigorous defense for immigration enforcement, and that was evident in this case. As Judge Lee noted, the DOJ essentially agreed with the Soros-funded immigration groups that there is no ubiquitous flight risk among illegals. That is scandalous. By definition, illegal aliens with no documentation are the consummate flight risk, which is exactly why the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), calls upon ICE to apprehend illegal aliens without a warrant when the suspected alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.”

For example, we know that 84 percent of family units from Central America that received a notice to appear before an immigration judge absconded and disappeared into the population before the final decision in 2014-2015, yet this judge feels that none of them can be detained. Among young illegal aliens who have crossed over in recent years, 90% failed to show up for their hearings, according to data from the House Judiciary Committee. The notion that illegals who have been arrested for crimes but never apprehended by the feds in the first place are not a flight risk is insane.

The consequences of this decision are devastating because it will codify sanctuary city policies into law everywhere, even where local law enforcement actually follows federal law. As CIS’s Jessica Vaughn reported, during a nine-month period in 2014 alone, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders ICE was seeking to deport. Of these illegals, 62% had significant prior criminal histories and 2,320 of them were subsequently rearrested for new crimes. There is no telling how many have committed crimes and were never caught. This is just a nine-month snapshot of the devastation from sanctuary policies. As of last year, 69% of them were still at large. So much for not being a flight risk.

While the lead plaintiff in this case was a U.S. citizen and obviously had standing to bring the suit against ICE, it is astounding that illegal aliens could piggyback on this lawsuit and secure a carte blanche order from a judge to suspend detainers in six states. In all cases of law enforcement actions, even pertaining to U.S. citizens, police operate based on probable cause. There are times that they make mistakes. In this case, the U.S. citizen, Jose Jimenez Moreno, can file a civil suit against the government if he wants to get revenge. But how do illegals get standing for relief when they are not even allowed to be in the country and how can a judge legislate immigration policy from the bench?

This is part of the disturbing trend of granting citizen rights to illegal aliens I warn about in Stolen Sovereignty. It has long been settled law that non-citizens have no right to stay in this country, nor are they entitled to a judge reviewing their case for remaining in the country. That understanding has been changed as we allowed liberal lawyers to violate that precedent in recent years. As Justice Robert Jackson, the famous Nuremberg prosecutor who was a champion of due process rights (he wrote the dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the Japanese internment case) and regarded as one of the greatest writers of his time wrote, “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

While all human beings obviously have a right to due process before being punished or indefinitely detained, a country acting to protect its sovereignty can apprehend any alien with the purpose of deporting them. They are not entitled to judicial review beyond an appearance before some administrative official to ensure the individual is indeed not a U.S. citizen. “As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law, ” wrote the court in 1892. That was a decision that Justice Felix Frankfurter regarded as “about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

Yet, over the past number of years, the courts have overturned this settled law and have now made their supremacy over sovereignty its own form of “settled law,” a premise adopted, at least in part, by much of the conservative legal profession. This will not change with a Republican president. It will only get worse with an administration that is serious about enforcing our sovereignty because the illegal alien legal profession has the ability to use the lower courts to litigate every last deportation to death, even in the few instances where we get narrow victories at the Supreme Court.

This is why Judge Roy Moore’s fight against the usurpation of the federal judiciary is about more than marriage. The federal judiciary is crushing states from exercising the powers they’ve held since our founding with regards to defining marriage, (gender?!), proscribing methods and procedures for elections, protecting civil and religious liberty, and enforcing immigration laws. Yet, at the same time, the courts are defending the blue states that thwart federal immigration law, the one area where the feds legitimately have plenary power in order to protect the sovereignty of the entire union.

That Congress can just sit idly and watch lower courts — which are a complete creation of the legislative branch — grant citizen rights to dangerous illegal immigrants reflects the ultimate breakdown of our system of governance and is a gross violation of the social contract. (For more from the author of “Immigration Insanity: This Federal Judge Just Turned Six States Into Sanctuary States” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can Someone Finally Put the ‘Clinton Surplus’ and ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Myths to Rest

There are some liberal myths that (like a bad case of athlete’s foot) just refuse to go away. Ironically, these myths are easily refuted with a simple internet search, but liberals rarely let facts get in the way of a good talking point. The latest reappearance of these liberal fairytales was in the recent second presidential debate. Hillary Clinton, who is smart enough to know that these myths are about authentic as tales of alien encounters at an LSD convention, insisted on using these myths in the last debate. To me, that means that she either lied or she isn’t as smart as her supporters claim.

Myth #1 “The Clinton Surplus”

I’ve debunked this myth before in my writings here at Conservative Review, but like that foot fungus, or Jason from the Friday the 13th movies, it keeps coming back. Now, again, for the umpteenth time THERE WAS NO BUDGET SURPLUS IN THE CLINTON YEARS. Can I be candid here? If you believe that President Bill Clinton’s presidency ran a surplus in any year where he occupied the White House then 1) you don’t know what you’re talking about 2) you do know what you’re talking about and you’re lying 3) you aren’t interested in anything other than protecting the Democrat “brand.”

Here’s a simple way to debunk the myth that President Clinton ran a surplus that even liberals who choose to blind themselves like Oedipus can understand (if they choose to understand). The national debt (the accumulated debt resulting from annual federal budget deficits) rose EVERY YEAR Bill Clinton was in office. Questioning me because I’m a conservative and you think I’m shilling for the GOP? Then please go to the Department of the Treasury’s own website by clicking here and plug in the Clinton years. Voila! The national debt increased every year which, by using uncomplicated logic, must mean that Bill Clinton added to the national debt every year by running budget deficits, not surpluses. If you are interested in additional details on the many scams the liberals and their media chums employ to keep this myth going then please read this excellent article by Craig Steiner which demolishes every single liberal “Clinton surplus” scam.

Myth #2 “The Gun Show Loophole”

This liberal myth most likely originated in a liberal focus group where the goal was to fabricate terminology to mislead voters regarding access to firearms. There is NO gun show loophole. It doesn’t exist. Yes, that’s right, it’s completely made up and people using this talking point must not know that they sound ridiculous when they bring it up, Hillary included.

People who use this debunked, nonsensical, talking point are similar to that really loud guy at a small, intimate house party that’s talking loud enough for everyone to hear, and telling stories about his high school football days that absolutely no one cares about. He looks ridiculous but he’s the only one who doesn’t know it. If you go to a gun show and ask a federally licensed firearms dealer to bypass the background check citing the “gun show loophole” you will likely be thrown out or, at a minimum, you will be sternly corrected. Again, don’t believe me, then check out this terrific video by Steven Crowder in which he humorously tries to use the “gun show loophole” to speed up the gun buying process. In short, some private sales and transfers or firearms, do not require a NICS check. But, this has nothing to do with a gun show and EVERY licensed federal firearms dealer at a gun show must, by law, conduct a background check. Saying otherwise makes you look silly, or it makes you a died-in-the-wool liberal, but I just said the same thing twice. (For more from the author of “Can Someone Finally Put the ‘Clinton Surplus’ and ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Myths to Rest” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Win or Lose This November, Mike Pence Has a Bright Future Ahead of Him

Donald Trump is famous for his rhetorical aggression, his lack of harmony in speech, and his often controversial comments. Since he’s stepped into the arena of presidential politics, Trump has been the antithesis of political correctness — and proudly so.

Yet, every seemingly misspoken sentence has left Trump unscathed thus far. It was only days ago that Trump and Clinton were neck and neck in the polls in the battle for the White House. Unfortunately for Trump, it may not be his campaign rhetoric that tanks his bid for the Oval Office. Instead, the breaking point may be the newly released tape, more than a decade old, that records Trump using particularly vulgar language toward women.

Time will tell, or actually, the election for that matter, if Trump’s comments will be the nail in his presidential coffin. However, the man truly stuck in the middle is Governor Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate. Although, Pence unequivocally denounced Trump’s remarks, many in the conservative movement speculate that Trump’s character could curse Pence’s own future ambitions.

My assumption, however, is that those pundits are merely being dramatic or using it as a scare tactic to push Pence to quit the campaign. Whether you support Trump, never did, or have changed your decision after the latest bombshell, one thing remains certain: Mike Pence is no Donald Trump.

In fact, there is really no comparison. If anything, that’s what has made Pence a worthy vice presidential candidate. Trump has been a lifelong businessman, often times with varying political opinions. He occasionally appears readily religious and situationally conservative. I hope that Trump’s positions today are genuine. Still, as a non-politician without a voting record, we have only his word to go on.

Pence, on the other hand, has a long and documented political history, including a record in both Congress and as governor of Indiana. In Congress, he put his money where his mouth is: He rebuked his own party by voting against No Child Left Behind in 2001, he opposed a major entitlement expansion of Medicare in 2003, and he routinely voted against every notable government bailout, including Wall Street’s (TARP).

As a staff member for then-Congressman Pence in 2010, I know from personal experience that he was often guided in life and politics by his faith. Few members of Congress hewed so closely to their faith in God to guide day-to-day decisions.

Ironically, the second debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump proved that Pence is much more than simply an extension of Trump. While they are known to disagree on a plethora of topics (trade and a ban on Muslims are just two examples), the distinction between the men was brought to the fore on Sunday night, when Trump nearly had to rebuke his own running mate on stage. Martha Raddatz questioned Trump’s interaction with Russia saying, “Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate said that ‘provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.’” Trump quickly rebutted, “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree.” In this race, it is clear that Pence is his own man.

More so, Pence may be the best conservative option — with one of the best conservative résumés — in future elections. Aside from fighting in Congress for balanced budgets, tax cuts, and reducing the size of government, Pence has one of the most conservative records as governor.

As The Wall Street Journal highlights, his economic record in Indiana is impressive. In Indiana, economic growth matched or exceeded the national average. Job creation grew by 10 percent since 2012 in the state versus only 6.5 percent in the US. He alone expanded manufacturing jobs by more than 30,000.

Most impressively, Pence balanced the budget each and every year — while cutting taxes. He reduced income taxes, corporate taxes, personal property taxes and repealed the estate tax. And he did this all while keeping government spending below the rate of inflation.

Few can match Pence’s résumé.

That’s because Pence is his own man, and regardless of how this election turns out, any opportunity for a 2020 run will not be shattered by his decision to run with Trump. Pence is not running for power or prestige, but as a principled individual with conservative convictions. That passion was immediately apparent in his amazing performance during the first and only vice presidential debate. Even The Boston Globe agreed that Pence appeared presidential.

Like many before Pence, this vice presidential run will not be his legacy. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 51%), for example, is now Speaker of the House. Pence has a bright future ahead of him — whether he’s working in the White House come January or not. (For more from the author of “Win or Lose This November, Mike Pence Has a Bright Future Ahead of Him” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Not Impressed by What Paul Ryan Achieved in First Year as Speaker

“For insisting the GOP is still a party of ideas,” Paul Ryan made Politico magazine’s annual list of the 50 most influential lawmakers, intellectuals, and leaders in politics.

A year into his job as House speaker, though, the self-described policy wonk has helped generate lots of white papers but few legislative wins.

And while some fellow House conservatives applaud Ryan’s policy agenda, which stakes out Republican positions on everything from poverty to national security, they insist there’s a better way to get conservative reforms into law.

Shortly after picking up the speaker’s gavel, Ryan announced his top priority would be increasing the contrast between Republicans and Democrats.

“The No. 1 goal for the next year,” Ryan said during a Dec. 3 speech in the ornate Great Hall of the Library of Congress, “is for conservatives to put together a complete alternative to the left’s agenda.”

That effort generated six comprehensive policy proposals on poverty, national security, the economy, separation of constitutional powers, health care, and tax reform. Collectively dubbed “A Better Way,” the agenda provides a Republican policy blueprint but no actual bills.

And when asked by The Daily Signal to detail the speaker’s top conservative achievements, Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong listed three other House bills that remain mired in the Senate, a controversial fiscal relief package for Puerto Rico, and a vetoed Obamacare repeal bill.

With just 16 legislative days left in 2016, it’s not clear the three House-passed bills will get a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate. Strong would say only that the speaker would “continue to look for ways to move these.”

Back in February, a more verbose Ryan told Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly that conservative reforms can happen only with a Republican in the White House, noting that “the problem with divided government is you can’t always get everything you want.”

If Republicans would try sometime, House conservatives respond, they might get what they need, namely legislative wins.

Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the influential 40-member Freedom Caucus, acknowledged the challenges presented by an entrenched Democrat minority in the Senate and President Barack Obama in the White House.

But, Jordan told The Daily Signal, a list of policy proposals isn’t enough.

“The American people are calling for action, not just ideas,” he said.

“The American people already understand the difference between what the parties stand for,” Jordan said. “What they want to see from Republicans is a willingness to stand firm and get something done.”

Ryan, 46, promises that change is coming and that his “A Better Way” agenda could become law—just not this year.

“Much of this you can do through budget reconciliation,” Ryan said Sept. 30 while clutching a pamphlet for that agenda during his weekly press conference, “and I think the rest of it is something that the vast majority of the American people want to see get done.”

A parliamentary power play, budget reconciliation allows the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority, rather than the standard 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, if the bill in question is budgetary in nature.

Ryan employed the measure in December while quarterbacking an effort to send a bill repealing Obamacare to the president’s desk for the first time. Obama vetoed the legislation shortly after.

To use budget reconciliation, though, Congress first needs a budget to fund the government, something Republicans failed to deliver this year.

“Ryan’s big thing was returning to regular order on the budget. He couldn’t even do that,” said David Bozell, president of ForAmerica, a conservative group that claims more than 7 million members online.

“Think on that,” Bozell told The Daily Signal. “[Ryan is] a former Budget Committee chairman who couldn’t even pass a budget despite enjoying the biggest majority Republicans have ever had.”

But the lack of a budget isn’t for a lack of trying. For months, Ryan tried to reach consensus on a budget inside the GOP conference.

Negotiations broke down over spending levels negotiated by Ryan’s predecessor, then-Speaker John Boehner, and Obama in October. GOP leadership made it clear that if conservatives wanted policy wins during the funding process they first had to accept higher spending.

Bickering over those spending levels finally derailed a potential budget and set the stage for a series of last-minute votes on government funding.

To the chagrin of conservatives, Ryan’s first year as speaker likely will come to a close when lawmakers pass a spending measure during the lame-duck session, that period after the November election but before the next Congress convenes.

A lack of accomplishments on conservative policy, plus increased spending, has earned Ryan criticism from outside conservative groups. But some conservatives still hold out hope for victories in the next Congress.

“Speaker Ryan has shown himself to be very skilled at cleaning out the barn,” Jason Pye, communications director for the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks, told The Daily Signal. “But he has to start sowing the seeds of real conservative reform.” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Not Impressed by What Paul Ryan Achieved in First Year as Speaker” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.