The Ratings Are in for CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change and They Are Not Good; Pete Buttigieg Says It’s a ‘Kind of Sin’ to Deny Global Warming

By The Blaze. If the public’s concern for climate change can be measured by the ratings for CNN’s marathon climate town hall event, then there’s some very bad news for global warming enthusiasts.

Not only did the seven-hour event do poorly in the ratings, but the Fox News channel dominated in early ratings from Nielsen for the time period from 5 p.m. to midnight on Wednesday.

Fox News garnered 2.5 million viewers on average for the time period, which was more than double the average for CNN at 1.1 million viewers.

Fox News also had no special programming for the night.

Even MSNBC did better than CNN, with 1.6 million viewers on average. (Read more from “The Ratings Are in for CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change and They Are Not Good” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Pete Buttigieg Says It’s a ‘Kind of Sin’ to Deny Global Warming

By The Blaze. Pete Buttigieg was praised by many on the left for using religious language during CNN’s climate change town hall, including the assertion that it was a “kind of sin” for skeptics to deny climate change.

“Let’s talk in language that is understood across the heartland about faith,” said Buttigieg, an openly gay presidential candidate.

“You know, if you believe that God is watching as poison is being belched into the air of creation, and people are being harmed by it ⁠— countries are at risk of vanishing in low-lying areas ⁠— what do you suppose God thinks of that?” he asked rhetorically. . .

“And you don’t have to be religious to see the moral dimensions of this, because frankly, every religious and non-religious moral tradition tell us that we have some responsibility of stewardship, some responsibility for taking care of what’s around us,” he continued. . .

“At least one way of talking about this is that it’s a kind of sin,” Buttigieg concluded.

(Read more from “Pete Buttigieg Says It’s a ‘Kind of Sin’ to Deny Global Warming” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump White House Had Its Revenge on CNN over Its Hurricane Dorian Map Controversy

President Trump has once again elicited the ‘gotcha’ reaction from the liberal news media. He apparently used an old map projection for Hurricane Dorian which has utterly devastated the Bahamas but blessedly changed course, with Florida avoiding a direct hit. It’s now barreling up the eastern seaborne, hugging the coastline but not making landfall. It’s now a category two storm. Anyways, here is the Associated Press as to why we’re talking about Dorian, Trump, and maps:

During an Oval Office briefing Wednesday, Trump displayed a map of the National Hurricane Center forecast for last Thursday that showed Dorian could track over Florida. The map he displayed included what appeared to be a hand-drawn half-circle that extended the cone of uncertainty over a swath of Alabama.

Trump had raised eyebrows and drawn an emphatic fact check from the National Weather Service on Sunday when he tweeted that Alabama, along with the Carolinas and Georgia, “will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.”

. . .

But of course, CNN had to get in on the action. The noted anti-Trump network harped on the map the president had used but then was served a piping hot cup of shut the hell up when they couldn’t even point to where Alabama is on the map. Sorry, Alabamans—you’re now Mississippians now.

(Read more from “Trump White House Had Its Revenge on CNN over Its Hurricane Dorian Map Controversy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Politician Accused of ‘Hate Crime’ for Sharing Bible Verse on Facebook

Fox News reports that Finnish police are investigating a politician for sharing a Bible verse on her Facebook page in response to a national church engaging in an LGBT pride event in June.

Ex-Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen, a Christian Democrat MP, shared a picture of Romans 1:24-27 after the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland participated in a Gay Pride event this past summer, according to Caleb Parke. . .

Räsänen stated in August, “I am not concerned on my part, as I trust this will not move on to the prosecutor. However, I am concerned if quoting the Bible is considered even ‘slightly’ illegal. I hope this won’t lead to self-censorship among Christians. Rom. 1:24–27.”

Finnish police confirmed to local media that “The pre-trial investigations have not yet been completed. Police will provide more details once the investigations have been completed or presented to a prosecutor for consideration of charges.”

Increasingly, it seems as if the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech around the world are being trampled upon in the name of tolerance. As Mike Gonzalez of the Heritage Foundation pondered, “Is this the future we want?”

(Read more from “Politician Accused of ‘Hate Crime’ for Sharing Bible Verse on Facebook” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bloomberg Asks Experts If a Recession Is Near. Here’s Their Answer.

Bloomberg spoke to financial experts about the possibility of a recession in the near future, and their general reaction was … nahhhh.

John Stoltzfus, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer Asset Management, “There’s another story out there that’s gathering the attention of investors. The fundamentals remain intact in the sense of the U.S. economy, which continues to show us sustainability. The slowing does not appear to us to be recessionary.”

Michael Antonelli, institutional equity sales trader and managing director at Robert W. Baird & Co. explained, “If you think about the last month of market action, it was dominated by trade headlines, but in the background was pretty stable economic data absent of manufacturing. All the noise is masking that the economy, by and large, is doing OK.”

Dennis DeBusschere, head of portfolio strategy at Evercore ISI, added that if the manufacturing sector doesn’t plunge downward any more, “which seems like a much higher-probability event than many expect, an extended reversal of the safety panic should be expected.”

Kate Warne, an investment strategist at Edward Jones shares: “The earnings outlook is actually one of the things that is positive for stocks going forward. Expectations are a little higher for next year and I think that’s appropriate because we begin to get into a period where companies aren’t facing such strong comparisons from the previous year.” She added, “Companies are continuing to see good demand for their products even though they’re also facing rising costs.” (Read more from “Bloomberg Asks Experts If a Recession Is Near. Here’s Their Answer.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

3 Major Retailers Ban Open Carry

Wegmans, Walgreens, and CVS all banned open carry in their stores on Thursday, following the same gun policy change from Walmart and Kroger the day before.

Unlike the other retailers that only called for a ban on open carry, CVS advised all customers except for authorized law enforcement officers to totally refrain from carrying at all in their stores.

“There’s nothing more important than the safety of our customers & employees,” Wegmans posted to Twitter on Thursday afternoon. “The sight of someone with a gun can be alarming, and we don’t want anyone to feel that way at Wegmans. For this reason, we prefer that customers not openly carry firearms into our stores.” . . .

“We support the efforts of individuals and groups working to prevent gun violence, and continually review our policies and procedures to ensure our stores remain a safe environment,” a statement from CVS released on Thursday said. “We join a growing chorus of businesses in requesting that our customers, other than authorized law enforcement personnel, do not bring firearms into our stores.”

(Read more from “3 Major Retailers Ban Open Carry” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Chicago: A Hellhole for Parole, Free Bail, and Jailbreak for Violent Gun Felons

Why aren’t Republicans pounding the lectern with righteous indignation about violent gun felons being let off easy by the judicial system the same way Democrats engage in cerebral gyrations over guns? Democrats have sob stories for their gun control agenda. Republicans need to look no farther than Chicago as the poster child for criminal control.

On June 23, 2017, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson stood beside then-Gov. Bruce Rauner and celebrated the passage of a bill stiffening sentences on gun felons. “1,400 individuals, who are repeat gun offenders, just imagine if we took 50 percent of them off the street where our gun violence would go in the city of Chicago,” declared Johnson at the signing ceremony. “Gun offenders get slaps on the wrist in this city — and it has to stop. I need our judicial partners and our state legislators to help me close this gap.”

Well, thanks to the goal among both parties to reduce the prison population at all costs, things have only gotten worse over the past two years. You see, while politicians tell the public they want to keep people safe, Gov. Rauner also made it his goal to cut the prison population by 25 percent.

According to CWB Chicago, a local crime watchdog, a Cook County judge granted a repeat violent gun felon a special deal on bail that allowed him to walk straight out of the courthouse without posting a dime of bond. Joaquin Urcino is a career criminal with a record dating back to 1991 for everything from homicide and drugs to stolen vehicles, aggravated battery with a firearm, and assault. On July 12, police arrested Urcino, a Two Six gang member, for firing four shots out of his apartment window. He was charged with felony use of a firearm by a felon while on parole, felony reckless discharge of a firearm, and felony possession of a controlled substance.

One would expect someone like this, who served (brief) time for homicide and for shooting another person, to be locked up without bail when caught illegally possessing and discharging a firearm, right? This is especially true given that he was out on parole at the time of his arrest and such an egregious violation should have triggered an automatic re-incarceration. Well, on August 22, Judge Carol Howard let him walk on $100,000 bail, but rather than making him give the customary $10,000 deposit, she let him go for free.

This is all the result of the aggressive and obsessive bipartisan push to let people out without bond and replace incarceration with probation, then avoid enforcing violations of probations so as not to increase the prison population. The goal is 100 percent focused on reducing the prison population without reducing crime with a stronger deterrent, all the while lying to the public that these are just first-time, low-level offenders.

According to data from the Illinois Department of Corrections, the prison population has declined by almost 20 percent since 2013. The Crime Report chronicles how some counties began working with judges to consider jail capacity as a factor in determining whether to give jail time or probation to a new offender. Judges would then allow the criminal offenders to develop a “pretrial” record by their behavior while out with little or no bond to determine their ultimate sentencing at the end of the trial. For example, in McLean County in 2011, “42 percent went to prison and 57 percent were put on probation.” By 2016, “29 percent of convicted felons were sent to prison and 70 percent went on probation.”

That is the power of jailbreak. Now the effects are reverberating across the state. The number of murders statewide jumped 54 percent from 2014 to 2016, while the number of aggravated assaults climbed 16.7 percent.

Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported on a missing woman who police believe was murdered by someone who is out on parole and remains a fugitive. Several years ago, the suspect “was convicted of hitting his girlfriend with a pipe and hammer, pouring a caustic substance on her and setting her on fire.” In addition, he had a domestic battery conviction in 2011 and “felony convictions for armed robbery, aggravated battery and burglary” in the preceding decade. One would expect someone like that to be put away for life, but he was placed on parole in November 2018, barely serving any time.

This past weekend, another eight people were killed and over 40 wounded in Chicago in shootings. While we don’t yet know definitively who committed these crimes, in June, Anthony Guglielmi, spokesman for the Chicago police, gave a description of the perpetrators in a similar shooting spree:

As you can see, many of them had previous convictions, including gun felonies, yet were let out on the streets again. It often takes years to get a court date while these people remain free. This is why the jail population is plummeting in addition to the prison population. Many offenders don’t even have to post bail.

Even when they are finally sentenced, many of them get off with parole. Given that they know the system is reluctant to put them back in prison, there is no deterrent against re-offending. Moreover, as Chicago Tribune editorial board member John Kass recently noted, the monitoring system for those on parole is weak because “there are only 100 deputies monitoring the system to watch over more than 2,000 alleged criminals, many of them violent.” Proponents of the jailbreak agenda want to have it both ways – reduce the prison population but then spend no additional funds on building a post-incarceration security apparatus because they want to talk about saving money.

Sadly, even phony conservative groups, along with liberal ones, are pushing for even more “bail reform” in their effort to avoid incarceration at all costs. These groups refuse to be honest that what was sold to the public as a movement to loosen laws on “first-time, low-level” offenders has been used as a vehicle for releasing the worst repeat violent offenders.

What Eddie Johnson said about Chicago is true of almost every city. It’s a relatively small number of people committing most of the murder and robbery in any given area. Liberals claim an urgent need to “do something” about gun violence just to save one life. Well, actually enforcing our laws against violent gun felons and ending all of the liberal “criminal justice reform” loopholes would save thousands of lives every year. How any national discussion over gun violence can ignore the 800-pound gorilla of repeat gun offenders being let out on the streets is a testament to the dishonest foundation of this entire debate. (For more from the author of “Chicago: A Hellhole for Parole, Free Bail, and Jailbreak for Violent Gun Felons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Judiciary Committee Is Now Looking to Impeach Trump over His Properties

A high-profile House Democrat said that the House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether or not it can impeach President Trump based on alleged constitutional violations related to his various properties.

In a tweet Thursday morning, Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair and House Judiciary Committee member Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., praised a recent statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accusing the president of violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. She also said that the Judiciary Committee “is engaged in impeachment investigation to get facts on violations of Emoluments Clause.”

Pelosi’s Wednesday statement alleges that “President Trump is violating the Constitution by making money off of his lavish, ritzy resort properties, ultimately prioritizing his profits over the interests of the American people.” It later goes on to directly accuse Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause “by accepting and encouraging foreign governments to pay to stay at Trump resort properties without Congressional approval.”

The statement was put out in response to a recent suggestion from President Trump that the G7 hold its meeting at his Doral golf resort near Miami and a media dust-up over Vice President Mike Pence’s recent stay at Trump’s Doonbeg hotel in Ireland. (Read more from “The Judiciary Committee Is Now Looking to Impeach Trump over His Properties” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Poll: If Trump Makes the Election About the Actual Issues, Democrats Cannot Win

The average swing voters in the suburbs don’t want to ban straws, phase out appliances that work well, and regulate cheeseburgers, while embracing Hamas, MS-13, mass migration, and higher taxes. They don’t want their communities fundamentally transformed by illegal immigration and mass migration, nor do they want to shoulder the cost. That is the simple upshot of a very comprehensive Harvard/Harris poll of 2,531 registered voters nationwide taken just last week.

Clearly, because of his distractions and gratuitous comments, President Trump is not very popular on a personal level with voters. But when you actually drill down into the issues Democrats are fighting for, voters side with conservatives. The problem is that Republicans refuse to harness sustained and aggressive policy debates over these issues that force Democrats to take tough votes and display their radicalism before the American people. This allows Democrats to keep the focus on Trump’s personality rather than their radicalism. It doesn’t have to be this way. Indeed, if Trump stays focused on ending illegal immigration, locking up criminals, de-regulating costly restrictions on important household products, and creating jobs, he will win a second term and win back the suburban voters, according to the Harvard/Harris poll.

Here are some key takeaways:

Immigration ranked as the top issue for voters, well ahead of other issues – with 40 percent of all respondents saying it’s the top issue, including 41 percent of suburban voters. Surprisingly, that is equal with the percentage of rural voters who ranked it as the top issue, and rural voters are usually perceived as the most anti-illegal immigration.

Free stuff and weak security vs. free opportunity and national security is a no-brainer: The poll asked a very straightforward question summing up the key differences between the competing visions without any other leading questions: “Which candidate are you more likely to vote for – A presidential candidate who stands for the green new deal on climate change, Medicare for all, free college tuition, opening our borders to many more immigrants and raising taxes to pay for these programs or a presidential candidate who stands for lower taxes and reduced government regulations, strengthening our military, strengthening our border to reduce illegal immigrants, standing up more to China and Iran and seeking better trade deals for the US.”

The answer? 60 percent support the latter – what is perceived as the conservative vision – and 40 percent support the former. 58 percent of moderates and 63 percent of suburban voters supported the latter as well. Which tells you that if the election is framed in this way – and Republicans actually pick fights that accentuate this division – the outcome of the election will be favorable to Trump.

The open border is toxic: Next, the pollster asked the most and least likely position stance that would make you vote for a candidate. The absolute least likely was “opening up our borders to many more immigrants,” with just 36 percent supporting this proposition, including just 32 percent of suburban voters. Tied for the least popular issue was “Raising taxes to pay for more programs.” Conversely, 70 percent of voters said they’d be more likely to support a candidate who supports “strengthening our border to reduce illegal immigration,” including 71 percent of moderate and suburban voters and even 58 percent of Hispanics.

Siding with China and Iran is not a winner: 80 percent of overall voters and 82 percent of suburban voters said they would be more likely to vote for someone who stands up to China and Iran.

Voters don’t want mass migration and can’t even fathom it: Another fascinating question posed by the pollster was whether the respondents thought we have too much legal immigration, too little, or just about the right level. Just 23 percent responded, “too little,” which is the view of the political class, 45 percent said just the right amount, and 32 percent said too much.

But here’s the catch: Most people have no idea just how much record immigration we have in this country. When asked by the pollster, “How many legal immigrants would you say reside in the United States today?” almost all of the respondents lowballed the real number by a mile. More than 80 percent guessed that we have fewer than 10 million immigrants residing here, while 45 percent thought that we have some varying level below one million residing in the U.S. In reality, there are over 44 million immigrants residing in the country, not including the illegal immigrants, and that number is on pace to rise rapidly. The pollster should have then re-asked whether the levels are too high after informing respondents of the true number.

Voters don’t want to pay for immigrants: By a margin of 57-32 percent, respondents said they believe legal immigrants use welfare somewhat or a lot. When asked “Should the United States deny green cards to immigrants who might be deemed likely to be heavy welfare users?” 60 percent agreed they should be denied, including 56 percent of Hispanic voters. Moreover, 68 percent of voters said immigrants should be required to speak English.

Then when asked, “Should immigrants who are here illegally be able to collect welfare, disability and healthcare payments from the state and federal governments or not?” 78 percent said no. That includes 80 percent of moderates, 82 percent of suburban voters, 65 percent of Hispanic voters, and 71 percent of black voters. Also, 72 percent of overall voters and 76 percent of suburban voters oppose granting them driver’s licenses.

When asked whether illegal immigrants should be counted in the census, 59 percent answered no. However, the opposition might have been much higher had respondents been told that counting distorts congressional representation and the Electoral College. The question was only phrased in terms of allocation of funding to states. Of course, when asked whether illegal aliens should be allowed to vote, 85 percent of voters said no.

The moral of the story? Twitter and mass media are not America. Republicans are scared of their shadows and rather than hanging these issues around the necks of Democrats and seeking every policy and legislative fight imaginable to show up the radical views of the Left on these issues, Republicans either run away from them or downright agree with Democrats.

The challenge for Trump heading forward will be to pick several of these issues and focus relentlessly on the policies while ignoring the temptation to get drawn into fights that will make this an election about personalities over issues. (For more from the author of “New Poll: If Trump Makes the Election About the Actual Issues, Democrats Cannot Win” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bernie ‘Courageously’ Talks Population Control; Is Joe Biden Okay? (VIDEO); Trump Blasts CNN for Ignoring ‘Facts’ on Climate

By Breitbart. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN’s climate change town hall attendees Wednesday night that he is willing to talk about population control, suggesting that abortion is key to addressing the climate crisis.

“Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years,” an attendee told Sanders, adding that the planet cannot sustain such growth.

“I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact,” the attendee continued. . .

“The answer is yes,” Sanders said, arguing that population control – in the form of abortion and birth control, specifically – is something he “very, very strongly” supports. . .

“So I think especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support,” he added. (Read more from “Bernie: ‘Yes’ I’m Courageous Enough to Talk About Population Control” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Joe Biden’s Eye Fills with Blood While Onstage During Climate Town Hall

By Breitbart. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s left eye filled with blood while he was onstage Wednesday during a CNN town hall on climate change, apparently from a burst vessel.

Biden was in the middle of speaking when his eye appeared to fill with blood, and he seemed not to notice.

The incident instantly gained attention on social media.

(Read more from “Joe Biden’s Eye Fills with Blood While Onstage During Climate Town Hall” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Trump Blasts CNN for Ignoring ‘Facts’ on Climate Ahead of 2020 Forum

By The Hill. President Donald Trump blasted CNN Wednesday afternoon just ahead of its climate-focused Democratic presidential forum, arguing it would likely ignore key “facts.”

“8 FACTS that #FakeNewsCNN will ignore in tonight’s ‘Climate Forum,'” Trump said in a series of tweets.

The president went on to list points defending the role his administration has played in cleaning the country’s air and reducing emissions, echoing similar talking points he made during his July White House speech on America’s energy leadership.

“1. Which country has the largest carbon emission reduction? AMERICA! 2. Who has dumped the most carbon into the air? CHINA! 3. 91% of the world’s population are exposed to air pollution above the World Health Organization’s suggested level. NONE ARE IN THE U.S.A.!” he said in the thread. . .

He also warned that the Democrats’ various climate plans would all lead to increases in energy bills and gasoline costs. (Read more from “Trump Blasts CNN for Ignoring ‘Facts’ on Climate Ahead of 2020 Forum” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Conservative Lawyer Reinstated to Trump Administration After Fake News Got Him Fired

In a particularly egregious episode of “cancel culture,” conservative lawyer Leif Olson was pressured to resign over Facebook comments that a reporter took out of context and sent to the press contact at the Department of Labor (DOL). On Wednesday, almost a week after Olson resigned, the DOL announced that he would be returning to work. While Bloomberg Law reported his Facebook comments out of context, suggesting they were anti-Semitic, many other outlets — both liberal and conservative — explained that the remarks were clearly satirical.

“On Friday, August 30, 2019, Senior Policy Advisor of the Wage and Hour Division, Leif Olson offered his resignation and the Department accepted. Following a thorough reexamination of the available information and upon reflection, the Department has concluded that Mr. Olson has satisfactorily explained the tone of the content of his sarcastic social media posts and will return to his position in the Wage and Hour Division,” the DOL statement reads. . .

“A recently appointed Trump Labor Department official with a history of advancing controversial conservative and faith-based causes in court has resigned after revelations that he wrote a 2016 Facebook post suggesting the Jewish-controlled media ‘protects their own,'” began Bloomberg Law reporter Ben Penn. His article pulls Olson’s clearly sarcastic Facebook thread out of context.

Olson seems to have explained himself to DOL, but he was asked to resign, anyway. Only after the backlash to the Bloomberg Law article and the forced resignation did the DOL reconsider.

This welcome restoration confirms that the DOL effectively forced Olson to resign. Yet it also raises the question: why didn’t DOL trust Olson when he explained the comments? Why did it take public backlash to get Olson reinstated? (Read more from “Conservative Lawyer Reinstated to Trump Administration After Fake News Got Him Fired” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE