Obamacare Revealed as Masterpiece of Government’s Failed Central Planning

/0 Comments/in , /by

Obamacare, a veritable fountain of unintended consequences, is a 21st century showcase of government central planning. Let’s be clear. This is what President Barack Obama wanted.

Liberals in Congress meticulously designed the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges as powerful regulatory bodies. They defined the kinds of insurance plans, benefits, and medical treatments and procedures the plans must offer; set all of the insurance rules; determined the permissible premium and deductible levels; and organized the most complex and confusing premium subsidy program imaginable.

So, federal government control was, and is, comprehensive. They planned it all.

Obama’s most high-profile promises, reinforced by “progressive” propaganda, have yielded the following: Americans have less consumer choice, less market competition, exploding insurance premiums, ridiculous deductibles, fewer doctors, a narrowing of provider networks—no, you can’t necessarily “keep” your doctor—and the looming prospect of ever bigger burdens on taxpayers.

Through it all, the Obama administration’s academic and media allies have remained fiercely loyal.

Last year, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hailed the health care law as “a portrait of policy triumph.” This year, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait opined: “The policy rationale for repealing the Affordable Care Act continues to disintegrate, while the political conditions to replace it with an alternative have collapsed entirely.”

Let’s also be clear about something else: What “progressive” politicians want, and their academic and media cheerleaders like, most Americans don’t want or like.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, Obamacare, heading into year seven, remains persistently unpopular—with more and more people saying the law is hurting them.

Moreover, the law is not working as officially anticipated. The proof is in the data.

For 2016, the Congressional Budget Office initially projected 21 million people would enroll in the exchanges. The reality: Only about 11 million enrolled.

For 2017, the Obama administration is projecting 13.8 million will sign up for coverage in the exchanges. You can bet, however, that the actual number who remain will be significantly less.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 17 million more people have health insurance in 2016 compared to 2013. But the so-called “market” is churning rapidly.

Examining complete enrollment data for the 2014 to 2015 period, a Heritage Foundation analysis shows that enrollment in individual insurance (mostly exchange enrollment) increased by 5.8 million, while total private employer market enrollment fell by almost 3.6 million.

This means that total private market coverage over that two-year period increased by almost 2.3 million. On the other hand, Medicaid coverage jumped by almost 11.8 million.

So, Obamacare is mostly a major Medicaid expansion. The law is not encouraging Americans’ enrollment in a robust, well-functioning private insurance market; it’s discouraging it.

Consider insurer supply. Obama promised health insurance market competition would blossom. In 2014, Urban Institute analysts, examining the impact of the law in 10 states, concluded: “The Affordable Care Act has resulted in considerable competition.”

A Heritage analysis in 2014, however, examining insurers’ participation in all 50 states, came to a different conclusion; it found a 21.5 percent reduction in the number of insurers nationwide, reflecting the transition from 2013 to 2014.

During that big transition, millions lost their health insurance plans whether they liked them or not. Liberal commentators dismissed these losses as the elimination of “junk plans” or “substandard plans,” meaning they imposed excessive out-of-pocket costs or provided insufficient coverage.

But today enrollees on the Obamacare exchanges face standard “silver” plan deductibles that average $3,572 for single coverage and $7,474 for family coverage. For the lowest-cost “bronze” plans, deductibles amount to roughly $6,000 for single coverage and $12,393 for family coverage.

Taxpayers subsidize the vast majority of exchange enrollees, more or less heavily, depending on their income. Eligibility for insurance premium subsidies ranges from 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and the lowest-income enrollees benefit the most.

Even so, the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 40 percent are dissatisfied with their premiums and 46 percent are unhappy with their deductibles.

For any person making in excess of $47,080 per year—a large chunk of America’s middle class—there are no Obamacare taxpayer subsidies for either premiums or deductibles for individual insurance. Unless he or she is self-employed, there is not even any tax relief.

These folks, of course, can buy outside the Obamacare exchanges, where they are likely to secure broader provider networks in the standard health plans, but they pay even higher premiums and deductibles. But they can’t just buy health plans tailored to their personal wants and needs.

Meanwhile, the meltdown of health insurance competition intensifies. In 2017, 15 new insurers will enter the exchanges, but 83 insurers are dropping out. Moreover, according to the latest Heritage review of the data, one-third of all U.S. counties (32.8 percent) will have only one insurer and another third (35.9 percent) will have only two insurers.

So, private insurance plans fail, fewer doctors are in the exchanges, Americans have less choice and face less competition. To keep supply up, the administration and its congressional allies want to bail out insurance companies—with more subsidies. To keep demand from falling through the floor, several “progressive” proposals would increase taxpayer subsidies to alleviate the law’s ugly impact on enrollees’ cost sharing.

The most far-reaching proposal would offset all out-of-pocket costs in all private insurance, both in and out of the exchanges. That would be enormously costly for taxpayers, and explode the nation’s deficit by as much as $90 billion in 2018.

No surprises here. The tacit premise of Washington’s central planners is that anything they screw up can be fixed. Just add more government micromanagement and more taxpayers’ dollars. (For more from the author of “Obamacare Revealed as Masterpiece of Government’s Failed Central Planning” please click HERE” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Demands Explanation for Clarence Thomas’ Exclusion From Black History Smithsonian

/0 Comments/in , /by

Seventeen members of Congress sent a letter to the secretary of the Smithsonian Thursday, inquiring why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was excluded from the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in October that Thomas is only referenced in the new Smithsonian in connection with an exhibit on Anita Hill, the government employee turned law professor who accused him of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings. Hill is giving prominent billing in a gallery on blacks in the 1990s.

“The background and accomplishments of Justice Thomas are worthy of inclusion in the museum on their own merits,” the letter reads. “Justice Thomas’ contributions to the judicial system through his appointment to the highest court in the country cannot be discounted. It is a disservice to his legacy and to the history of this nation to mention his name in a single caption, but provide no other exhibit showcasing his story.”

“With this in mind, we insist that you provide an explanation about the conspicuous absence of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from the new museum, and of any future plans to feature him in a permanent exhibit,” the letter adds.

The lead signatory on the letter is GOP Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter, who represents Savannah, Georgia, Thomas’ hometown. Sixteen other Republicans signed the letter.

For its part, the Smithsonian has denied it applied any ideological litmus test in preparing its exhibits.

“There are many compelling personal stories about African-Americans who have become successful in various fields, and obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them,” a spokesman said. “However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.”

“We will continue to collect and interpret the breadth of the African-American experience,” the spokesman added. (For more from the author of “Congress Demands Explanation for Clarence Thomas’ Exclusion From Black History Smithsonian” please click HERE” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Amnesty Would Cost Taxpayers Trillions, National Academy of Sciences Report Indicates

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The long-term costs to taxpayers of immigrants and their descendants are detailed in a new report from the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings in the report indicate that if amnesty for illegal immigrants were enacted, the government would have to raise taxes immediately by $1.29 trillion and put that sum into a high-yield bank account to cover future fiscal losses generated by the amnesty recipients and their children.

To cover the future cost, each U.S. household currently paying federal income tax would have to pay, on average, an immediate lump sum of over $15,000.

The National Academy of Sciences report, “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,” provides fiscal balance projections for immigrants and their descendants over 75 years.

The fiscal balance of an individual equals all government taxes paid minus all benefits received. Federal, state, and local benefits and taxes are included in the estimates.

The NAS report, released a few weeks ago, shows that the fiscal balances of immigrants vary greatly according to education level: Immigrants with low education levels impose substantial fiscal costs that extend far into the future. The government benefits they will receive greatly exceed the taxes they will pay.

This is critical because current illegal immigrants have very low education levels.

Around 10 million adult illegal immigrants currently are in the U.S. Nearly half don’t have a high school diploma. Overall, adult illegal immigrants are six times more likely to lack that diploma than are U.S.-born residents.

Illegal immigrants currently receive routine government services such as roads, sewers, and police and fire protection. The children of illegal immigrants currently receive heavily subsidized public education at an average cost of $12,000 per child per year.

Children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are eligible for the same welfare benefits (such as food stamps, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) as children born to U.S citizens.

Because illegal immigrant families already receive many government benefits and services, they currently impose a fiscal cost on taxpayers. The benefits they receive exceed taxes paid.

Amnesty or “earned citizenship” would provide current illegal immigrants access to an additional level of expensive government entitlements and benefits.

All of the major “comprehensive” immigration reform or “earned citizenship” bills debated in Congress since 2006 would have granted nearly all current illegal immigrants eligibility for future Social Security and Medicare benefits after 10 years of work. These bills also would have given amnesty recipients access to almost the entire U.S. welfare system, after modest delays.

In effect, amnesty would give current illegal immigrants access to the same government benefits as immigrants who are here legally. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, the long-term fiscal balance of an illegal immigrant, after amnesty, would be roughly equal to the cost of a current legal immigrant with the same age and education level.

The NAS report does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But, as noted, the report does provide fiscal projections for immigrants at different education levels. Because the education level of adult illegal immigrants is approximately known, the NAS projections enable us to project the future fiscal costs of illegal immigrants if they were granted amnesty or “earned citizenship” as a group.

Based on the education level of illegal immigrants, the NAS figures project that the net fiscal cost (benefits minus taxes) for 10 million adult illegal immigrants after receiving amnesty would have a net present value of negative $1.29 trillion.

The concept of “net present value” is complex; it places a much lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures. One way to grasp net present value is that it represents that total amount of money that would have to be raised today and put in a bank account earning 3 percent interest above the inflation rate in order to cover future costs.

As noted above, this means that if amnesty were enacted, government would have to immediately raise taxes by $1.29 trillion and put that sum into a high-yield bank account to cover the future fiscal losses that will be generated by the amnesty recipients and their children.

And to cover the future cost, each U.S. household currently paying federal income tax would have to pay, on average, an immediate lump sum of over $15,000.

Of course, if the federal government were to grant amnesty, it would not actually raise current taxes by $1.29 trillion and put the money in a high-yield bank to cover the future costs. Instead, in the government’s normal pattern, the costs would be unfunded and passed on to future years.

Converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact distribution of costs over time; unfortunately, that data is not provided by the National Academy of Sciences. However, a rough estimate of future net outlays to be paid by taxpayers (in constant 2012 dollars) for illegal immigrants after amnesty is around $3.6 trillion over 75 years.

Advocates of amnesty have suggested that low-skill immigrants generate large-scale positive economic results that benefit U.S. workers. The NAS report finds no evidence of such effects.

On the other hand, the report clearly shows that the continuing inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S. creates large fiscal burdens for taxpayers in the present and the future.

Moreover, granting amnesty is likely to generate even greater flows of illegal immigrants into the United States, adding even more costs. (For more from the author of “Amnesty Would Cost Taxpayers Trillions, National Academy of Sciences Report Indicates” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Kind of Fraud to Expect This Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States “has a long and unfortunate history of ballot fraud,” the Heritage Foundation has said, in a 2008 report titled Democracy in Danger — and the fraud has gotten worse since then. As Indiana state police Superintendent Doug Carter told RTV6-TV last month, “There’s voter fraud and voter forgery in every state of America.”

Voter fraud almost always favors Democratic candidates and happens mostly in toss-up states — the states that actually determine presidential elections. There is now solid evidence that despite their claims of innocence, key Democrats are aware of the fraud.

For example, in a 2015 email revealed by Wikileaks, Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta expressed his concern about past voting fraud by Obama campaign supporters. Old friends of the Clintons “are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters.”

Conservative undercover journalist James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas has uncovered attempts by Democrats to commit voter fraud, much of which has gone ignored by the left-leaning mainstream media. For example, Project Veritas recently videotaped Democratic operatives Robert Creamer and Scott Foval discussing election fraud. Foval, the national field director for Americans United for Change, explained how voters outside of Wisconsin could be brought into the state, using cars with Wisconsin plates to avoid suspicion. “We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you [obscene description] for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now,” he said. Both have since lost their jobs.

Here’s a review of the various forms of election fraud to expect this election season, with examples from this and previous campaigns.

Voter Impersonation, Double Voting and Bribery

Dead voters may account for a large amount of voter fraud. In September, for example, a Young Democrat in Virginia attempted to register 19 dead people to vote through the organization HarrisonburgVotes. He was only caught when a clerk recognized the name of a deceased World War II veteran he had submitted. The group, which is headed by the chairman of the congressional district’s Democratic Committee, has fired the young man and taken down its website and social media accounts. “This is proof that voter fraud not only exists but is ongoing and is a threat to the integrity of our elections,” said William J. Howell (R-Stafford), speaker of the state’s House of Delegates.

Last month, three dead voters were found on the newly registered or re-registered voting list in Hamilton County, Ohio. They had been added after they had passed away.

Although much of the election fraud is taking place in swing states, fraud continues in states known for the worst election fraud. Chicago, infamous for its dead voters, continues to have the most egregious problems. CBS 2 discovered that “119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.” Relatives report they can’t even get their deceased loved ones removed from voter rolls. One man told the station last month that he has asked multiple times to have his dead mother removed from voter registration. Even though she died in 1998, records show she voted in 2010.

In Indiana, officials are investigating hundreds of voter registrations that appear fraudulent. An organization called Indiana Voter Registration Project submitted the registrations, which contain “a combination of fake names, addresses and dates of birth with real information.” Hendricks County Clerk Debbie Hoskins caught the discrepancies and notified law enforcement. The faulty voter registrations have showed up in eight other Indiana counties. The spokeswoman for the organization is Christy Setzer, who has worked as a Democrat strategist for the presidential campaigns of Al Gore, Howard Dean and Chris Dodd.

Another technique, known as double voting or ballot stuffing, lets people vote twice.“You’d be surprised how often people double vote,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told CBS 4 in Colorado. “Two of the cases are serial double voters. I think people discover they can get away with it and keep doing it.” Kobach says some of the voters cast ballots in both Colorado and Kansas, and believes 10,000 people are registered to vote in both states.

New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Sunnunu accused Democrats of arranging to have Massachusetts residents vote in New Hampshire this election. Massachusetts is solidly Democratic, while New Hampshire is divided between the two parties. New Hampshire is one of 13 states that allows voters to register on the day of the election.

And there’s simple bribery. Voters are rewarded for voting a certain way. In the past, homeless people were reportedly bribed with cigarettes. Kankakee County State Attorney Jamie Boyd is investigating reports that voters were bribed with gifts to vote for Democrats, including Clinton.

Fraud by Election Officials

This category includes officials throwing out ballots for illegitimate reasons and allowing ineligible voters to vote. In 2013, undercover New York City police officers showed up at 63 different precincts pretending to be prohibited voters, but in 61 precincts, or 97 percent of the time, they were allowed to vote (they voted for a dummy name to avoid influencing the election). The officers assumed the identities of dead people, voters who had moved, or felons.

Similarly, in the 2012 election, O’Keefe showed up to a New Hampshire polling place with some assistants, asking for ballots for 10 deceased voters. Their names had not yet been purged from the voting rolls, and poll workers handed them the ballots without asking for ID, a violation of state law.

A close friend who lives in Colorado volunteered in 2012 to serve as a “judge” inside a heavily Hispanic polling location, as the final arbiter when there were disputes over ballots and procedures. She told me she saw rampant fraud and nothing was done about it:

I had a guy from Mexico tell me proudly that he was here to vote. He boasted that he didn’t think he could vote because “he did not have the Papers” but “the Obama people said not to worry, just to show his Xcel energy bill.” Sure enough, he was registered!!

Democrats had gone door to door registering people within a week of the election, she said, leaving little time to verify their citizenship. On voting day, she said, she saw as many as 22 people in the same apartment registered to vote.

Many people were in the wrong precinct and were only 3 blocks away but if we gave them the option of going to their correct precinct, or filling out a provisional ballot, the two annoying lawyers from the Justice Department would immediately ask us why we didn’t allow that person to vote!! After realizing that I wasn’t accountable to them or even that I didn’t need to speak to them, I told them to leave me alone.

She called the Secretary of State’s office the next day but wasn’t allowed to speak to him. The aide who answered the phone “told me it didn’t mean that there was any fraud that had happened. … I thought I was doing something patriotic and noble but the fraud was going on right in front of me and there was not a thing I could do about it!! Very frustrating!”

Fraud by Government Officials

New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s new ID program is allowing massive voter fraud, said Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin, in a Project Vertias video. By not requiring real ID, the Democrats are able to “bus people around to vote. … They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”

The problem is so bad he preferred voter ID laws. “Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,’” he explained. When they go to vote, “The law says you can’t ask for anything. Which they really should be able to do.”

In Missouri, Mayor Ted Hoskins of Berkeley, Mo., a Democrat, and his supporters are accused of requiring early ballot voters to submit their ballots in unsealed envelopes, which is contrary to law. Some residents say they were encouraged to fill out ballots and turn them over to Hoskins or one of his supporters. This could allow tampering of the ballots, so prosecutors and the FBI are currently investigating.

Eric Fey, Democratic director of the Election Board, said, “There were different colored inks and some where the ovals were filled in a very distinct fashion and some that were filled in a very different distinct fashion; things that you just don’t see on other ballots.” Fey said the results benefited Hoskins and his allies.

In 2012, Hoskins received the highest share of early ballots of any candidate, 36 percent. The next highest share among mayoral candidates was a mere 14 percent, and countywide, the share of early ballots averaged 8.6 percent. Hoskins defeated his opponent by 517 votes to 418.

Voting Machine Fraud

Hackers told CBS how simple it is to hack electronic voting machines. For $15, a voter can buy a card that is capable of manipulating the machine — without ever leaving the voting booth. “I can insert it, and then it resets the card, and now I’m able to vote again,” said Brian Varner, a principle researcher at the computer security company Symantec.

Symantec Security Response director Kevin Haley said the machines can be hacked after all the votes have been cast. CBS reports that only 60 percent of states routinely conduct audits after elections by comparing paper trails. The swing states of Virginia and Pennsylvania don’t even collect paper records, so there is no way to conduct audits.

Several people in Texas reported that voting machines in multiple counties changed their votes from Trump to Clinton.

Filling Out Ballots for Others to “Assist” Them

The elderly are particularly susceptible to offers for assistance with voting, and so party hacks target nursing homes pretending to care about their right to vote — while really ensuring they vote Democrat. The Dallas Star-Telegram reports that Texans have “witnessed” more than one request for a mail-in ballot, which is against the law unless it involves immediate family members. “One apparently witnessed five applications from the same address, a nursing home or a retirement center,” the paper reports. The case has been turned over to investigators.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot is conducting an investigation into a “vote-harvesting scheme” in Tarrant County, expressing concern over as many as 20,000 suspicious looking early ballots. Crimes being investigated include “improperly serving as a witness for multiple voters, forgery and tampering with a governmental record, unlawful possession of a carrier envelope, and improper assistance.”

Throwing Out Ballots

Ballots can also be fraudulently lost. Election officials, party hacks and even Post Office employees can come across early ballots and dispose of them so the votes are never counted. For example, partisan groups frequently run “vote-by-mail” services, to aid voters with turning in their ballots. But it is all too easy to pretend to be a conservative organization, collect early ballots from Republicans, then trash them.

In Illinois, 1,500 applications for an early ballot were discovered languishing in a Post Office box, uncollected and not forwarded to the proper election authorities for processing, which would prevent those who applied from voting. Although it is not clear which third-party organization had asked for them, the elections clerk believes it was voter suppression.

The Washington Times reported in 2014 that unauthorized people were going door-to-door in Colorado collecting ballots from unsuspecting voters, who will never know if their ballots were ever delivered and counted.

The Depths of Voter Fraud

Election officials are quick to explain incidents of voter fraud as clerical errors that don’t happen very often. To admit election fraud is more rampant would make them look bad, resulting in voters voting them out of office.

Compounding the problem, election officials are frequently under attack for bogus accusations of election fraud. I was the elections attorney for Maricopa County Elections Department from 2005 to 2006, and to this day still see frivolous lawsuits filed against the department, costing taxpayers millions of dollars to defend. Because election fraud is a real problem, frivolous complaints get more attention than they should.

We may never know the depths of voter fraud. But as technology advances, with its correlating advances in investigative scrutiny such as by Project Veritas and Wikileaks, even eliminating voter ID laws may not be enough to hide Democrat fraud much longer. (For more from the author of “What Kind of Fraud to Expect This Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Media Knew Hillary’s Server Was Hacked Months Ago yet Remained Deafeningly Silent

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary’s server being hacked is old news. The story you’re not hearing about is the media’s willful blindness.

The next president of the United States could be an individual — Hillary Clinton — who allowed classified information to fall into the hands of not one, not two, but as many as five foreign intelligence agencies due to her negligence and illegal use of an unsecured private email server.

And the mainstream media’s malfeasance is helping her get elected commander in chief.

Fox News’ Bret Baier rocked the political world Wednesday with an explosive report, as he cited FBI sources indicating the following:

That the investigation into the Clinton Foundation for pay-to-play schemes was more in depth than anyone previously thought.

That an indictment is “likely.”

And, most shockingly, that the FBI believes with “99 percent” certainty that Hillary Clinton’s private server had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information was stolen from the former secretary of state.

Again, to recap: As secretary of state for the United States of America, the Democratic nominee allowed classified information to be placed on a private email server — built at her request — and then failed to make sure that server was secure. As a result, foreign intelligence agencies were able to steal information from that Secretary of State.

This virtually never came up during the Democratic primary; Clinton was never really pressed about her email server’s potential threat to national security. But the media cannot pretend they had no reason to suspect that the security of Clinton’s server was compromised.

Why?

Because Conservative Review’s Dan Bongino broke that story in January — definitively stating that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked, and that Clinton’s team knew about it.

As Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, wrote (emphasis mine):

The growing divide between government rules that are good for the ruling-goose and government rules that are good for the citizen-gander is a source of friction for Americans tired of being dumped on by the DC ruling class. One of the most disturbing examples of this is the growing scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system to share U.S. national security secrets, a potential crime which would have, unquestionably, sent me to prison had I done it as a Secret Service agent on assignment to protect her. And as I state in my book, and as was relayed to me by an unimpeachable source, Mrs. Clinton’s private server WAS HACKED, and Mrs. Clinton’s team knew about it. Combine this with recent revelations that Mrs. Clinton ordered subordinates to remove classified markings from emails before sending them to her over her private, non-government server, and more salt has been poured in this gaping wound.

As Bongino exlplained in the most recent episode of his “Renegade Republican” podcast, “I don’t do tinfoil-cap stuff. I found out from an … as I said in the piece … unimpeachable source who was there!”

Listen:

“I put this stuff out there … media people ignored the story,” Bongino said.

Why didn’t the mainstream media run with the story at any point dating back to January? Why didn’t they press candidate Clinton in the midst of the Democratic primary?

For two reasons. First, Dan Bongino is a conservative, a member of the alternative media liberals scoff at. Therefore, anything he says is null and void.

Secondly, because the liberal media is and always has been in the tank for Hillary Clinton. And everybody knows it. (For more from the author of “The Media Knew Hillary’s Server Was Hacked Months Ago yet Remained Deafeningly Silent” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Walmart Goes Against the Grain With New Thanksgiving Ad

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As millions of Americans united Wednesday night to watch one of the great traditions in American life — a World Series Game 7 — Walmart shared a vision of something deeper and grander that is also a part of the American tradition — families united in prayer on Thanksgiving Day.

The 30-second ad, which at World Series rates cost Walmart $500,000 — features the diversity of Americas families and the camaraderie of its service members as they gather, pray and enjoy the bonds of family.

Many expressed their delight with the ad on Twitter.

The ad opens with shots of families gathered around their tables, as a voice solemnly asks all gathered, “Please bow your heads.”

“I’m just grateful that we can all be here in this moment,” says a man surrounded by his family.

The ad next cuts to a shot depicting active duty service members before cutting back to a small Asian-American child.

“I’m thankful for my family and that they care about me,” she says.

As the ad cuts back to another family seated around a table holding hands as they pray, a man’s voice reminds Americans of the struggles all families — and the nation — have endured.

“We’re another year older, we’ve been through a lot of trauma,” the speaker says.

The ad then shows a black female service member speaking to her fellow troops.

“No matter what color we are, no matter what uniform we got on, you guys are my family,” she says.

“There’s nothing more important than family today,” adds another uniformed soldier in a different setting. “It’s good to be together.”

The video then shows soldiers and families as they sit down for their Thanksgiving dinners as a woman sings a few words from the Beatles’ Come Together.

The ad was posted with a message from Walmart to America:

“America, let’s come together and take a moment to reflect on what we’re truly thankful for this holiday season. Friends, family and the chance to spend time with the ones we love. Walmart would like to give thanks to all of our Veterans and Active Duty Service Members at home and oversees this holiday season.” (For more from the author of “Walmart Goes Against the Grain With New Thanksgiving Ad” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Abedin Admitted Email Problem Near Time of Reported Hacking Attempt

/0 Comments/in , /by

In August 2010, Huma Abedin admitted she had a problem.

“Sorry. My email is acting up,” the top Clinton aide wrote in response to an email from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The email was among 1,250 pages of emails between Abedin and Clinton released Thursday.

That email carries an unusual significance when set alongside an email chain dated Aug. 16, 2010, that was shown to Abedin by the FBI during its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server.

The Aug. 16, 2010, email contained the subject line, “Re: your yahoo acct.” The contents of the message appeared to be a warning to Abedin that her personal Yahoo account had been hacked.

“Abedin did not recall the email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email account had ever been compromised,” the FBI report on its investigation said.

The disclosure comes the same day Fox News reported that two separate sources close to the FBI investigation into Clinton’s email server believe that up to five foreign intelligence agencies were successful in hacking into the server.

Abedin held a top-secret security clearance during her time at the State Department, and was able to access two systems — the State Department’s classified system and a nonclassified computer where she could access both her clintonmail.com and Yahoo accounts, the FBI has reported.

The longtime Clinton aide said printing difficulties on the classified network led her to ship emails to her non-State Department accounts for printing. She has also said that she rarely, if ever, cleaned out her inbox of old emails.

Abedin told investigators she “lost most of her old emails” when the clintonemail.com server was transitioned to a different server after Clinton left the State Department.

“Abedin did not know if the system administrator had archived the mailboxes before the system was taken down,” the FBI report said.

As the FBI moves forward with its investigation, the probe could further shed light on President Barack Obama, according to one news report

Obama may also have a “vested interest in the outcome” of the race, said Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who reported Thursday that Abedin told the FBI she “had to tell the White House” every time Clinton changed her email address to make sure that the electronic device used by the president would accept it.

Obama’s cellphone only accepts communications from “whitelisted” sources, Herridge said.

The development may be “another admission that the White House understood [Clinton] was using this private server for government business, and that the president was OK with it … because they were allowing updates to the email [address] to be made,” Herridge said. (For more from the author of “Abedin Admitted Email Problem Near Time of Reported Hacking Attempt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Don’t Call Me Sexist Because I Won’t Vote for Hillary

/0 Comments/in , /by

Eight years ago, and again four years ago, conservative white Americans were told that the reason we did not vote for Barack Obama was because we were racist. Now, conservative American men are being told that the reason we are not voting for Hillary Clinton is because we are sexist.

As reported in the Huffington Post,

President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on men to “look inside” themselves and think about bias if they have any doubt about voting for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“To the guys out there, I want to be honest,” Obama told a crowd in Columbus, Ohio, at a Clinton campaign event. “You know, there’s a reason we haven’t had a woman president before.”

He added,

I want every man out there who’s voting to kinda look inside yourself and ask yourself, if you’re having problems with this stuff, how much of it is that we’re just not used to it? When a guy is ambitious and out in the public arena and working hard, well that’s okay. But when a woman suddenly does it, suddenly you’re all like, well, why’s she doing that?

Liberal film director Michael Moore was even more direct, stating, “It’s the muscle memory of 10,000 years that’s in our DNA where we’ve run the show forever. Next Tuesday possibly — hopefully — a woman is going to lead the most powerful country on Earth. In other words, the 10,000-year reign is over.”

Well, I’m sure there are some voters out there, both male and female, who don’t want a woman running our country, just as I’m sure there were some voters out there in the last two elections who didn’t want a black man running our country. But, speaking without shame or apology as a white American male, my issue is with Hillary Clinton’s policies and character, not her gender, just as my issues were with Barack Obama’s policies, not his skin color.

The truth be told, I wanted to be able to vote for our nation’s first black president but I could not.

And I would gladly vote for our nation’s first female president — hopefully, a modern-day version of a woman like Deborah who led the ancient nation of Israel, or another Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher — if I could stand behind her policies and had confidence she could lead. At this very moment, had Carly Fiorina or Nikki Haley or Joni Ernst or any other solid conservative woman been running for president against a male liberal Democrat, I would vote for any of those women in a heartbeat, just as I would vote for Ben Carson or Tim Scott if either of these black leaders were running against a white liberal Democrat.

Again, that doesn’t mean that some people did not vote for Obama because he was black or that some people won’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. I don’t deny that for a moment.

But at the same time, there are some people who will not vote for Donald Trump because he’s a male and/or because he’s white. Yet it would be utterly ridiculous to state, “The reason a lot of you won’t vote for Trump is because he’s a white male.” That would be a gross exaggeration, totally overlooking Trump’s myriad flaws and shortcomings.

In the same way, it would be a gross exaggeration to say that the main reason a lot of people won’t vote for Hillary is because she’s a female, just as it would be a gross exaggeration to say that skin color was the main reason lots of Americans didn’t vote for Obama.

Over the last 8 years, I have heard from numerous African American callers who did not vote for Obama, and their reasons were identical to mine. And in recent months, I have heard from numerous female callers who will not vote for Hillary, and again, there reasons are identical to mine.

In fact, of all the people with whom I have discussed the elections in the last eight years, in public and in private, I have not met a single individual who voted against Obama because of his skin color or is voting against Hillary because of her gender. Not one.

Yet I have met many — and that is a very large “many” — who deplore their policies and therefore would not vote for them.

Why, then, cloud the issues with charges of racism and sexism? Or is that yet another ploy straight out of the liberal Democrat playbook? Why can’t the issues be the issues?

When I started my live, daily talk radio show a little over eight years ago, it was right during the presidential primaries, and I remember making my first on-the-air political comment, which was critical of something Senator McCain had said.

A day or two later, I took issue with Senator Obama, and then did so again a few days after that.

Immediately, I received a phone call from an African American listener who said to me, “Why do you always have to bring up race?” When I asked her what she meant, she replied, “All you do is bash Barack Obama.”

I explained to her that I had only differed with him on the air twice, but before that I had differed with John McCain. More importantly, I told her that I would gladly vote for Alan Keyes, a black leader who ran against Obama in Illinois, rather than Obama, because race was not the issue for me. I also said that I preferred Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton, since my issue was not gender.

Thankfully, over the years, my listeners have learned that I am anything but racist or sexist, and today, when a black caller implied that I was racist for taking issue with President Obama, other black listeners quickly weighed in, saying I was anything but racist and that they too didn’t vote for Obama. One of the callers actually said that the woman who implied that I was racist was guilty of racism, rather than me.

So let us not be distracted from what really matters, since the bottom line is simple: Racism and sexism certainly exist in America, from every perspective and among every people group, but racism and sexism are not the issue in this election. The issues are the issues, so let’s concentrate on them.

And if you tell me that I’m blinded my superior status as a white American male, I’ll encourage you to search your own heart. Perhaps the racism and sexism are on your end, not mine. (For more from the author of “Don’t Call Me Sexist Because I Won’t Vote for Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In First Speech Since RNC, Melania Trump Says She Would Tackle Cyber Bullying as FLOTUS

/0 Comments/in , /by

Melania Trump gave her first speech since the Republican National Convention Thursday afternoon, sharing her plan to minimize cyber bullying against children and teens if she becomes first lady.

The Slovenia-born wife of GOP nominee Donald Trump spoke during an appearance in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

“I will be an advocate for women and for children,” she said, adding that while her husband stays busy on the campaign trail, she is a “full-time mother” to their son, Barron.

“I have the same conversations with my son that you have with your sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and godchildren,” she said. “I do worry about children.”

Mrs. Trump pointed to the “bad side” of social media, adding that “children and teenagers can be fragile” and especially vulnerable to pain when made fun of online, where things have become “too mean and too rough.”

The model-turned-entrepreneur said she would also “work hard to improve everyday life for women,” referencing women in America who live in poverty or without health insurance.

Some Twitter users immediately criticized Mrs. Trump for criticizing bullying in light of her husband’s many inflammatory comments, including his attack of a Gold Star family and lewd remarks about women.

Amid the online criticism of Mrs. Trump was also praise.

Mrs. Trump said that after “hard work as a fashion model” overseas, she wanted to come to America, where “freedom and opportunity were in abundance.” She became a U.S. citizen in 2006, 10 years after moving to America.

“Love for this country is something we immediately shared when I met Donald,” she said. (For more from the author of “In First Speech Since RNC, Melania Trump Says She Would Tackle Cyber Bullying as FLOTUS” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These 8 Supreme Court Elections Could Have Huge Implications for Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

Election Day is Tuesday, which means that in addition to voting for president, congressmen, senators, local officials, and ballot initiatives from sea to shining sea, voters in most states will also be deciding on who sits on their state and local courts.

According to Ballotpedia, 34 states are currently holding elections for their respective state supreme courts and lower appellate courts across the country.

What’s more, 2016 promises to be a record-setting cycle for these races. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a record $14 million of outside money has been spent on media buys for state supreme court seats this election. This already breaks the previous $13.5 million record for independent expenditure during the 2011-12 cycle.

Here is a quick breakdown of some of the most important races to watch.

North Carolina:

Possibly the highest-profile state high court race is going to be in the Tar Heel State, where Republican incumbent Bob Edmunds faces off against Democrat challenger Mike Morgan, who currently serves on the N.C. superior court.

The seven-member court is currently split between four Republicans and three Democrats, meaning that the election could tip the balance in a state that has become a battleground for several crucial issues.

Though officially a nonpartisan election, Edmunds remarked to the Salisbury Post that the current contest is “the first time I’ve had a race that’s gotten on the front page of newspapers.” The 67-year-old jurist went on to implore voters to weigh a candidate’s “respect for the rule of law” with regard to their state’s highest court. Mike Morgan, meanwhile, has been endorsed by President Obama.

Current estimates of outside spending on the race — an eight-year term — top $2 million, reports Josh Bergeron and the Salisbury Post.

Alabama:

The Yellowhammer State has partisan elections, and Republican justices are currently in control of the Alabama bench. The three Republican incumbents are currently running unopposed, meaning there is no chance of an election-night shift for the bench. But the election is worth keeping an eye on for the extra-electoral buzz surrounding it.

Alabama’s nine-member supreme court has fallen into controversy in recent months due to the extrajudicial suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore in September. As a result of an administrative order issued earlier this year, Alabama became the first state high court to challenge the federal Supreme Court since before the Civil War, when states like Wisconsin clashed with Justice Taney’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Furthermore, a federal lawsuit filed in early September alleges that, under the Voting Rights Act, the state’s current election system somehow “unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans.”

Louisiana:

Louisiana currently has one contested supreme court race (one incumbent on the seven-member court is running unopposed), in which Jimmy Genovese and Marilyn Castle (both Republicans) are vying for the open seat of the retiring Janet Knoll. Justices are elected to 10-year terms on the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Recent reports show that the appeals court judge Genovese has raised about twice as much as Castle — roughly $1 million — and has a very dim view of judicial activism, recently remarking, “If the law needs to be changed, it is not our job on the bench to change those laws. It is the function of the legislative branch to make it right.”

“It is necessary that those separation of powers be kept in place and be honored,” Genovese told the Louisiana Record.

Castle, a district court chief justice, is the reported favorite of corporate interests in the state, LINK especially those in the energy sector concerned about “legacy lawsuits” that might result from environmental damage.

Kansas:

Kansas’ supreme court election could be a big win for conservatives — especially when it comes to abortion issues and the death penalty. But according to polling, the race is up in the air right now.

Currently, five of the Sunflower State’s top jurists are up for retention in the state’s nonpartisan election (held every six years). Four of the five were appointed by either Democratic or establishment Republican governors. If the jurists are not retained, Governor Sam Brownback would be able to fill the majority of seats on the court after having four slates presented to him under Kansas’ truly bizarre selection process.

However, with the death penalty, abortion legislation, and school choice in the mix, Kansans are split on the issue.

According to polling conducted by KSN News through SurveyUSA:

Twenty percent said none should be retained, and that all five on the bench should be gone. Fifteen percent said only one should be retained, while 16 percent said that two to four justices should stay. Twenty six percent said that want all justices to stay. Twenty-two percent were undecided.

It’s also worth noting that a judge has never lost his seat through a retention election, so this could also throw the court into uncharted territory. Former Kansas governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been on the road in recent weeks campaigning for the retention of all five jurists.

Texas:

Republicans currently hold a 9-0 majority on the Lone Star State’s high court, but three of them are currently facing reelection challenges from Democrats. The challengers are undoubtedly hoping that Donald Trump’s effect on disenfranchised Republican voters planning on staying home on Election Day might aid their long-shot bids. State justices are elected to six-year terms.

According to a profile at the Texas Tribune, the Democratic challengers include Mike Westergren, who is trying to “out-Bernie Bernie Sanders” with his small-donor fundraising model; Dori Contreras Garza, who is running on the “diversity” platform of making the high court “more representative” of the state’s demographics; and Savannah Robinson, a first-time, 60-year-old candidate with no campaign website, and no fundraising apparatus.

Texas hasn’t elected a Democrat to its supreme court since Bill Clinton’s days in the Oval Office.

Iowa:

Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Brent Appel and Daryl Hecht are facing reelection for the first time since the state’s high court unanimously redefined marriage seven years ago, well ahead of last summer’s Obergefell decision. Just a year after the Hawkeye court’s decision, three of the other concurring in the decision failed their bid for retention following a massive grassroots response from social conservatives unhappy with the justices’ votes to legalize gay marriage.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” Bob Vander Plaats, a leading campaign activist in the election, said at the time. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

According to the AP, Cady, Appel, and Hecht have opted against campaigning for retention, citing their belief that the court should be above politics.

Ohio:

Ohio currently has 30 judgeships up for grabs on Tuesday in a nonpartisan election. Three of these are on the state supreme court. One of those seats is uncontested, with the other two being cases in which the current justices have reached the Buckeye State’s mandatory retirement age.

Ohio’s supreme court justices run for six-year terms. Currently featuring a 6-1 Republican bend, this means that the two contested elections could create a narrow 4-3 split on the swing state’s bench.

According to an Associated Press report:

Cincinnati appeals court judge Pat DeWine, a Republican, has booked almost $644,000 in TV ads, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center. DeWine’s opponent, Warren Democratic appeals court judge Cynthia Rice, released her first TV ad Monday, but no spending figure was immediately available.

Democrats say DeWine will face a monumental conflict of interest if elected because his father is Attorney General Mike DeWine. DeWine says he has been assured through legal opinions that he would have to step aside only if his father personally argued a case.

Meanwhile, in the other contested race, Republican Pat Fischer squares off against Democrat John O’Donnell.

According to a recent profile by Angela Hatcher and the Cincinnati Enquirer, Fischer worked as a janitor and referee to help pay for his undergraduate and law school degrees at Harvard University and serves on the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission. John O’Donnell, meanwhile, previously worked as a claims adjustor and graduated from Cleveland-Marshall Law School. He has presided over hundreds of criminal cases as a county court of common pleas judge.

Both Fischer and O’Donnell have voiced their law-over-party philosophy in this nonpartisan election.

Washington:

The makeup of Washington state’s nine-justice supreme court — to which justices are elected to six-year terms — could be fundamentally altered over an anti-school choice decision from last year.

The race for incumbent Charlie Wiggins’ seat has drawn the attention of tech industry moguls like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who are looking to oust Wiggins in favor of municipal court judge Dave Larson.

According to Geekwire, Gates and others’ contributions are going into a PAC called Citizens for Working Courts Enterprise Washington, with innovation in education being a top priority for the campaign:

The PAC throwing its weight behind Larson is likely due to his background with the landmark McCleary lawsuit, which called on the state to fully fund public schools. When he was president of the Federal Way School Board, Larson spearheaded an education-funding lawsuit. It was unsuccessful, but it laid the groundwork for the state Supreme Court McCleary ruling.

The Washington State Supreme Court declared public charter schools unconstitutional in 2015, three years after Gates and company dumped millions into a public charter school initiative.

Wealthy individuals on the pro-school choice side have also contributed large donations to unseat state chief justice Barbara Madsen, who wrote the McCleary decision last year, in favor of prosecutor Greg Zempel.

For the third contested seat, incumbent Justice Mary Yu is running to hold her position against David DeWolf, a professor at Gonzaga law school for the past 25 years.

So what makes these cases so important?

These are the judicial bodies that were originally meant to handle most issues of state law — before widespread federal overreach took that away. Nonetheless, state supreme courts still have a tremendous impact on how their respective states function, as elections have a tremendous effect on how judges rule in hot-button cases, a recent study shows.

The 2016 election’s focus on Justice Scalia’s empty Supreme Court seat has left many Americans feeling helpless about the judicial direction of the country. But lower judicial elections are where voters can have a direct impact on how policies that affect them most often are decided.

Just as far more emphasis should be placed on electing local officials that share the concerns and values of voters, the same can be said for lower court elections. Regardless of the outcome, America may still end up with a more liberal court at the national level after Tuesday, but that doesn’t have to be the case at the state level. (For more from the author of “These 8 Supreme Court Elections Could Have Huge Implications for Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.