Conservative and pro-business groups warn that the Obama administration may pursue legal action to enforce some of its thousands of new “job-crushing” regulations before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.
Regulations promulgated in “the waning days” of President Barack Obama’s lame-duck administration could constrain the new Trump administration, the coalition of groups warned Vice President-elect Mike Pence in a letter dated Dec. 28.
“Because of this concern, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which provides Congress procedural tools to disapprove expeditiously these last-ditch midnight regulations,” the letter says.
The Congressional Review Act could address regulations put in place by the Obama administration since June 3. However, the law can’t prevent so-called “midnight litigation” launched by the executive branch to enforce those regulations.
The Obama administration issued 3,852 new federal regulations during 2016, according to a new analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, first reported Friday by the Washington Examiner.
The letter from conservative activists and business leaders says:
It has come to our attention that a number of departments and independent agencies are working furiously behind closed doors to bring significant, legally tenuous litigation against American business interests before Jan. 20, 2017. Doing so will saddle the Trump administration with having to litigate cases based on job-crushing liberal legal theories.
Inauguration Day, when Trump is sworn in as president, is Jan. 20.
Signers of the letter include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; Ken Blackwell, chairman of Constitution Congress; and Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The signatories represent 29 organizations, including Frontiers of Freedom, the Heartland Institute, and Liberty Counsel.
The letter warns Pence, a former congressman and governor of Indiana who is well-liked by conservatives, that the new administration should review any litigation to enforce the recent regulations.
“Should the Obama administration bring nonroutine, last minute, legally unorthodox midnight litigation, your administration should not hesitate to withdraw immediately from that litigation,” the letter to Pence states.
Such last-minute litigation could hurt job growth, the letter says.
John R. Smith, the chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, wrote in an op-ed for BizPac Review:
The lame-duck Obama administration has launched a mad scramble to throw up as many hurdles, and to plant as many last-minute landmines as possible against the new American president. In his final days of office, Barack Obama has initiated a major flurry of new executive orders, directives, and regulations, thousands of them, that he is piling into the federal books.
Frontiers of Freedom, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting traditional American values, circulated the letter.
“Everything should be suspect,” George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, told The Daily Caller News Foundation, referring to the Obama administration’s final gush of regulations. (For more from the author of “Conservative Groups Warn of Obama’s ‘Midnight Litigation’ Against US Business” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/US_President_Barack_Obama_taking_his_Oath_of_Office_-_2009Jan20.jpg15002100Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-02 22:36:462017-01-02 22:36:46Conservative Groups Warn of Obama’s ‘Midnight Litigation’ Against US Business
As the calendar year ends, minds quickly turn to losing weight, eating healthy, saving money, and spending more time with family. But just as 2016 caused us to rethink politics, it’s time to rethink this year’s New Year’s resolutions.
The voice of the American voters has never been louder, and with unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House for the first time in 15 years, there promises to be a lot happening in 2017. It’s time to step up and get involved.
Here are some political resolutions to consider adopting in 2017:
1. Connect with your member of Congress: Members of Congress are responsible and accountable to their constituents. It’s important for the voter to stay up-to-date on congressional votes and issues. Sign up to get the most recent news and information from your member. Follow them on Facebook and Twitter. (Remember, many members have a personal and an official account). Subscribe to your member’s email newsletters and set up a Google alert to stay up-to-date on all the news from your senators and representative.
2. Get active on Twitter: Twitter is one of the most effective ways to get direct contact with your lawmaker. Sign up for a Twitter account and set a goal of tweeting at least three times a week about articles, opinions, or votes you want your network and your member to see. If you need help getting started, you can sign up for Heritage Action’s weekly Twitter newsletter.
3. Write a letter to the editor: Get your name in print by writing a letter to the editor in response to an editorial or giving your unique perspective on an issue. Remember to keep it brief: It should be no longer than 250 words and focused on one particular issue. The best letters to the editor have a personal connection to the topic you are talking about. Keep the tone formal and polite. Make sure your statements can be backed up with solid evidence.
4. Get involved locally: No one knows the needs of your community better than you. Use the new year to find out what’s happening in your political community. Attend a town hall, go to a neighborhood meeting, or join a local political group.
5. Read a political book: Keeping up with the news is important. To understand the current news, keep things in perspective. Take time out of the 24-hour news cycle and read a historical book like “A Republic of Spin” by David Greenberg or a cultural commentary like “Hillbilly Elegy” by J.D. Vance. Check out some of The Heritage Foundation’s staff recommendations on The Daily Signal.
6. Join an activist program: Politics can be isolating, but it’s much better with a community of people. Join a local or national organization to amplify your voice and coordinate your efforts with other grassroots activists across the country. Heritage Action, the sister organization of The Heritage Foundation, has a community of over 17,500 activists that participate in weekly strategy calls. Get one-on-one training from activism coaches and the latest news from Washington, D.C. Consider joining the Heritage Action Sentinel Program today.
Voters delivered a mandate for change—real change this time—in November. This is the year for grassroots America to continue the momentum by leaning in, speaking up, and getting involved. Will you step up in 2017? (For more from the author of “6 Political New Year’s Resolutions You Should Make” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Fireworks4_amk.jpg13332000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-02 22:31:132017-01-02 22:31:136 Political New Year’s Resolutions You Should Make
In less than three weeks’ time, when Donald Trump becomes our next president, he will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
It is fitting, then, that Trump has committed to repealing and replacing one of his predecessor’s most infamous unconstitutional policies, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. But he won’t be able to do it alone. Repealing Obamacare requires Congress to write legislation for the president to sign into law.
Congress can and should do this in January, before Inauguration Day. There is no excuse not to.
A lot has happened in the last eight years, since Nancy Pelosi first claimed “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber reveled in the “stupidity of the American voter” and “lack of transparency” that helped pass the bill, and President Barack Obama told PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
The so-called Affordable Care Act was a mandate when Congress needed to shove it through, and it was a tax when the Supreme Court decided to look the other way.
Many thousands of Americans have lost their insurance plans or their doctors, or seen their premiums hiked up to unbelievable levels. Seventeen of the original 23 Obamacare insurance co-ops have collapsed. The massive centralization of health insurance has hurt patients and providers alike. And, of course, there has always been the rotten, unconstitutional core of Obamacare: the federal government forcing citizens to buy a product.
That’s why conservatives have been fighting against Obamacare for years. That’s why, since they swept the elections in 2010, Congress has voted over 60 times to repeal all or part of it.
They just need to do it one more time.
To avoid a predictable Senate filibuster from the left, Congress can employ the “reconciliation process”—a parliamentary procedure used to help the House and Senate pass budget bills. Obamacare repeal can be easily included in this legislation. We know, because Congress did just that to get a repeal of Obamacare on the president’s desk in 2015.
Then, Obama used a veto to protect his signature law. But in a few short weeks, Congress will be sending bills to a different president entirely.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we won’t see foot-dragging from some in Congress. When I was in the Senate, they would use every excuse to avoid fighting for conservative priorities. “Wait until we get the House.” Done. “Wait until we get the Senate.” Done. “Wait until we get the White House.” Done and done. There are simply no alternatives left but to repeal Obamacare and win the fight (a shocking prospect for some!)
Fortunately, Republicans can’t afford to throw conservatives under the bus on Obamacare repeal. Republicans have consistently campaigned on repealing Obamacare and won. It’s a promise that must be kept.
Many Americans care deeply about getting the government out of their health care decisions and finances. Being forced to live under Obamacare has motivated millions of hardworking people across our country to get involved in politics—abandoning them now would cause an electoral backlash to rival the one which put Trump in the White House.
Obama signed his namesake legislation seven years ago, and soon his successor will sign a bill to repeal it. But just as Congress made the original mistake of passing Obamacare, it must start working—now—to have that bill on Trump’s desk on Inauguration Day.
Once repeal legislation establishes a certain date when Obamacare will expire, Congress can begin a step-by-step approach to make health insurance more affordable and available for every American.
No excuses. (For more from the author of “Obamacare Repeal Must Be on Day One: Congress Has No Excuses” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Obamacare.jpg797797Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-02 22:25:232017-01-02 22:25:23Obamacare Repeal Must Be on Day One: Congress Has No Excuses
Not only did the 2016 election bring the country a new president, but Nov. 8 also ushered in the right political environment for a batch of states to pass right-to-work bills.
Twenty-six states have right-to-work laws on the books, and labor experts are expecting lawmakers in at least three more—Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire—to pass bills giving workers the power to choose whether they want to join a union or pay union dues.
“2016 was sort of the tipping-point year for right to work,” Ben Wilterdink, director of the commerce, insurance, and economic development task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, told The Daily Signal.
“We just got 26 states signed on, and that was the tipping point, and we’ve crossed that threshold,” he continued. “2017 is now going to be the year of right to work.”
In Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire, last month’s election resulted in a flip in party leadership in either governors’ mansions or state legislatures, which put previously defeated right-to-work legislation back on the table.
The issue pits the business community against labor unions, and has proved to be a contentious one for both parties.
Proponents of right-to-work laws argue that they force unions to become more accountable to their members and make states more attractive to companies looking to move.
But unions fiercely oppose right-to-work legislation and say that not only do such laws harm union membership, but they also lead to decreased wages and benefits.
Still, labor experts say they believe that the political landscapes in Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire have created a prime opportunity for right-to-work laws to pass in each of those states.
“The world changed in November of 2016, and advocates of labor reform and for worker freedom are emboldened,” Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center in Michigan, told The Daily Signal. “While you’ve seen the fire of worker freedom spreading brightly across the country, it’s now raging thanks to the November election.”
Kentucky
According to Dave Adkisson, president of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, right to work has been a priority of the business community in the Bluegrass State for at least 30 years.
Republicans in the state Senate have pursued right-to-work legislation in the past, but the bills died in the state House of Representatives, which was controlled by Democrats.
But last month, Kentucky voters gave Republicans control of the state House for the first time in more than 90 years.
Now, with a GOP trifecta in the state Senate, state House, and the governor’s mansion—Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, was elected to a four-year term in 2015—Adkisson said business leaders are “almost to the point of [being] giddy.”
“One of the key elements of the labor argument is that right to work doesn’t matter to business, that they choose locations for other reasons,” Adkisson told The Daily Signal. “I can assure you that business leaders consider right to work as a major signal about whether a state is pro-business or not.”
Adkisson said international firms will typically hire consultants to help determine where in the U.S. they should move, and many of those consultants will “start their search only considering right-to-work states.”
For Kentucky, that ultimately meant losing out on economic development opportunities.
“Companies are not going to relocate to a place where they don’t think they can get a workforce, but invariably in that top list of factors is right to work,” Adkisson said. “You want to at least make the long list to be considered.”
Until recently, business leaders, particularly those in Louisville, were more “fatalistic” about right to work not passing Kentucky’s state Legislature.
But when Indiana—Kentucky’s neighbor to the north—passed a right-to-work law in 2012, “that suddenly got the attention of Louisville,” Adkisson said, in part because Indiana appeared “more pro-business.”
“It’s just a general issue of competitiveness,” he said.
Kentucky state legislators will meet for a shortened session, just 30 days, in January, so they have a tight timeline to pass right-to-work legislation.
Bevin said in September he wanted to see the state Legislature tackle right to work next year, but in an interview with the Paducah Sun earlier this month, he said he would allow the Legislature to decide how to address a bevy of issues they’ll face next year.
“I know people want to see right to work addressed, they want prevailing wage addressed, they want school choice addressed, they want tort reform addressed, they want tax reform addressed, they want pension reform addressed,” he said.
Still, labor experts say they are hopeful.
“Kentucky has demonstrated that the state is ready,” Jonathan Williams, vice president of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at ALEC, told The Daily Signal. “I’d expect it within the first half of the year.”
Missouri
While the success of right to work in Kentucky hinged on the makeup of the state Legislature, it was the election of Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens in Missouri that bolstered Republicans’ attempts to pass right-to-work laws in the Show-Me State.
Greitens, who defeated Democratic nominee Chris Koster last month, has stressed his support for right-to-work laws.
“I support it because it would stop companies and union bosses from taking a cut of your paycheck to support their political organization,” Greitens said of right to work on his campaign website. “It’s just common sense. That money is your money—and you should decide how you want to spend it.”
Republicans have a supermajority in the state House of Representatives and the state Senate, and already, GOP state lawmakers in both chambers have prefiled right-to-work bills for the 2017 legislative session.
“It’s going to be a race to see who is state 27, 28, and 29,” Vernuccio said.
New Hampshire
Williams, of ALEC, said Kentucky and Missouri are the “low-hanging fruit” for right-to-work proponents.
Though he and other labor experts are hopeful New Hampshire will join their ranks next year, New Hampshire is “somewhat on the bubble,” he said.
Republicans will control the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion in the Granite State after voters elected Republican Chris Sununu governor in November.
Sununu supports right to work and said earlier this month he’s “fairly” confident state lawmakers will pass right-to-work legislation next year.
“I’ve talked to businesses outside of this state that have clearly brought it up to me, so there’s no doubt by passing right to work, it will open up new economic opportunities for the state of New Hampshire,” he said in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Still, the governor-elect encouraged state lawmakers to “be good listeners on both sides of the aisle.”
State lawmakers in the New Hampshire House passed a right-to-work bill last year, but it didn’t make it out of the Senate.
Though Republicans control the state government, Williams said there has been resistance among the GOP’s ranks.
Additionally, Democratic state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester told the Union Leader opponents of right to work “have a good chance to stop it.”
Also at issue in New Hampshire is the dearth of other right-to-work states in the New England region.
Kentucky and Missouri are surrounded by states with right-to-work laws on the books, so they compete with others for business opportunities.
For New Hampshire, which would be the first in the region to become right to work, that competition doesn’t exist.
“There’s less pressure on them to get this across the finish line,” Wilterdink said.
Still, Williams said success in New Hampshire would be a “symbolic victory for conservatives.”
“If you saw the first state in New England become a right-to-work state—it’s been a tough region for conservatives to crack,” he said. “It would embolden right-of-center officials to push harder.”
Growing Momentum
Labor experts are confident that by the end of 2017, the number of right-to-work states will hover around 30.
Though they’re certain Kentucky and Missouri, at a minimum, will pass right-to-work laws, Wilterdink said lawmakers in three more states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—will at least consider bills to make right to work a reality.
“We’re seeing a lot of movement and a lot of pressure, especially as businesses look at other states, especially as more and more states become right to work,” Wilterdink said. “States and their citizens are realizing they’re missing out.”
Republicans in Pennsylvania introduced right-to-work bills in the past, without success.
Earlier this year, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez committed to including right to work on her agenda for the 2016 legislative session.
Right-to-work bills have also been introduced in the Delaware General Assembly, but they were ultimately blocked by Democrats who control both chambers.
“This is a jobs bill in the states,” Williams said. “As more and more legislators are elected and looking for ways to make their states more competitive in growing jobs, we’ve continued to see businesses move from one state to another with better climates. This is one of the best things states can do.” (For more from the author of “Election Ushers in Batch of States Preparing for Right-To-Work Laws” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1024px-Right_to_work_campaign_badge_c.1976.jpg10241024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-02 22:20:442017-01-02 22:20:44Election Ushers in Batch of States Preparing for Right-To-Work Laws
Of course 2016 was a pivotal election year, and much of it was jam-packed with pundits yacking, debates ensuing, pollsters polling — all building up to the election itself. But culturally, there were several stories that signaled a disturbing decline in what have previously been our nation’s core principles.
These issues always linger, always infiltrate, and always directly or indirectly affect political debate — even while stemming from it.
1. Abortion remained controversial
Despite the fact that the rate of abortions has steadily declined — they were at their lowest in 2016 since 1973 — abortion still remained at the forefront of the cultural, political, and legislative debates nationwide, appearing in the news almost weekly.
There were some frustrating, if not conflicting, abortion stories this year. The Irish couple who live-tweeted their abortion and used their decision to abort as a political prop to encourage Ireland to lift its strict ban.
A new study also found that while abortions are decreasing, the use of medication to cause an abortion is on the rise due to convenience and the existence of fewer Planned Parenthoods.
One of the most disturbing issues that came to light this year was the nation’s response to the House Oversight Committee’s declaration that Planned Parenthood no longer needed federal funding, and that it could function independently. Instead of slowly siphoning funding over time or severing it altogether, Republicans were unable to do either. While they did sneak such language into a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood, Democrats knew this and filibustered it repeatedly until Republicans just gave in and cut that portion out. This was devastating for pro-life advocates and unborn babies nationwide.
As I reported in October,
Republicans not only undid the revealing, undercover work of the Center for Medical Progress, but blatantly ignored the conclusions the House Oversight Committee reached about PP. They traded a few days of bad press — it’s not like the government ever remains shutdown forever — for more taxpayer dollars toward an organization the Oversight Committee deemed was “self-sustaining.”
One positive trend, however, was even though Republicans were unable to defund Planned Parenthood at the federal level, nearly half of the states attempted to do so, and at least 12 states were successful. This and the news that some Planned Parenthood facilities were not operating according strict health and safety codes (like hospitals must) forced many to shut down.
2. Transgender bathroom debate escalated
While abortion has been a controversial political issue for decades and really never waned in that regard, the transgender bathroom issue is newer, but just as controversial. It developed hot, fast, and replete with emotion.
Despite the fact that transgenders make up a tiny portion of the American population — less than 0.1 percent — they have argued for the last few years that using a bathroom that doesn’t coincide with their gender identity is humiliating, and they should be able to use whichever one they want.
Conservatives on the other hand, view this as confusing — especially for young children — and a violation of privacy for the 99.9 percent of the population who is not transgender.
Boosted from Bruce Jenner’s rise to fame after transitioning in 2015, as I wrote last January, men were allowed to compete as women in the Olympics. In May, Obama made a federal decree telling every public school district in the country to allow transgenders to use whichever bathroom they choose.
Transgenders and bathroom issues aside, why is the government telling schools where to use the restroom? If this is happening now, where does it end? Schools, while taxpayer-subsidized, need not be under the watchful schoolmaster’s hand of the federal government. That government is best which governs least — and locally.
Finally, one of the most pivotal transgender issues of the year is the case of Gavin Grimm, the high school girl who transitioned to boy and sued his school board because they didn’t let him use the boy’s restroom. It has worked its way up the legal system, and the Supreme Court will soon hear it, possibly changing the landscape of restrooms in public high schools for some time, thus promulgating the goal of the transgender movement:
As groups bend the rules for the sake of political correctness or file lawsuits to fight for their perceived “rights,” they will continue to push past the point of equality until they have upended others’ freedoms to secure their own. At this point, the movement has, as millennials say, “jumped the shark,” pushing well past their original plea and plowing onward toward a form of unrecognizable and inexcusable social tyranny.
3. Feminists got more absurd
Whereas the first wave of feminism heralded the mantra, “Women deserve to vote too,” the second wave shouted, “Women deserve a chance to do things men do — like work — too!” Both of those sound reasonable, if not courageous. However, feminism’s current trend, predictably called “third wave,” whimpers and whines, “Men are awful and disgusting, and women are better at everything.” This showed itself in various ways this year, from yet another push for women to be in combat to the ever-regurgitated claim that there’s still a wage gap between the sexes.
Some feminists loudly proclaimed they didn’t want kids or had them and wished they didn’t (the epitome of navel-gazing), while others tried to make the case women work so hard they need maternity leave, even if they don’t have any children.
Still others claimed “corporate feminism” was a problem — the existence of not enough women in the upper echelons of corporations (never mind women tend to take a break to have children or often don’t desire or are unqualified for those types of positions). Facts don’t matter for modern day feminists. All that matters is how men, the news, and conservative women make them feel.
Now, in the 2000s, and especially in 2016, instead of fighting for equal rights or fair treatment, feminists want to be treated differently altogether, just because they are women — the near antithesis of feminism when it began.
The movement now touts safe spaces and politically correct ideas — especially on college campuses — which makes it seem regressive rather than progressive. True feminists of yesteryear fought for noble causes like the ability to vote like men could; they didn’t seek safe spaces while hearing about ideas that hurt their feelings — like the term “rape culture” — or made them feel left out, then shout proudly, “Look how feminist I am!”
4. Millennials got lazier
I’ve got mixed feelings about millennials, in part because I am one and also because it’s sad to see not just all the awful opinions about them (many are untrue and not fact-based), but also the studies that show a segment of my generation is misguided and lazy. This is not entirely their fault: Millennials are the first generation to grow up with helicopter parents, participation awards, and cell phones. Some of this helped produce a generation of kids who just can’t stop being kids.
In September, Forbes reported the unemployment rate — 12 percent — was twice that of the nation’s average. Also, as I wrote then,
The Pew Research Center reported in May that more 18- to 34-year-olds are living at home (with mom, dad, or both parents) than are “married or cohabiting and living in their own household.” According to Pew, the biggest reason for this was their inability to find jobs to support their independence. That is one sad, pathetic, and ultimately scary statistic, especially when you consider millennials have surpassed baby boomers as the nation’s largest living generation.
Add these two statistics together, and it’s hard to tell where one begins and the other ends, so intertwined are the concepts of living on one’s own and working. Like I said, it’s tough to blame millennials completely for their plight when Mom and Dad still pay their bills.
This coddling and lack of education has produced a generation which, according to a YouGov poll released in October, thinks communism isn’t such a bad idea. More millennials preferred Karl Marx than previously thought and actually (falsely) believed more people were killed under George W. Bush’s presidency than Joseph Stalin.
As this generation is the one currently traversing their 20s and even, as in my case, already raising the next generation, it’s vital millennials drop their “special snowflake” syndrome, figure out what the facts of life are, and get to work. (For more from the author of “4 of the Worst Culture Battles That Raged in 2016” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/punch-159753_960_720.png720702Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:56:412017-01-01 19:56:414 of the Worst Culture Battles That Raged in 2016
The dominant story pushed by the mainstream media in the last few weeks of 2016 has been the harm caused by “fake news.” Indeed, a simple Google search reveals countless stories centering around the topic of fake news, its harmful effects, and what people (or the government) should do to fight it.
But while mainstream media consternation over fake news draws nearer to peak hysteria with each passing day, looking back at 2016, there were plenty of times the mainstream media itself spread blatant falsehoods as “news.”
Here are seven of the worst media lies from 2016.
1. Ted Cruz stole votes from Ben Carson
What was reported: Ted Cruz’s campaign launched a “dirty trick” in the Iowa caucuses by intentionally spreading a false report that Dr. Ben Carson had dropped out of the race. Caucus goers were then told that a vote for Carson would be a wasted vote. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses by cheating.
The facts: The Ben Carson suspension rumor in February originated with a CNN report that gave many, many people the impression that Dr. Carson was returning home to Florida after the caucus, presumably to drop out after his fourth-place finish. They gained this impression because Carson did return home — apparently to do laundry — rather than continue on to the New Hampshire or South Carolina contests.
One of those people who believed Carson’s dropout was imminent was Congressman (and Ted Cruz supporter) Steve King, R-Iowa (B, 81%), who tweeted: “Carson looks like he is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope.” By this time, CNN had tweeted a second time: “After the #IAcaucus, @RealBenCarson plans to take a break from campaigning.”
Following that report, a Cruz staffer told precinct captains, “Breaking News. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big announcement next week. Please inform any Carson caucus goers of this news and urge them to caucus for Ted Cruz.”
Now, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 74%)’s campaign aggressively pushed that narrative as well. But Ted Cruz’s campaign bore the brunt of the blame for “lying,” as CNN vehemently denied that they had suggested Carson was dropping out. CNN “fact-checkers” stuck to accusing Cruz of spreading a falsehood.
The media was complicit in characterizing Cruz as a dirty sport, and Donald Trump seized on the controversy to label Sen. Cruz “lyin’ Ted.” The Cruz campaign never fully recovered from the fallout of the Carson debacle, and, in this writer’s opinion, this distorted media narrative in all likelihood cost Ted Cruz needed momentum from his Iowa win and ultimately the Republican nomination.
2. Trump supports a “Muslim ban” … and that would harm Muslim Americans
What was reported: Donald Trump called for a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the United States.
The facts: The actual text of Trump’s proposal read, at the time: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
That is, by plain reading, a temporary restriction on Muslim immigration. As Trump would later clarify:
We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place.
Nevertheless, the fearmongering Huffington Post (of anti-Trump editor’s note fame) insisted in a recent piece, “The comment was an unequivocal and alarming pledge that threatened to impact the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, but today, it’s unclear what the fate of Muslim Americans will be in a Trump administration.”
First, Trump’s proposal wouldn’t affect 1.6 billion Muslims; it would exclusively apply to migrants attempting to enter the U.S. who are from hotbeds of terrorism. Such a policy has been previously implemented by the Obama administration, and tighter restrictions are supported by a majority of Americans.
Second, the “fate of Muslim Americans” is not thrown into question under a policy that restricts immigration, because … they are already in the country.
Media fearmongering on Muslim ban = lie.
3. Orlando nightclub terrorist used an “AR-15”
What was reported: “AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree,” (NBC); “Orlando Shooting Puts Spotlight on AR-15 Rifle,” (Newsweek); “The history of the AR-15, the weapon that had a hand in the United States’ worst mass shooting,” (Washington Post).
The facts: As TheBlaze’s Jason Howerton dutifully reported in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub terror attack in June, jihadist Omar Mateen did not use an AR-15 rifle in carrying out his massacre of 49 people at the Pulse gay nightclub. Mateen used a Sig Saucer MCX carbine, which have virtually “no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form,” as Bearing Arms’ Bob Owens explained.
The media excitedly launched a blind crusade against the AR-15, pushing for Obama’s executive actions on gun control. Democratic lawmakers eventually joined in on the frenzy, launching a sit-in protest that inspired fawning coverage from the media and ridicule from conservatives.
4. Anyone can legally buy a gun; easily
What was reported: During the Orlando jihad (gun control) hysteria, CBS News reported it took “38 minutes and $1,030 for our @CBSNews producer to buy an AR-15 and walk out legally armed in Virginia.” Additionally, terrorists can easily use the “gun show loophole” to purchase firearms without background checks, The New York Times told America.
The facts: First thing’s first: CBS had to issue a correction because the reporter did not purchase an AR-15. Next, it is not so easy to buy a gun. You have to pass a background check, which the CBS producer, Paula Reid, did because she didn’t have a criminal record. Well … she didn’t until she broke federal law by purchasing that gun under false pretenses.
You see, Reid told the gun store’s general manager that she intended to purchase the firearm and “undergo training” with a “NRA-certified instructor.” The actual story, however, revealed the purchase was for their story and that they had transferred the firearm to a “federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.” The gun store owner, after gaining knowledge of the report, alerted the ATF of a potential “straw purchase” — a federal crime.
As RedState’s Streiff wrote, “All this segment did was demonstrate that if someone is intent upon violating the law, the technical term for people like this is “criminals”, then they will violate the law. If the dealer acts in good faith and does all the appropriate checks and is deceived their is very little else one could expect them to do.”
As for the whole, so-called “gun show loophole”? As CRTV contributor Steven Crowder has demonstrated, that is a myth.
You need to pass a background check to purchase a gun at a gun show.
5. The Clinton email investigation was not closed. Or was it? Yes it was. No it wasn’t.
What was reported: In July, after FBI Director James Comey announced the FBI would not recommend prosecution against Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server, the media reported the case “closed.” On Oct. 28, Director Comey sent a letter to Congress indicating that additional emails relevant to the Democratic presidential candidate’s case had been discovered.
After initially reporting that the case was “reopened,” the media backtracked after left-wing sites ThinkProgress and The Daily Banter argued that the case was not “reopened” on a technicality. Then Politifact claimed the FBI didn’t “reopen” the investigation because “it wasn’t formally closed.”
The facts: As Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin explained, Director James Comey said the new information was “pertinent to the investigation.” If the investigation was closed, as the media reported in July (in an effort to aid their anointed candidate), then Comey’s language clearly indicated that the new evidence “reopened” the FBI’s investigation. Listen to his explanation at 7:08:
Rob Eno further spelled it out on Twitter for the apparently illiterate (or just extremely ethics-deprived) liberal bloggers:
The investigation was closed. Then new evidence reopened the case. Period.
6. Muslim teen’s claims of a Trump supporter attack; post-election “hate crime wave”
What was reported: Yasmin Seweid, a female Muslim teen, claimed she was harassed by Trump supporters on a New York City subway. Her claims received widespread media coverage, as Katrina Trinko documented for The Daily Signal:
“Muslim teen verbally attacked on NYC subway,” reported CBS News. “Drunk Men Yelling ‘Donald Trump’ Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway,” was the BuzzFeed headline. “Muslim Woman Harassed on Subway by 3 Men Who Call Her ‘Terrorist,’ Chant Trump’s Name: NYPD,” reported NBC 4 New York.
Slate wrote, “Three white men who were apparently intoxicated repeatedly yelled anti-Islam insults at a Muslim student in the New York City subway and no one did anything. The men, who yelled ‘Donald Trump!’ several times and even tried to pull off the terrified 18-year-old’s hijab, also accused her of being a terrorist.”
This story was the most publicized of a supposed wave of hate crimes committed by bigoted Trump fans after the election.
The facts: As is an unmistakable pattern from the Left, Yasmin Seweid’s story was a complete fabrication and the mainstream media was all too happy to fall for it hard, reporting it as trending news. Police became concerned about the lack of corroborating evidence and witnesses during their investigation, and the 18-year-old eventually admitted the story was a lie. Seweid now faces criminal charges for filing a fake hate crime report.
Her hoax does not stand alone (not by a long, long shot). In their agenda to further perpetuate the very worst stereotypes and narrative about Donald Trump’s supporters, the mainstream media have reported a number of “hate crimes” that were later discovered to be fake. The Daily Caller has compiled a list, which includes a false report of a Muslim woman robbed of her hijab and a black woman harassed at a Philadelphia gas station. Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown has an even more comprehensive list, in which she illustrates how the truth on common narratives are usually far more nuanced and complicated than the mainstream media could ever care for.
As Brown writes, “The picture that emerges isn’t a wave of hoaxes, a wave of attacks on minorities by Trump-emboldened bigots, nor a wave of attacks on Trump supporters by intolerant liberals—though all have occurred—but something more complex and, hopefully, a little less frightening, even if the stories that have happened are still horrible.”
7. Fake news is an epidemic that cost Hillary Clinton the election
What was reported: There is an epidemic of “fake news” in America, enabled and spread via social media, that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other mainstream media outfits (and Obama himself) warn could threaten democracy itself. Indeed, Hillary Clinton lost the election because of fake news.
The facts: Data show that fake news sites have extremely limited reach and struggle to reach a mass audience. Peter Hasson and The Daily Caller cite one example to help illustrate the point: “Fake news site DenverGuardian.com, subject of coverage from the New York Times and the Washington Post, is ranked 91,688 in web traffic in the U.S., according to web analytics firm Alexa. To put that number in perspective: the site supposedly impacting the national political scene is more than 84,000 slots behind the website for a Virginia community college.” Other sites frequently decried by the mainstream media are, if possible, even more irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is Hillary Clinton did not lose the election because of a gullible electorate prone to lies. Were that the case, a compulsive liar such as Mrs. Clinton should’ve won easily.
Fake news cost her the White House? No — Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is untrustworthy. Hillary Clinton lost the election because her incompetent campaign thought they should focus on states that would help run up her popular vote numbers, instead of keying in on battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton lost the election because her economic ideas do not offer a path to growth. She lost because her extreme position on abortion is well outside the mainstream of the electorate. She lost because of the vicious intolerance the Left has for religious Americans (though only of the Christian variety). She lost because her open-borders proposals threaten American sovereignty.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was corrupt and under federal investigation for placing American national security at risk on an easily hackable private email server. She was a terrible candidate and no amount of “fake news” could have changed that about her, as was demonstrated by the Praetorian Guard media’s failed attempt to get her elected president.
And why did the media fail? Because the American people’s trust in the media has fallen to record lows, in no small part thanks to their continued reporting of lies and advancing of their liberal agenda.
If members of the media have any hope of regaining their credibility, they can start by telling the truth. (For more from the author of “7 of the Media’s Most Egregious Lies in 2016” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/deceive-1299043_960_720.png480960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:48:352017-01-01 19:48:357 of the Media’s Most Egregious Lies in 2016
The call for an Article V Convention of States has flushed out some strange bedfellows seeking a common goal. Some groups claiming to be conservative are showing themselves to be involved in using deceptive rhetoric and false history to break up the Constitution. These particular political activists lament the formation of the American government under the Constitution. Yes, they look to to undermine it, using bits and pieces of history to back up their claims, much like American progressives do.
“The activists position themselves on the Right, using the organization of the tea party, groups like the Michigan Campaign for Liberty (a state chapter of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty), and even the Tenth Amendment Center to distort the Constitution so that it fits their agenda.” One activist told me his work for the Campaign for Liberty was to perfect the Constitution by breaking up the bond between the federal government and the states. He lamented that the nation should never have ratified the Constitution, but instead kept the Articles of Confederation. (Keep in mind that the Articles were proving to be insufficient, a major impetus for conceiving the Constitution.) It is those who might have previously been defined as Anti-Federalists, who operate across the nation as nullifiers and secessionists, anarchists disguised as liberty experts, and Constitution-destroyers disguised as constitutionalists, that are racing parallel to the Left.
To be clear, nullification in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the interpretation of its use is what people I call “nullifiers” abuse. Nullifying federal law means to rebuke the federal government for overreach. It is meant as a warning shot, a call of unconstitutionality, or a tool of shame to put the federal government on notice that the state knows it has done wrong. The “nullifiers” believe that states can use nullification as a void of federal law, to refuse to follow it, to break from the federal government. In their view, if enough states nullify federal law, it builds the resume for secession.
The merging of anti-constitutional political thought between the Left and the nullifiers on the Right came to light when Democratic lawmaker Zoe Lofgren, D-Caif. (F, 23%) complained in a hearing that her constituents’ votes counted for less than those of the voters of Wyoming.
Her convoluted reasoning, which she repeated for emphasis, was that many times the number of people in California voted for Hillary Clinton than the number of people in Wyoming that voted for Donald Trump, showing indisputable evidence of how unfair the Electoral College is.
Lofgren claimed that a constitutional convention was needed to prevent, “the majority being ruled by a minority.” She claimed that a dissolution of the union, or secession, would be necessary to prevent future such problems, and further claimed that there was only a need for three more states to call for such a convention. Where she gets that number from is anyone’s guess.
“Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S., whether we should have a Constitutional Convention,” Lofgren said.
The underlying joke in her comments is obvious; as a fringe, irrational type, Lofgren isn’t quite the right messenger. But the clip is interesting since she uses 1) the movement to amend the Constitution through a convention of states, which she ignorantly called a constitutional convention, and 2) describes breaking apart the union with secession, the same things called for by Ron Paul and his folk.
The Ron Paul cabal position themselves as defenders of the Constitution, even though they disparage constitutionalists in their silly attempts to ultimately destroy the Constitution, while accusing everyone else of doing it. Ron Paul believes states have the right to secede, even though in the past a civil war was fought to keep the union together, a historical fact he refuses to believe, and instead claims the Civil War destroyed the “right” of secession. His views, and carefully crafted phraseology, do not stop his volunteers across the nation from advocating for breaking up government through nullification and secession.
It is not the fault of the Constitution that the federal government has so vastly exceeded its limited powers; it is the fault of people who have consistently tried to undermine it. It seems elementary then to tell both the secessionist nullifiers and the secessionist Left to stop trying to destroy the Constitution, and work to remedy the mess through the people of the States.
But now, as the leftist sour grapes movement builds for the next four years, the similarities between the ultimate goals of the Left and the nullifiers on the Right are striking.
It’s interesting. For years leading up to this point, proponents of secession and nullification consistently described an Article V Convention of States as a “con-con” or, constitutional convention. Using the “con-con” term, they mocked Article V COS proponents, claiming employment of the state convention process would be destroying the Constitution. They claimed they revered the Constitution, while actively working to break it apart. Their vehement attitude against employing a constitutional remedy to our federal mess and their tight grip on employing an extra-constitutional method instead, like nullification and secession, further exposed their leanings.
And now, people like Zoe Lofgren, a confused congresswoman, and her friends on the Left, always on the lookout for ways to destroy the Constitution, are virtually making the case for the nullifiers.
Nullifiers’ ultimate goal is anarchy, the Left’s ultimate goal is something of a dictatorship/monarchy. But serious constitutionalists don’t fault the creation of the Constitution itself as the nation’s worst sin, as these two groups do.
The bottom line is that the nullifiers and secessionists of today are plodding and purposeful. They, on the Right and the Left, have disparaged the very creation of the Constitution and are working to destroy it. (For more from the author of “Conservatives and Libertarians: Don’t Be Fooled by These Two Extra-Constitutional Grassroots Movements” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Constitution_We_the_People.jpg5301461Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:40:452017-01-01 19:40:45Conservatives and Libertarians: Don’t Be Fooled by These Two Extra-Constitutional Grassroots Movements
As President Obama finalizes his tenure in the White House, the city that he calls home has completely spiraled out of control.
Homicide has claimed the lives of over 700 individuals in Chicago this year, which is on pace to have its highest murder rate in about 20 years. There are about 10 shootings every day, with gun violence attributable for almost 650 of this year’s homicides. Tragically, detectives are unable to solve most of these crimes. Forbes.com reported in September that at least one person had been murdered daily in Chicago since February 2015.
It is arguably more dangerous to grow up in the inner-city of Chicago than to serve overseas in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan.
Niall McCarthy put it in great perspective for Forbes: “Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016). The number of Americans killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was 2,384 and 4,504 respectively since 2001.”
It’s easy for rabble rousing-groups like Black Lives Matter to sit back and continue railing against the police, but Chicago officers are hardly responsible for the skyrocketing murder rate. So, what has led to the spike in 2016? Many have their theories.
FBI Director James Comey has suggested that the “Ferguson effect” is at play. He believes that police are afraid to do the work necessary to make inroads in the community, for fear that the “viral video effect” of one wrong move or word will damage their reputations and careers forever.
The number of police officers on the Windy City streets has actually decreased in recent years. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel claims he has made plans to hire 1,000 additional officers. Emanuel campaigned on the promise to restock the ranks of the Chicago PD, but has yet to do so after five years in office. There’s plenty of data to show that stocking up on additional police units helps stop crime. Leaders in the New York City Police Department have long been proponents of such measures.
Some anti-Second Amendment groups insist that better gun control measures are the answer. But Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
While many of the shootings can be linked to gang violence, what is often overlooked is what leads young men to join gangs in the first place. Facing extreme poverty and a lack of opportunity, many turn to gangs as a means to survive.
Almost half of 20- to 24-year-old black males in Chicago are out of school and out of work. Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship and removing barriers to employment, government officials have decided again and again to raise the minimum wage, which economists widely agree harm the poor the most.
On the education front, Democrats have dumped tons of money into Chicago’s public education system, but the funding has done virtually nothing to change the tragically corrupt system. The unions have secured deals to ensure an 80 percent increase in teacher salaries since 1998.
As the Illinois Policy reported in April, Chicago teachers have “the highest lifetime salaries in the nation compared with the largest school districts in the U.S.” and “diverted almost $3 billion intended to fund pensions towards school salaries instead.”
So, what does the city have to show for it? Chicago’s youth remains poor — without hope and without opportunity.
Chicago’s most vulnerable. Albert Einstein is widely attributed with defining insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” As we ring in the new year, it’s time to stop the insanity that is failed Big Government, Democrat policies, and give the youth in Chicago a fighting chance to make it in America. (For more from the author of “Leftist Policies Continue to Fail Chicago, but They’d Rather Just Blame the Police!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Chicago_police_car_horiz.jpg532800Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:36:172017-01-01 19:36:17Leftist Policies Continue to Fail Chicago, but They’d Rather Just Blame the Police!
There’s no shortage of explanations for why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in November: the failure of Clinton’s own political machine, the actions of F.B.I. director James Comey, interference from Russia, and voter desire for a “change” from tiresome establishment politicians.
None of these tells the whole story. It took a combination of factors to bring about the greatest political upset since Harry S. Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. But there’s one more factor that has been left mostly undiscussed: Christianophobia in the ranks of the Clinton campaign.
Inattention To Evangelicals Cost Her the Election
Much has justifiably been made of the fact that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump and only 16 percent voted for Clinton. In 2012 Romney won 78 percent of the white evangelical vote, while Obama won 21 percent of that vote. According to my calculations, if the same percentages of white evangelicals had voted Democrat and Republican in 2016 as they did in 2012, Clinton would have won Ohio, Michigan and Florida. (I was not able to find enough data to calculate what would have happened in Pennsylvania.). In other words, if Clinton had simply done no worse with white evangelicals in those states than Obama did in 2012, today she would be our president-elect.
Why then did she do so much worse with those voters than Obama did, despite their similar political positions on social and religious liberty issues? For one thing, she did not even take the time to ask for their vote — which is surprising, given that this group makes up about one fourth of the voting population. At least Barack Obama tried to court the white evangelical vote.
Voters notice these things. If a candidate is uninterested in you or what you have to say before an election, you can be sure she is not going to be interested afterward. White evangelicals had no reason to believe that Clinton respected either them or their issues of concern.
Why Did She Overlook Them? Christianophobia
It’s odd that a presidential candidate would ignore and dismiss such a large voting population as Clinton did. Why would she be so hesitant to treat white conservative Christians with respect? I believe that Christianophobia is the best explanation.
I have been studying Christianophobia — a highly intolerant form of antagonism toward Christians and Christianity — from the perspective of a sociologist for the past few years, and while I do not know if Clinton herself has Christianophobia, I am confident that many people in her political circle do. Those with this type of bigotry tend to be white, highly educated, politically progressive and wealthy — characteristics that are probably describe Clinton’s team.
Christianophobia Dehumanizes
Christianophobia dehumanizes Christians. In my academic research on this topic I encountered too many opinions from my respondents like, “I want them all to die in a fire” and “Would like to give them all a frontal lobotomy.” That kind of thinking represents a tendency not to see conservative Christians as fully human, and it’s one likely factor in Clinton’s choosing to ignore Christians.
Beyond this dehumanization, my research also uncovered a Christianophobic belief, held by many, that conservative Christians should not be allowed to participate in the public square. One respondent spoke for many by saying that “Christian Right people can do what they want in their churches and homes, but not in the public arena.” Couple that with other respondents’ opinions that Christians are irrational, bigoted, ignorant, childish, anti-science and backward thinking, and we have a strong case that people with Christianophobia want to keep conservative Christians locked out of serious political conversation.
From my research I think it’s safe to assume Clinton was surrounded by individuals who hold such beliefs about conservative Christians. It is little surprise, then, that she did almost nothing to court them. It’s easy to overlook those whom you think have nothing worthwhile to say. It’s also likely that Clinton and those around her did not want to be beholden to persons they considered so unworthy.
A Golden Opportunity, Missed
They missed a golden opportunity. This could have been an ideal time for Democrats to make inroads into the white evangelical vote. The Republican candidate was known for breaking up two marriages and having had numerous affairs. He demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the Christian faith (“Two Corinthians,” anyone?) and we had that video of him bragging about his exploits with women. Some Christians may not have liked Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, but no one questioned that he was a good moral man. This was a great chance for Democrats to play on Christian morality and win over a few white evangelical voters — they did not need many — to cinch the election.
But they blew it. I suspect the idea of appealing to white evangelicals was so distasteful to members of Clinton’s political team, they couldn’t bring themselves to take the necessary steps to get there. And thus it is that a thrice married, known adulterer with relatively little Bible knowledge received the largest percentage of the white evangelical vote in history. If Democrats and progressives do not want to hear “President Trump has been re-elected” four years from now, then perhaps they should recognize it’s time to purge the Christianophobic intolerance from among their leadership. (For more from the author of “Christianophobia Cost Clinton the Campaign” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25982302985_7cf1db94e3_b-3.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:23:532017-01-01 19:23:53Christianophobia Cost Clinton the Campaign
Well, we made it to the end of 2016. Boy, was that exhausting, and frustrating, and depressing, and exhilarating — often at the same time. And it was unbelievable. Unbelievable, as in, “OMG, I can’t believe the guy from The Apprentice is going to be president!” Folks can quibble about the President-elect’s net worth, complain about his financial and real estate holdings, but one thing is inescapable: Donald J. Trump owned 2016.
On New Year’s Eve, it’s fitting to note he also owns a winery. However, you don’t need to travel to Charlottesville for vintage Trump. He seemed to offer a sip, glass or barrel full every day. Yes, for of it was bitter left a bad taste in the mouth. Some critics refuse to taste anything other than their own sour grapes. Others love every drop of Trump vintage 2016.
What is hard to argue is that in 2016 Donald Trump captured the mood of many every day Americans. All the moods. Captured them in his face. Let’s face it, the guy does “expressive” the way New York City does New Year’s Eve. So it seems that if we want to remember what we’ve gone through in 2016, as a nation and as individuals, politically and personally, we really don’t need a lot of words. We just need the mug of the man who we used to call “The Donald,” but who in mere weeks we will be calling “Mr. President.” (For more from the author of “2016: A Year of Ups and Downs … and Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_Rally_10-21-16_30181858380.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-01 19:17:122017-01-01 19:17:122016: A Year of Ups and Downs … and Trump
