LOL: Clinton Preaches About the Constitution and the GOP’s Lack of ‘Ethics’

If there’s one person in progressive politics who loves to preach to the choir, look no further than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a recent interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Clinton had the audacity to lecture the Republican Party about upholding ethics…and the Constitution. . .

“When the Republican Senate denied the right of President Obama to have his nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, heard –” Hillary said.

“I think you even wrote that they stole a justice from the Democratic Party,” Amanpour interrupted.

“I-I think they did,” Clinton said. “I mean, to keep a Supreme Court seat open for a year, to deny a distinguished jurist – they could have voted him down, they could have said ‘well, for ideological reasons, philosophical reasons, we’re not going to vote for him.’ But, no. They stonewalled. And that was such a breach of Senate ethics and the Constitutional responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent on nominations.” . . .

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe that if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again,” Clinton explained. “Until then, the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength. (Read more from “LOL: Clinton Preaches About the Constitution and the GOP’s Lack of ‘Ethics'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FLASHBACK: Warren Said Her Parents Eloped Because of Racism Against Her Mom’s Native American Ancestry

In a June 29, 2012 interview with NECN’s Jim Braude on the BroadSide television program, Elizabeth Warren stated that her parents had to elope in 1932 because her father’s parents objected to her mother’s Cherokee and Delaware ancestry. Warren stated:

Actually, you have it wrong about what it is I believe. My mom and dad were very much in love with each other and they wanted to get married and my father’s parents said absolutely not. You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped. It was an issue in our family the whole time I grew up about these two families. It was an issue still raised at my mother’s funeral. So what I know about my parents is I know that in that little town they grew up in that my father’s parents knew enough about my mother and her family to say I have no doubts.”

With the latest news of the results from Warren’s DNA test, which show that the part of her DNA derived from so-called “Native American” ancestry is between 1/64th and 1/1,024th, and that that ancestry is actually Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian, it might be useful to consider if Warren’s story about the supposed prejudice of her grandparents might be made out of whole cloth.

One determined researcher, Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes, did some background checking, and found some interesting tidbits that led her and her team to suggest that the marriage of Warren’s parents was a typical marriage from the era of the Great Depression, and not an elopement triggered by racial bias. First, the marriage was performed by a prominent minister who later helped found Southern Methodist University, not a justice of the peace.

Another tidbit: Warren’s father only turned 21, the legal age to marry in Oklahoma at the time roughly two months before the wedding, so the idea that the couple fought it “as long as they could” sounds a bit stretched, since once her father turned 21 it was legal for him to marry.

(Read more from “Flashback: Warren Said Her Parents Eloped Because of Racism Against Her Mom’s Native American Ancestry” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Reporter Explains How Elizabeth Warren Just Destroyed the Democrats’ Biggest Asset

On Fox News Monday, Greg Gutfeld unpacked the true significance of Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to use an analysis of her DNA to prove that she did, possibly, have a Native American ancestor — some six to ten generations ago.

In a monologue on “The Five” (below), Gutfeld concluded that Warren’s 1/1,024th “Native ancestry” just destroyed the Democrats’ go-to political ploy: identity politics.

“Her results now become the standard for anyone choosing a past that offers an edge — who can now skip ahead in admissions or jobs — in places where diversity trumps experience,” he said. “And so, DNA tests becomes the new affirmative action. But at whose expense? Maybe no one. Because if we’re all a little oppressed, we’re all good. Goodbye identity politics! If everyone is a minority, then nobody is.” . . .

“So her Native American ancestry may date back 6 to 10 generations,” he said. “She’s potentially one-one thousand and twenty fourth Indian – which is 0.09 percent. Using such standards, I’m Asian — which is why I can’t get into Harvard.”

He then boiled down the real point of the debate: “Did she or did she not list herself as a minority in law school directories, when it suited her, then remove it when it didn’t?” he said. “It’s not about her background. It’s about cheating. She’s a white woman of vast European ancestry, who went to the buffet of identity politics and took seconds, and thirds. Warren is Native American because she said so.”

(Read more from “Watch: Reporter Explains How Elizabeth Warren Just Destroyed the Democrats’ Biggest Asset” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Police Officer Charged With Raping Woman During Traffic Stop

An unnamed woman has accused Ryan Macklin, a six-year veteran police officer in Maryland, of sexually assaulting her during a late-night traffic stop on Thursday night. After a preliminary investigation, Macklin was charged with rape and a host of other charges.

The unidentified woman appears to be in the country illegally, though this has not been confirmed. Maryland’s Prince George’s County Police Chief Hank Stawinski repeatedly said that the woman was targeted because she was female, and not because of her “immigration status.”

Macklin, 29, pulled over the woman around 1 a.m. while on duty and in uniform. After apparently entering the woman’s car, Macklin allegedly forced her to perform a sexual act on him.

The alleged victim was seemingly hesitant to come forward, only notifying authorities after friends coaxed her into it several hours after the incident.

The officer was arrested on Monday and charged with first-degree rape, second-degree rape, perverted sexual acts, second-degree assault, and fourth-degree sex offense, according to The Blaze. For now, Macklin has been suspended without pay. (Read more from “Police Officer Charged With Raping Woman During Traffic Stop” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lindsey Grahamnesty Is Back With a DACA Deal Republicans Would Be Fools to Take

Well, so much for hoping Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had finally resolved to stop making deals with devils. There was a hope that Graham was moved by the Democrats’ despicable character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh to realize that the cabal of leftists is irredeemably power-hungry and cannot be trusted. But no, Lindsey “Grahamnesty” is back in action, urging President Trump and other Republicans to strike a deal with Democrats on DACA amnesty in exchange for wall funding.

Graham made his pitch on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning when asked about a plan from House GOP leadership to introduce a stand-alone bill to supposedly fully fund the border wall.

“DACA, remember that? 690,000 kids brought here on the average age of 6, no place else to go. Trump’s going to win in court; he can repeal DACA. The day he wins in court, what do we do with these young people? So I’d like to do a deal,” Graham said. “Full wall funding for DACA.”

Fox host Brian Kilmeade asked if there would be additional reforms like ending chain migration, to which Graham cut in, “Nope, keep it simple.” Translation: Congress should punt on needed immigration reforms, so-called “poison pills” that Democrats would object to.

Only a fool would take that deal, and here’s why:

The problem with any compromise of border security for amnesty is that border security must come first. The flow of illegal immigration must halt before you can have a discussion about what to do with nonviolent illegal aliens already in the United States. Democrats will not accept a deal that delays DACA amnesty until a wall is constructed and the border made secure, and the media will pressure the government to take immediate action to end the uncertainty facing so-called “Dreamers.” But Congress’ actions are not binding on a future Congress. After DACA amnesty is codified, a future Congress could impose new requirements on wall construction, from environmental impact studies to material requirements that have the effect of delaying construction indefinitely. Opponents of a border wall will use their imaginations, and the border will remain unsecured indefinitely.

Another problem is that DACA amnesty will not be limited to the 690,000 people Graham assumes it would be. The Trump administration already offered the Democrats a deal to give DACA amnesty to at least 1.8 million illegal aliens, with a path to U.S. citizenship. When Trump made that concession to the Democrats, conservatives warned that it would be used as the baseline for any future DACA deal. Nothing has changed. Democrats will demand the bare minimum of amnesty for nearly two million illegals, since that was what was promised before, all the while labeling Trump and the GOP racists throughout negotiations.

Further, DACA is a slippery slope. If Republicans concede that nonviolent illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children should not be deported, then how will they argue that their parents should be? How can you deport the parents and adult relatives of U.S. citizens? The media and the Democrats will attack the government for separating families. All the same DACA arguments will be deployed in favor of amnesty and citizenship for all illegal aliens. Meanwhile, chain migration, unaccompanied children, E-verify, and catch-and-release policies will remain unaddressed by the compromise Graham wants.

Then there is the problem with the courts. Let’s suppose conditional amnesty is granted. If an illegal alien violates the terms of the amnesty, deportation proceedings will have to move through court. When you’re legalizing at least 1.8 million people, deportations will grind to a halt as every legalized individual will have the standing to present his or her case in a court system that is already overloaded with cases.

Full funding for the border wall is not worth what Lindsey Graham is asking for conservatives to concede in this compromise.

But prepare yourselves, because this deal is exactly where Republicans are headed. Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s stand-alone wall funding bill cannot pass through Congress. How do we know? Because Congress is in recess, and without attaching it to a must-pass government funding bill, there is no pressure to move wall funding through the 60-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, assuming it could even pass the House, which is no guarantee thanks to several liberal Republicans. If the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, which is likely, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has promised to take up “a bill that protects Dreamers.” So Democrats will be demanding DACA amnesty. Republicans will keep control of the Senate and demand wall funding. And President Trump will be eager to make a deal.

So Graham is preparing the way for this DACA-for-wall-funding deal because that’s what’s most likely to happen. But it’s a bad deal, one conservatives and Trump supporters should loudly oppose now, before it’s too late. (For more from the author of “Lindsey Grahamnesty Is Back With a DACA Deal Republicans Would Be Fools to Take” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Shows That Limiting Immigration Is Extremely Popular With Voters

Do Republicans want to win?

A Harvard-Harris poll from August showed that voters believe immigration is the most important issue of this election. Among Republicans, no other issue even comes close. Now, a new poll commissioned by Numbers USA shows that voters in every state subscribe to the conservative view, which has been adopted by the president, that immigration should be lower across the board and more merit-based. Why is this not a priority among Republicans both in their legislative work and on the campaign trail? Why are they prioritizing weak-on-crime laws, which are also opposed by a majority of voters, before dealing with true immigration reform?

That we have brought in too many immigrants too quickly for too long and that our system is random and oriented more toward chain migration and the third world than those with extraordinary merit is not lost on the public, even as it’s lost on the political elites in both parties. Polls have consistently shown that this is one major issue that has broad bipartisan support among all demographics and ideologies, yet there is no movement in Congress toward true immigration reform. The Americans people want less immigration and a smarter legal immigration policy, while Congress continues to define “immigration reform” as amnesty for illegal immigrants. According to the new poll, the majority of voters in 25 key states for this election cycle chose immigration levels at least 25 percent lower than the current one as their ideal levels. In most states, it was a supermajority.

The favorite choice among all options was a level requiring at least a 75 percent cut in annual numbers, from 1 million annually to 250,000. Our official level of immigration every year is about 1.1 million, but with other de facto permanent programs, as many as 1.8 million immigrants were likely admitted in 2016. The American people clearly reject it and would never support it if the numbers were advertised.

The problem with immigration polling trending the opposite way, disseminated by the media and credulously believed by the GOP, is that it is leading questions built on straw men. For example:

“Are we a nation of immigrants?”

“Do you think immigrants are good?”

“Should we deport those who served in the military?”

These are obviously politically biased and leading questions.

Isolating a largely abstract and mythical population of immigrants and encapsulating it into a poll doesn’t reflect where people’s hearts and priorities are on this issue. But the answers to very straightforward polling questions of whether we have too much or too little immigration, whether immigrants should assimilate, whether immigrants should get welfare, whether immigrants should learn English, and whether immigration should be merit-based as opposed to family-based are indeed very reflective of where the national mood is on immigration. And deep down, Democrats know this.

The question in the new Numbers USA poll was very straightforward with absolutely no bias or pretext. There was no mention of the fact that our system is not merit-based and that the sheer numbers are unprecedented:

Current federal policy adds about one million new immigrants with lifetime work permits each year. Which is closest to the number of new immigrants the government should be adding each year — less than 250,000, 500,000, 750,000, one million, one and a half million, or more than two million?

This is the question none of the policymakers want to grapple with, but the voters are clear. Overall, the combined average for the 25 states polled — a mixture of red, blue, and purple states — was 62 percent in favor of cutting immigration by at least 25 percent. Only 25 percent of respondents were in favor of the same level or more immigration. Some red states like West Virginia (72 percent-16 percent) and Louisiana (70 percent-20 percent) had lopsided margins. But even in blue states with large numbers of immigrants, such as California (56 percent-32 percent, New York (57 percent-33 percent), Illinois (51 percent-36 percent), and Nevada (63 percent-24 percent), a clear majority supported cuts to current levels.

The 25 states were polled over a 15-month period between 2017 and 2018, but the results have been amazingly durable and stable for years.

Tom Cotton’s Raise Act (S.354), which has been endorsed by the president, would reorient our system towards a merit-based points system rather than one built on chain migration and would cut immigration by 30-40 percent. It would also end the diversity visa lottery. It is simply astounding that one year after a Bangladeshi national who came here through the diversity visa lottery attempted to blow up a New York subway, there was not even a committee-level vote on ending this cloddishly random program overwhelmingly opposed by the public.

Polls have consistently shown that when respondents are asked unbiased and intuitive questions about immigration, they overwhelmingly oppose the status quo of the political class. Several months ago, a comprehensive poll from Harvard-Harris showed that voters favored a merit-based immigration system over a family-based one by 79-21 with supermajorities in support among self-described Hispanics, blacks, and liberals.

The GOP is sitting on its best issue and refuse to adopt it and message it hard every day. Imagine what Republicans’ electoral prospects would look like if they’d spend every day militating against our stolen sovereignty at the border and against the backward immigration system?

There’s an important lesson for the silent majority of the country. Aristide Zolberg, one of the leading immigration historians of recent memory, asked the question in his scholarly book, “A Nation by Design,” how it is that during every immigration battle since 1965, the public wanted a cool-off but the legislation wound up “moving in the opposite direction.” Citing other commentators, he noted that “while public support for a reduction in legal immigration was broad, it was not well-organized. … In contrast, a liberal coalition of well-organized organized groups, including ethnic organizations, churches, and employer associations, articulated strong opposition to proposals for restricting legal immigration.”

Conservatives need to get organized every day between every other November to focus on the pending legislative, budget, and primary fights rather than hibernate between every election. We can’t afford to go back to sleep after submitting our ballots. Voting Republican does nothing if the franchise is not followed up with accountability. If Republicans lose the House, rest assured they will issue another “autopsy report” suggesting the need to move further left on immigration. Lindsey Graham, the big “conservative hero,” is already pushing another round of amnesty.

As it says in Proverbs 4:19, “The way of the wicked is like pitch darkness; they do not know on what they stumble.” We must be ready to shine light on the truth of this important issue and finally demand true immigration reform. (For more from the author of “New Poll Shows That Limiting Immigration Is Extremely Popular With Voters” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779b Deficit

The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement. . .

The previous record for individual income tax collections in a fiscal year was in fiscal 2015, when the Treasury collected $1,634,657,240,000 in individual income taxes (in constant September 2018 dollars). . .

Despite the record amount collected in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018, overall real federal tax revenues in fiscal 2018 were lower than in any of the previous three years. In fiscal 2018, total tax collections equaled $3,328,745,000,000, according to the Treasury statement. That was less than the $3,446,613,230,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) that the Treasury collected in fiscal 2015; less than the $3,415,674,450,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2016; and less than the $3,390,373,210,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2017.

While the federal government was collecting more income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2018, it was collecting less from corporations. Total corporation income tax collections in fiscal 2018 were $204,733,000,000. In fiscal 2017, they were $303,811,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). In fiscal 2016, they were $313,233,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars); and in fiscal 2015, they were $364,738,790,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). (Read more from “Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779B Deficit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What Elizabeth Warren Is Really Doing With Her Dumb DNA Test

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t need to prove she’s Native American, and that’s not why she released the results of a DNA test to the Boston Globe. The Globe reports, quoting the DNA report, “Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree ‘in the range of 6-10 generations ago.’” This gives a range of 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American (the other 1023/1024 is straight cis white woman privilege). Warren herself claimed it was her great-great-grandmother who was Native American; that would give a fraction of 1/32. The Boston Globe had to correct its story because it initially got the math wrong and misreported the range of her possible ancestry. That’s hardly going to silence her critics, least of all President Donald Trump, who takes delight in derisively calling her “Pocahontas” at his rallies.

Questions about Warren’s claimed Native American heritage have doggedly followed her since her 2012 campaign for U.S. Senate, when GOP opposition research discovered a Fordham Law Review article touting her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color” on the faculty. Years earlier, Warren was listed as a minority faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Warren is the butt of many jokes in conservative media, often referred to as Fauxcahontas or Chief Spreading Bull, but Warren is not trying to make the jokes go away. She’s only added fuel to the fire. No, the point, as she explains in a video that was released in conjunction with the DNA report, is pure identity politics.

“Trump can say whatever he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to try and get at me, that’s not what America stands for,” Warren narrates in, let’s face it, the opening ad of her 2020 presidential campaign about her family’s story.

“[My parents] were real people. The love they shared, the struggles they endured, the family they built, the story they lived will always be etched on my heart. And no one — not even the president of the United States — will ever take it away from me,” she says.

The facts of the DNA test, which is inconclusive, do not matter. This is all about feelings. This is all about mean old President Trump using racial “slurs” to demean a woman who’s fighting for “change” in Washington D.C. If Warren identifies as a Native American, who is Donald Trump or anyone else to tell her she’s wrong? A bigot, that’s who, and that’s all that matters, and that’s why minorities can vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

Now notice what’s not being discussed. The kind of change Elizabeth Warren’s progressivism advocates is the soft tyranny of a ubiquitous federal government that reaches out and nationalizes American businesses, but it’s more fun to mock her claimed heritage. Her plan to double down on Obamacare’s failures with more subsidies, more price controls, and more regulations as a prelude to a single-payer Medicare for All scheme is ignored. Her open-borders zealotry and demands to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to appease to her far-Left base? Forgotten.

And what alternatives are conservatives offering to these demands from the Left?

It may be great for clicks and views to follow the mainstream media’s narrative on Warren’s ancestry, but it doesn’t do a thing to advance conservatism. Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., tried to make Warren’s lies about her ancestry a campaign issue, and do you know what happened to him? We call him former senator.

Why don’t we stop the clickbait and challenge Warren and the Democrats on the issues that will actually matter when Americans go to vote, before we lose? (For more from the author of “Here’s What Elizabeth Warren Is Really Doing With Her Dumb DNA Test” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win

Within the span of a week, two high-profile Democrats verbalized their party’s perspective on politics. “When they go low, we kick them,” former attorney general Eric Holder frothed to a group of loyalists. “That is what this new Democratic Party is about,” Barack Obama’s former cabinet official proclaimed to shouts of “fight, fight, fight.” (Holder later backtracked.)

Then a few days later Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” Holder and Clinton have finally voiced the reality: There’s politics. There’s dirty politics. And then there’s the trifecta of progressive politics—lying, cheating, and stealing to win. . .

With the filibuster gone, Democrats play politics with a different detail: Senate rules that, absent consent, require a formal “cloture” vote for any presidential appointee subject to confirmation, followed by a day without action, then 30 hours of post-cloture debate. This tactic, so perfected by Democrats that The New York Times branded their efforts the “art of the delay,” translates into “an average of three and a half days spent considering each nominee.” To put that into perspective, it would take a full “11 years and four months to fill all possible Trump administration spots.”

But that’s politics. Politics might not be pretty, but it’s fair and it’s the American way. Republicans have the power to alter the rules or use them against the Democrats should the left ever regain power. That’s one thing.

Then there’s dirty politics: the sensationalistic election-year advertisements that portray opponents as tossing a wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff; or icing a debate opponent with a surprise news conference featuring Bill Clinton sexual assault accusers Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick. (Read more from “Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet

By Townhall. Politicos on both sides of the aisle have talked about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) DNA test results throughout the day. After all, the fact that she might be 1/1,024th Native American is mind-blowing. But, remember, she really touts herself as a “minority.”

Republicans saw through her act right from the beginning. Everyone wanted to see DNA test results for how long? Months? Years, even?

Once it was finally released, everyone harped on her, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He took to Twitter to mock her DNA test. All I can say is… Well played, Senator. Well played.

(Read more from “Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018

By The Daily Caller. Former Obama campaign strategist Jim Messina questioned the timing of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren releasing a DNA test Monday.

Warren released the results Monday after being mocked and attacked by Republicans for claiming Native American heritage with no verification for decades. Warren’s results showed that she may have between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Indian DNA, though the test that did not use Native American DNA.

Messina, who served as President Barack Obama’s White House deputy chief of staff for operations and 2012 campaign manager, was not happy about the media storm that Warren created by releasing the results into the contentious 2018 election cycle. (Read more from “Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.