Was This an Assassination Attempt at a Trump Rally?

A man arrested at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas told authorities he tried to grab an officer’s gun so he could kill the candidate, according to federal authorities.

A complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Nevada charges Michael Steven Sandford with an act of violence on restricted grounds. He’s expected to appear in court on Monday afternoon.

Authorities said Sandford went to a Trump rally on Saturday at the Treasure Island Casino and approached a Las Vegas police officer to say he wanted an autograph from Trump. The report says Sandford grabbed the handle of an officer’s gun in an attempt to remove it, and was arrested. (Read more from “Was This an Assassination Attempt at a Trump Rally?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could the GOP Convention Put Democracy at Risk?

Our nation is based on the idea of “consent of the governed.” When the people vote, they expect those votes will be respected and counted, not ignored.

There is an effort today to toss aside the will of the millions of voters in the Republican primaries to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican nominee for president. This effort is truly offensive to those who treasure democracy. If successful, it would guarantee that Hillary Clinton will be sworn into office next January. Even though some very smart people are leading the anti-Trump movement, this idea is very dumb.

Voters showed up in unprecedented numbers to vote for Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee. He received over 13 million votes – the most ever for a Republican candidate. He ended up with 1,542 delegates, almost one thousand delegates more than his closest competitor. Trump drew in scores of new voters to the party, resulting in about two million more people voting in the Republican primaries than the Democratic.

Yet, some in the Republican Party toss aside those numbers because they wet the bed every time a head to head poll has Hillary ahead of Trump. These nervous Republicans need to chill and take a look at the calendar: it is June. The only metrics that matter are what people do on Election Day and Trump’s record during the Republican primaries was one for the books.

Sedition by some lifelong Republicans is afoot. The Washington Post reported on June 17, 2016 that a handful of trouble-making delegates are plotting to sabotage the Republican nominee at the convention next month:

Dozens of Republican convention delegates are hatching a new plan to block Donald Trump at this summer’s party meetings, in what has become the most organized effort so far to stop the businessman from becoming the GOP presidential nominee.

The plan is to secure a vote of “no confidence” in the expected Republican nominee Donald Trump, then to push for another candidate to take the nomination.

David French at National Review Online and Amanda Carpenter at Conservative Review have made the public case for a vote of “no confidence”—for delegates to ignore the will of Republican voters at the convention. I have great respect for Carpenter, but I do have to disagree with her analysis.

Carpenter argues at CR:

The convention’s Rules Committee should allow for a vote of “no confidence” in the GOP nominee. Should Trump not receive a supermajority vote then the delegates should be officially “unbound” and free to vote for the nominee of their choice, ideally a list limited only to those persons who ran for president in 2016.

Carpenter is arguing that after the delegates reach a vote of “no confidence,” they should move to a fight over which failed nominee should replace Trump. The problem is that this will completely destroy any chances Republicans have of winning this fall. The 13 plus million voters who cast a vote for Trump would feel like they have been ignored and disrespected.

David French argues at NRO that not one delegate is legally bound to vote for the candidate they are being sent to Cleveland to vote for:

As a matter of law and history, there is not a single “bound” delegate to the Republican National Convention. Not one delegate is required to vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other individual who “won” votes in the primary process. Each delegate will have to make his or her own choice. They — and they alone — will choose the Republican nominee.

Really? So the delegates are an elite team that can overturn the will of Republican voters? As a political argument, this is folly because all of the Trump voters would be so angry that they would do everything possible to secure defeat for the illegitimate nominee the elites put up. As a legal argument, this is of questionable analysis, because French is saying that the state laws binding delegates are somehow unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. This is one of those legal arguments that will probably never be resolved, because the French wing of the Republican Party will probably lose that fight and the argument will be rendered moot.

But if French is correct, the same can be said of the presidential election. The Electoral College was set up as an indirect way to elect a president. How would French feel if John McCain had won the 2008 election, yet the Electoral College decided that Barack Obama would make a better president? I bet he would have had a different opinion of the faithless delegate/elector had that happened.

Donald Trump won fair and square. Delegates need to suck it up and vote for him. It would be immoral and an undemocratic power grab by the elites if they were to overturn the will of 13 million plus Republican primary voters so they can get revenge against Donald Trump. And it would lead to the three words that should instill fear in any self-respecting Republican: President Hillary Clinton. (For more from the author of “Could the GOP Convention Put Democracy at Risk?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

YOUR ANTIQUE MEDIA: Islamic Terror Attack in Orlando Completely Unrelated to Islamic Terror

The mainstream media are desperate to distract from the facts of the Orlando shootings, choosing instead to blame Republicans and conservatives for the deaths of 49 individuals at a gay bar called Pulse. In reality, the attacks were perpetrated by an American-born Islamic jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, and had in the past “boasted of ties to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.”

Instead of discussing the ramifications of terror worldwide and in our midst, the liberal media have reignited their quest for new gun control legislation and have sought to blame this attack on Republicans in general, and presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump in particular.

Omar Mateen’s “bullets and the blood he left behind that early morning were a reminder that in many corners of the country, gay and transgender people are still regarded as sinners and second-class citizens who should be scorned,” wrote The New York Times editorial board in a scathing piece aimed squarely at Republicans. They write that the “precise motivation for [Mateen’s] rampage remains unclear.”

“So far this year, more than 200 anti-L.G.B.T. bills have been introduced in 34 states,” writes the Times editorial board, focusing on the politics of Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.”

As Bernard Goldberg notes, this editorial is completely ridiculous. “If the killer were Christian the Times would have connected the dots and concluded he was driven by his religion,” he writes. Yet the Times failed to mention Islam or ISIS when discussing an Islam-inspired attack on U.S. soil.

“So, he [Mateen] was a gay Muslim Democrat,” notes Jim Treacher for The Daily Caller. “He hit the trifecta of victimhood.” Mateen belonged to too many minority groups, so many that liberals claim at all costs that he cannot be blamed for his own actions. “That means it has to be the gun’s fault, and the NRA’s fault, and the GOP’s fault, and Christians’ fault, and white people’s fault,” writes Treacher.

The Times editorial is not a reflection of the paper’s denial of jihadist terror. Rather, it is a deliberate attempt to deflect blame from the very ideology that repeatedly spawns this sort of activity, and the Times has to know that.

From Nidal Hasan, to the Boston Bombers, the Underwear bomber, the San Bernardino shooting, and now Orlando, the perpetrators of these attacks have drunk from the same poisonous well of sharia-compliant jihadist ideology demanding death to the infidels. Many warnings were ignored or overlooked in these cases. It doesn’t matter whether these were lone wolf terrorists or ISIS-inspired: all of these attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Muslims would never consider committing such an act, and are opposed to such actions.

But it is ludicrous to claim that these attacks have little or nothing to do with Islam, or come from a bastardization of that faith. After all, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a Ph.D. in Koranic studies from Iraq’s Saddam University for Islamic Studies. These attacks clearly originated from a jihadist interpretation of Islam.

The media should be asking how the Obama administration, once again, has failed to protect Americans from another Islamic attack. According to the Daily Beast, Mateen was placed on two FBI watch lists, but the FBI’s 10-month investigation into his activities was closed after no terror ties or plans were discovered. In fact, Mateen was the subject of three different FBI investigations from 2013 to 2015, and they always came up empty.

Clarice Feldman, writing for American Thinker, pointed out that “Internal operating instructions of the FBI limited the amount of time they could keep watch on him and both the local and federal authorities were paralyzed by fear of being dubbed Islamophobic. So chilling accounts by his fellow workers were discounted as the result of prejudice, and a report by a local gun shop that he’d tried without success to purchase ‘body armor and bulk ammunition from the store’ was ignored.”

Also, the security company, G4S, that Mateen worked for from 2007 until the night of his terrorist rampage, should be called before Congress for its actions regarding how it handled concerns about his fitness for the job as an armed security guard. G4S is a British-based company that has contracts with the U.S. government to guard airports, most of our nuclear facilities, and to transport illegal aliens to sanctuary cities and other locations, once they have crossed over into the U.S.

According to NBC News, FBI Director James Comey said that “colleagues said Mateen claimed to have family connections to terror groups al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and that he hoped law enforcement would raid his home ‘so he could martyr himself.’” Yet as a result, his employer simply moved him to a less sensitive job. They didn’t take away his company-issued service weapon, a .38 handgun, nor did they fire him. In fact, while the company filed a psych evaluation form with the State of Florida to pass Mateen for firearm clearance, the doctor whose name was on the form says he was never evaluated, certainly not by her. The company now claims it was done by a different, unnamed doctor.

President Obama’s lack of passion over the victims was striking when he first discussed the attack. But when he was criticized by Trump, Obama became passionate and angry, and explained why using the term “radical Islam” was nothing but a talking point—which is why he doesn’t use it.

“So there is no magic to the phrase of radical Islam. It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy,” said Obama. “And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”

However, as National Review’s Andy McCarthy writes, the point of using the term “radical Islam” is not to convince or deter Islamic radicals—it is to understand our own mindset and identify “whether we understand what we are fighting.”

“Sharia supremacists have their own civilization and cultural norms by which they judge themselves,” argues McCarthy. “They couldn’t care less what we think.”

Al-Baghdadi is convincing to Muslims around the globe because he understands the Koran and preaches an ideology derived from the Muslim faith. Yet the Obama administration has worked to cleanse the FBI counter-terrorism analytic lexicon of words such as “Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and sharia.”

Obama administration officials continue to blindly ignore the ongoing threat of jihadists. “One month after the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 innocent people dead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told advisors that right wing extremists pose just as much of a threat to the country as Islamic extremists.”

And just days before the Orlando attack, the Homeland Security Advisory Council cautioned the Department of Homeland Security that it should avoid terms such as “jihad,” “sharia,” and “takfir.”

Political correctness, whether by the media or by administration officials, is not going to protect American citizens from future terrorists. Both the NRA and the ACLU believe further reforms to the terrorist watch list, such as a way to redress inclusion on the list, are still necessary. But the discussion about gun rights—and using the list to prevent potential terrorists from accessing guns—is a distraction from the greater threat of Islamic terror.

Future terrorists will find a way to access guns regardless of the law. The Obama administration is well on its way to issuing green cards to over one million immigrants from majority-Muslim countries before he leaves office. Is anyone confident in the vetting process for all of these people? If the Obama administration and the complicit media continue to deny the real cause of terror, many more Americans will fall victim to terrorists like Omar Mateen. (For more from the author of “YOUR ANTIQUE MEDIA: Islamic Terror Attack in Orlando Completely Unrelated to Islamic Terror” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government

If the news reports are correct, the latest “gun control” proposal being put forward by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a “measure that would block people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no–fly list from buying firearms,” according to ABC News.

There is one major problem with that proposal: It is potentially unconstitutional since it would take away a constitutional right—your Second Amendment right to bear arms—at the discretion of a government official in a secret, nontransparent process that has no adequate due process protections.

Let’s be clear—we don’t want terrorists buying guns in this country. Nor do we think that they have a Second Amendment right to do so. But this blunt instrument is not the right solution.

The Terrorism Screening Database is the official name for the “Terrorist Watchlist” maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. This database is the U.S.’s central repository of foreign and domestic known and suspected terrorists. How individuals get onto this list is classified, as is the process for individuals getting from that list onto the no-fly list maintained by TSA.

We don’t know what evidence is required by the government or what the standards are for the government having a “reasonable suspicion” that would place any American citizen on the no-fly list. And more than one court has held that the procedures for an American who may have mistakenly gotten onto the list to get off are inadequate. The ACLU complains that the government often fails to “provide meaningful notice“ and to explain why an individual is listed

We certainly know that the government makes mistakes. Rahinah Ibraham was a scholar and doctoral candidate at Stanford University with a valid student visa who ended up on the list through a clerical error by an FBI agent. As an alien, she would not be entitled to purchase a gun, but the mistake that landed her on the list and the ten years of litigation she went through to get off of the list shows the problem with the lack of transparency and due process involved in the maintenance of the no-fly list.

Another well-known case is that of Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a regular on Fox New (and a former Heritage intern). He also was put on the no-fly list with no notice to him; the first he knew about it is when he showed up at the airport for a trip to Minneapolis.

Or Abe Mashal, a 34-year-old Marine veteran who also got put on the no-fly list and was part of a lawsuit against the government by the ACLU, in which a federal judge said that the current redress system for getting off of the secret list was “wholly ineffective” and fell far short of the due process required by the Constitution.

No one questions that we need a no-fly list to prevent suspected terrorists from being able to take over airplanes and repeat the type of horrendous attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

But there are literally tens of thousands of individuals on that list today and the “reasonable suspicion” standard for getting on that list is not a very stringent legal test; keep in mind that apparently in many of these cases there is not enough evidence to actually arrest the individual and prosecute him for supposed terrorist activities. And while one might assume that it is suspicion of terrorist activity that will get you on the list, some reports indicate that other factors such as just traveling to certain countries or having a similar name to someone on the list can get you on the no-fly list.

If a member of Congress proposed taking away your right to criticize the federal government under the First Amendment or your right to vote in the upcoming election because you are on the government’s secret no-fly list, people would be shocked at the very idea of taking away such fundamental rights based on mere suspicion; without requiring the government to prove its case against you in a court of law; and without any of the due process rights we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as citizens of the United States.

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

If Congress truly wants to bolster our counter-terrorism efforts, they should concentrate on strengthening the investigative tools that can be used by law enforcement, as well as increasing the prosecutorial resources and war-fighting ability needed to stop the murderous acts of jihad being perpetrated against Americans.

That means focusing on the terrorists themselves, and not on measures that take away the constitutional rights of Americans at the discretion of government bureaucrats. (For more from the author of “Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NATO Sends Clear Message to Putin

Thousands of American troops have been taking part in a large-scale military exercise on NATO’s front-line state of Poland, which borders Vladimir Putin’s Russia, its close ally Belarus, and war-torn Ukraine. The message is unmistakable—letting Moscow know that the U.S. and its allies take its treaty obligation to defend Eastern Europe seriously.

The 10-day Polish led exercise, called Anakonda, ended June 16. It consisted of over 31,000 troops from 24 countries, including 14,000 American troops.

This drill began in 2006 as a lone Polish effort, and has grown to be one of the largest military exercises to occur in Poland in 25 years.

According to the U.S. Army, “This exercise further supports assurance and deterrence measures by demonstrating allied defense capabilities to deploy, mass and sustain combat power.”

That is code for assuring America’s allies that the U.S. will defend them should the Russians decide to invade.

The Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine has left many of the eastern NATO countries nervous and anxious for guarantees of NATO protection. History buttresses their anxiety.

Russia still views Eastern Europe as its backyard—as it did during Imperial times. It is estimated that, at its height, it was expanding at the rate of almost 90 square miles a day. By 1896 Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was crowned as “[Emperor] of All the Russians, Czar of Moscow”, as well as ruler of Poland, Kiev, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia, Bulgaria, and many more.

To this day Russia does not view these as sovereign countries, but as former vestiges of Russian Imperialism that belong under the influence of Moscow.

Many of these nations are members of NATO, now firmly part of the West. That is why these nations, now our treaty allies, fear the threat of invasion. Much of their history is blemished by Russian subjugation.

The Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) are small, geographically isolated from the rest of NATO, and have a significant ethnic Russian minority population. They are also facing a non-traditional threat to their security—active measures, or what is now commonly called “hybrid warfare.”

Active measures are a type of information warfare. It combines disinformation, propaganda, and manipulation of public opinion in order to influence the actions of a foreign country or people. These were used extensively by the Soviets in an effort to create instability in areas of interest.

The Baltic countries find themselves fighting Russian active measures on multiple fronts: their language and politics are being subverted. Russian media outlets are buying more space in order to push out native speaking media with a pro-Russian message. In the Baltics there is no need to translate or tailor their propaganda, because of the Russian speaking population. Because of this ethnic Russians and other Russian speakers are motivated to force their countries closer to Moscow.

There is also corruption problem. According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, Latvia scores a 55 in the category freedom from corruption. The world average is 42.6, and Latvia has shown increases in this measure since 2013. However, there is still an element of the Russian elite and professional criminals bringing money into Latvia. This brings in both unwanted attention and influence pulling Latvia ever closer to Moscow. Lastly, there is the tangible threat of Russian hard power. The Russian military has been moving to assert power over the Baltic Sea and airspace over Estonia increasingly in the past few years.

Understanding this threat, is NATO prepared to defend its front-line Eastern Allies?

Putin revived a Soviet era strategy called active measures, or “hybrid warfare”, and has successfully integrated this strategy to fit his imperialist agenda. His implementation is leading to a slow, steady corrupting influence into the Baltics. With Ukraine and Crimea, it has gone further and outright violence ensued. An expansionist policy may be the norm for Vladimir Putin, but NATO has an obligation to curb such appetites against its members.

That is why Anakonda 2016 matters. This exercise has already drawn criticism from the Russian government about escalating tensions between Moscow and NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called this exercise unjustified, as well as commenting that there is no Russian threat to any NATO member. But he did make sure to add that, “Russia’s sovereign right to ensure its security will come into force, [making use] of methods adequate to [respond to] today’s challenges.”

In light of this, it is important for our allies to feel that they are not being forgotten. The most important facet of NATO deterrence is the credible threat that aggression will be met with a resounding military response. Without showing our allies that they can believe in the U.S. commitment to their security, we might as well be paving the way for a Russian invasion. (For more from the author of “NATO Sends Clear Message to Putin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Extremely Rare Events Keep Happening All the Time

Something weird seems to be happening in the heavens. This week marks a coincidence of the full moon and the summer solstice. Some astronomers are calling this combination of maximum moonlight and the Northern Hemisphere’s longest day a rare event.

It comes close on the heels of last month’s rare passage of Mercury in front of the sun, September’s rare pairing of a lunar eclipse with a so-called supermoon, the rare 2014 “tetrad” of lunar eclipses, the rare 2012 transit of Venus, and a plethora of once-in-a-lifetime planetary alignments, one earlier this year, one in 2014 and one in the summer of 2013. Next year there will be a rare total eclipse of the sun.

If these sorts of events are so rare, why do they happen so often?

Ask a statistician. David Hand, a professor at Imperial College London makes sense of world’s abundance of rare events in his 2014 book, “The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles and Rare Events Happen Every Day” . . .

The fact that astronomers could present either the event or its absence as noteworthy makes some sense in light of what Hand calls “the close-enough effect.” This effect comes into play in news stories about people who win the lottery more than once, he said. Often one “win” is really a more commonplace second and third prize. The more you relax the definition of winning, the greater the odds it will happen twice. (Read more from “Why Extremely Rare Events Keep Happening All the Time” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Large-Scale Motion Detected Near San Andreas Fault System

Analysis of GPS data has revealed new areas of motion around the San Andreas Fault System.

Using data collected by the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory’s GPS array, researchers identified 125-mile-wide “lobes” of uplift and subsidence. Over the last several years, the lobes, which straddle the fault line, have hosted a few millimeters of annual movement . . .

Researchers used advanced statistical modeling to identify the movement among the inevitable statistical noise that comes with monitoring minute movements in the Earth’s crust.

“While the San Andreas GPS data has been publicly available for more than a decade, the vertical component of the measurements had largely been ignored in tectonic investigations because of difficulties in interpreting the noisy data,” lead author Samuel Howell, a researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, explained in a news release. “Using this technique, we were able to break down the noisy signals to isolate a simple vertical motion pattern that curiously straddled the San Andreas fault.” (Read more from “Large-Scale Motion Detected Near San Andreas Fault System” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Secret Service Agent Book: Raging Hillary Clinton Threw Bible at Agent’s Colleague

Hillary Clinton once threw a Bible at the back of a Secret Service agent’s head, part of a pattern of unhinged rage that the now-presumptive Democratic nominee exhibited, as exposed for the first time in former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne’s grueling insider account of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Byrne’s forthcoming book Crisis of Character—in which he details how the Clintons operated during his time in the U.S. Secret Service, where he protected the first couple for eight years in the White House in the 1990s. During three of those years, he was posted right outside the Oval Office. The book comes out next week.

“The First Lady had a different sort of liveliness,” Byrne writes in an excerpt obtained exclusively by Breitbart News. “She once threw a Bible at an agent on her detail, hitting him in the back of the head. He bluntly let her know it wasn’t acceptable. He told me that story himself.”

Byrne goes on to report that for Secret Service agents, being assigned to Hillary Clinton’s detail “was a form of punishment handed down by passive-aggressive middle management.” (Read more from “Secret Service Agent Book: Raging Hillary Clinton Threw Bible at Agent’s Colleague” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam

The Obama administration on Monday released redacted transcripts of Omar Mateen’s 911 calls — sanitizing any and all references to ISIS made by the self-proclaimed radical Islamist terrorist.

Even though authorities have made no secret that Mateen invoked ISIS as his motive for slaughtering 49 people inside a gay nightclub in Orlando last week, 911 transcripts released by the FBI awkwardly worked around mentioning the terror group.

“In the name of God the merciful, the beneficial (in Arabic),” Mateen said during his call at about 2:35 a.m. on June 12.

“Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of (Arabic). I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.” (Read more from “Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George W. Bush Re-Enters Political Arena to Help Old Friend in Tough Fight

In a year where outsider candidates are on the rise, members of the Washington establishment are facing new struggles to maintain their position of power.

Even longtime politicians have found themselves vulnerable and are facing significant challenges from up-and-coming new leaders.

One such example is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has served for nearly three decades and is currently in a pitched battle against Dr. Kelly Ward for his seate.

As it currently stands, the polls are split, with Gravis Marketing showing a landslide victory for Ward by a 9-point spread and PPP showing the opposite, a 13-point spread in favor of McCain.

Former President George W. Bush has decided to put down the paint brush and re-enter the political arena to support some of his old allies.

So far, Bush has headlined fundraisers for two Republican senators with plans to assist three others in the near future, and McCain has made the list.

According to new reports, Bush will begin fundraising for McCain in an attempt to run damage control for the beleaguered Arizona senator — caused in part by the Trump insurgency.

Bush and McCain will both be skipping this summer’s GOP convention, possibly as a protest of Trump’s presumptive nomination, and instead focus on winning congressional battles.

Whether a Bush endorsement will manage to secure McCain his re-election — or even prove helpful for the incumbent — has yet to be seen.

There also exists the possibility that a Bush endorsement could further fracture the party and amplify resentment among those who desire change in Washington.

Commenting on the infighting between members of the GOP, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan encouraged Republicans to vote their conscience.

“I get that this is a very strange situation. He’s a very unique nominee,” said Ryan of Trump in a yet-to-be-aired interview with NBC. “But I feel as a responsibility institutionally as the speaker of the House that I should not be leading some chasm in the middle of our party. Because you know what I know that’ll do? That’ll definitely knock us out of the White House.” (For more from the author of “George W. Bush Re-Enters Political Arena to Help Old Friend in Tough Fight” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.