Romney Loses GOP Support After Challenging Trump on Impeachment

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney lost support from Republicans and independents in his home state during the weeks after he called for witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, a new poll shows.

The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday.

The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019, and independents also shifted to disapproving of Romney over the quarter.

In the prior quarter, 65% of Utah Republicans supported Romney, and while a majority still do presently, that number sank to 57%.

The numbers are particularly striking for Utah, one of the most Republican states in the country. Romney romped to victory in his 2018 Senate bid and has been considered a local hero of sorts among his fellow Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constituents and others. (Read more from “Romney Loses GOP Support After Challenging Trump on Impeachment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

20 U.S. Army Soldiers Died in Training Accidents Last Year

Twenty U.S. Army soldiers died in training accidents over the last year, while another 70 were seriously injured, according to statistics obtained by the Washington Examiner. . .

“Military training is inherently dangerous and while any loss of life is tragic, it is difficult to reduce the numbers to zero,” retired Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr, who directs the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, told the Washington Examiner. “Military aviation, operating vehicles over open terrain at night, weapons firing with live ammunition are among the military skills that must be practiced but carry high risks. A rise from 18 to 20 training deaths in a year, while unfortunate, is not a statistically significant rise.”

The slight increase coincides with the Army’s efforts to improve combat readiness across the force. The Pentagon placed an emphasis on combat capability after the Trump administration published its national defense strategy, which aims to counter conventional adversaries like Russia and China.

Rigorous training is necessary in order to confront U.S. adversaries, according to former Army pilot Bradley Bowman, who runs the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. . .

The 20 soldiers killed in the past year died in a variety of accidents. West Point cadet Christopher Morgan, 22, died and 22 others were injured when their truck crashed in June. Army Staff Sgt. David Gallagher, 51, was killed and three others were injured when their M1 Abrams tank rolled over earlier that month. Staff Sgt. Jacob Hess, 34, was killed in a similar accident when his Humvee rolled over in May. (Read more from “20 U.S. Army Soldiers Died in Training Accidents Last Year” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Report: Wall Street Thinks a Warren Presidency Could Be Catastrophic

Investors at a major bank that Sen. Elizabeth Warren once criticized are worried about how sweeping economic changes that she’s vowed to implement if she becomes president could affect their bottom line.

Mother Jones reported on Friday that the research arm of Barclays, a powerful London-based bank and financial services firm, circulated five reports late last year for paying clients, including hedge funds, commercial banks and insurance companies, about what the tumultuous Democratic primary could mean for the markets.

“Given Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) policies that she asserts are ‘big structural’ change and ‘economic patriotism,’ her quantifiably more liberal voting record, and her steady rise in the polls and betting markets, investors and corporates across asset classes and geographies have taken note and posed questions,” the first report said, according to Mother Jones.

Barclays analyzed nearly 50 of Warren’s various plans in October and November — shortly after she surged in national polls — and echoed Warren’s own stance that a victory by the Massachusetts senator would be bad news for large corporations and financial titans. . .

Still, the report pointed out that a victory by Warren, or fellow progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, would present opportunities for certain sectors and consumers. For instance, if she successfully broke up big banks, it could benefit smaller regional banks that have taken a beating from increasing consolidation. Plus, her call to hike the minimum wage could boost retailers and auto dealers, as working-class Americans have more money to spend. (Read more from “New Report: Wall Street Thinks a Warren Presidency Could Be Catastrophic” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texts From a Mysterious Belgian Number Shed Light on Possible Surveillance of Ambassador to Ukraine

House Democrats on Friday released text messages that shed new light on a possible surveillance campaign against Marie Yovanovitch when she served as ambassador to Ukraine.

The documents are screenshots of messages on the encrypted platform WhatsApp exchanged between Robert Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate, and an individual he identified Friday as Anthony de Caluwe.

The messages show that the man Hyde identified as de Caluwe appeared to provide updates in March 2019 on Yovanovitch’s activities in Ukraine.

Hyde emerged Wednesday as the latest player in the Ukraine saga when Democrats released a batch of documents messages supplied by Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani to collecting information about Yovanovitch. . .

According to messages released on Wednesday, Hyde told Parnas in a March 23, 2019 text that “private security” was monitoring Yovanovitch. (Read more from “Texts From a Mysterious Belgian Number Shed Light on Possible Surveillance of Ambassador to Ukraine” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump’s Warning: Virginia Proves Again Democrats ‘Will Take Your Guns’ (VIDEO)

On January 17, 2020, President Donald Trump pointed to the gun control situation in Virginia, noting that it proves once more the Democrats “will take your guns” if voted into office.

He made this point amid the all-out war on guns by Gov. Ralph Northam (D) and the newly elected Democrat majority in the state legislature.

Virginia Democrats started this week intent on passing legislation allowing a total ban on the ownership of AR-15s and similar guns, but they dropped the confiscatory bill after thousands of NRA members flooded the hallways outside state Senate offices.

(Read more from “President Trump’s Warning: Virginia Proves Again Democrats ‘Will Take Your Guns’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Extreme Vetting’? Trump Administration to Continue Training Saudis on Our Military Bases

It is not too much to ask for a process to ensure that those who come into our country as immigrants or on long-term visas actually have a love for this country or, at the very least, not a hatred for it. Indeed, President Trump promised a moratorium on immigration from the Middle East until such a system could be conceived. But now the administration is not even ending the visa program that brings them to our military bases, even after the Pensacola attack.

After a supposedly vetted Saudi military trainee killed three people at Naval Air Station Pensacola, I noted that this would be the perfect time for Trump to fulfill a key campaign promise on immigration, as well as a promise to end the gun-free zone policies. In December 2015, Trump promised a “total and complete shutdown” of Middle Eastern migration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” and “where this hatred comes from.” Now, following the Pensacola terror attack, the Trump administration is refusing to terminate the Saudi training, much less suspend the broader program, much less suspend any of the hundreds of thousands of long-term visas and green cards given out to nationals of countries where this “hatred” is pervasive.

The Hill reported on Thursday that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper plans to visit the naval base in Pensacola next week and announce new security measures. However, one of those security measures will not be terminating these foreign military training programs. Instead, the DOD will be resuming the training of roughly 850 Saudis after it was temporarily suspended following the attack. In fact, several weeks ago, Esper expressed his desire to grow the program’s enrollment by 50 percent.

Are we really to believe that in just a few weeks’ time, officials have carefully vetted not just the 850 existing Saudi trainees but the several thousand others from countries like Afghanistan? How can we really know the nature of their family ties and whether they subscribe to jihadist views when we missed openly jihadist social media postings of Mohammad Alshamrani, the shooter at Pensacola?

The answer to these questions is further disquieting given that Attorney General William Barr seemed to indicate that we don’t even care about the Sharia supremacist views of those who enter the country for military training, much less as civilians. During Monday’s press conference, the attorney general announced that 21 members of the Saudi military were disenrolled in the training and are being sent back after 17 of them “had social media containing some jihadi or anti-American content” and “15 individuals (including some of the 17 just mentioned) had had some kind of contact with child pornography.”

I expected Barr to continue and declare emphatically that we will not tolerate jihadist sympathizers on our soil, much less on our bases, and that in the future there will be a system of vetting to bring in only those who we can confidently certify are against jihad. Instead, he went on to say that nothing posted was criminal under our laws. “However, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia determined that this material demonstrated conduct unbecoming an officer in the Saudi Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and the 21 cadets have been dis-enrolled from their training curriculum in the U.S. military and will be returning to Saudi Arabia (later today).”

As Andrew McCarthy observed in a recent column, our government is missing the point about terror threats. It’s not just about vetting visa applicants to see if they are carrying cards that identify them as members of a known terror group. It’s about vetting for the anti-American, Sharia-supremacist mindset.

“Consequently, it has long been known that our capacity to protect America from jihadist attacks hinges on our ability to discourage the infiltration of the political ideology that fuels them, which would necessitate vetting for sharia supremacism and jihadism when foreign Muslims seek to enter the United States,” wrote McCarthy, who studied Islamic ideology carefully as the lead prosecutor in one of America’s earliest Islamic terror trials. “Nevertheless, though the Constitution would not prevent such vetting (there being no constitutional right for an alien to enter the U.S.), our laws, guidelines, and political conditions have made it practically impossible to bar foreigners from entering the United States on ideological grounds. Instead, we draw the line at violence: If it can be shown that an alien has ties to a known terrorist group, or has engaged in terrorist activities, that alien may be denied entry.”

This is the core point made by President Trump in his speech in Ohio on August 15, 2016, when he announced his plan for “extreme vetting.”

“A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” said then-candidate Trump as he announced a new screening policy. Noting how the recent terror attacks “involved immigrants or the children of immigrants,” Trump was the first Republican to drill down on the need to not only “screen out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups,” but also “screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”

Trump again promised “to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism,” noting that “the size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate screening.”

“We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year,” observed Trump. “Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.”

The president was so presciently on target. There is simply no way to properly vet just one category of Saudis, much less hundreds of thousands of visa and green-card applicants from the most volatile countries.

Fast-forward three years, and in 2018, by my best estimate, we handed out over 150,000 green cards to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries, not including over 100,000 foreign student visas and other visa categories.

Three years in, if this administration won’t even halt foreign military training programs following the Pensacola terror attack, this is yet another immigration promise that is headed for the ash heap of history, unless conservatives gently but firmly remind the president of his continued opportunity to fulfill it. (For more from the author of “‘Extreme Vetting’? Trump Administration to Continue Training Saudis on Our Military Bases” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

SCOTUS to Hear Electoral College Case That Could Impact 2020 Election

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether electoral college delegates must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring their electors to follow the voters’ decision in their state.

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state’s popular vote are known as “faithless electors.” According to NBC News, the so-called problem of faithless electors has never really been an actual problem before. In fact, most states simply throw out the ballot of an elector who doesn’t follow the state’s popular vote.

But in 2016, the Democrats ran such a rotten candidate that several electors in states carried by Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for someone else. One elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for someone else — three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court’s decision, arguing “[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience.”

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one. (Read more from “SCOTUS to Hear Electoral College Case That Could Impact 2020 Election” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

There Is No Such Thing as Student Loan ‘Cancellation’

This week, Elizabeth Warren unveiled a plan to “cancel” billions of dollars worth of student loans without involving Congress. She believes a legal loophole may allow her to erase the debt with the stroke of her pen, no questions asked.

The most obvious problem with exploiting this loophole is that it probably doesn’t actually exist. The next most obvious problem is that this would represent a seismic expansion of executive power, which would be ironic given all of the concern among Democrats that Trump wants to be a dictator.

But there are two even larger and more fundamental issues with any plan to cancel student loans. First, there is no such thing as “canceling” student loans. What various Democratic candidates have proposed are plans to transfer, not cancel, the outstanding debt of millions of college graduates. They wish to remove the burden of the loans from the people who agreed to the loans and have received their degrees in exchange for it, and place that burden on the shoulders of people who did not agree to the loan and did not receive anything in exchange for it. Student debt will still be paid; we would just be taking the funds from someone else’s pocket.

Even under Warren’s magic wand proposal, the debt will still certainly land at someone’s doorstep and become their problem. If you think the federal government would ever in a million years choose, out of the kindness of its heart, to simply eat a $1.5 trillion dollar loss without recouping the funds elsewhere, I’ve got an invisible unicorn to sell you. The taxpayers will be footing the bill, one way or another. Of that much we can be sure.

The more feasible plans would supposedly see the loans transferred from college graduates to the dreaded “ultra rich.” I’ve got another unicorn to sell if you think the government is going to recover that full amount solely from billionaire CEOs. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that an initiative of this scope and size will inevitably involve tax hikes on everyone, no matter what they tell us now. But even putting that aside, rich people are still people, last I checked. We still have to deal, ethically, with the fact that we’d be requiring private citizens to pay back loans they didn’t take out, for a product they didn’t purchase. Defend that morally dubious model all you want, but don’t call it cancellation or forgiveness. Nothing at all is being forgiven. We are just forcing someone else to do the atoning. (Read more from “There Is No Such Thing as Student Loan ‘Cancellation’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Finally. the Feds — Including ICE — Appear to Be Investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar

On Oct. 30, I reported that the Department of Justice had assigned an FBI Special Agent in Charge, or SAC, to review Rep. Ilhan Omar’s apparent, astonishing spree of felonies from 2009 to 2017.

Minnesota state Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R) had previously filed a complaint on the matter with the Minnesota District of the Department of Justice. That office — headed by U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald, a 2018 Donald Trump appointee — directed the FBI to review the complaint. An FBI SAC formally met with Rep. Drazkowski, and others, in mid-October to receive a prepared file of evidence and related information. . .

In October, the FBI SAC stated that the wide range of criminal activity suggested by the evidence against Rep. Omar may lead the FBI to expand the review to other federal departments. In such situations, the SAC continued, the FBI often acts as a hub — sharing evidence, or coordinating a joint investigation, with several other investigative agencies. . .

Since August 2016, the remarkable story of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s past has produced scarce political, law enforcement, or media activity. A near-perfect inversion of the Trump/”Russian collusion” yarn, with which it is inseparable. . .

Concurrently — in August 2016 — Minnesota reporters Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar were publishing extensive, verified, still-unchallenged evidence implicating Rep. Omar in multiple felonies. Their exponentially more substantial evidence was ignored by the Democratic Party and supportive media. Their evidence was even ignored by law enforcement, per an extraordinary public dismissal shortly before Omar’s 2016 election to the Minnesota House of Representatives. (Read more from “Finally. the Feds — Including ICE — Appear to Be Investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Joe diGenova: American Embassy in Ukraine Blocked Giuliani and My Wife From Investigating Attempts to Frame Trump

Joe diGenova told Breitbart News that his wife, Victoria Toensing, and Rudy Giuliani were both blocked from obtaining visas to visit Ukraine due to pressure from the American embassy in Ukraine. He joined Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.

Marlow asked, “Joe, is it true that you’ve been travelling internationally to kind of investigate some of this stuff and to investigate some of the general corruption that you think is happening?”

DeGenova replied, “My wife, Victoria Toensing, was asked by Rudy Giuliani to represent some Ukrainian public officials and private individuals who had information about attempts to frame Donald Trump and Paul Manafort. Those efforts were underway to go interview those people overseas in Ukraine, but because of the resistance of the American embassy, the American embassy threatened the Ukrainian government not to grant visas to Rudy and my wife Victoria, and of course the trip never happened. There was no trip. There were no interviews conducted over there.”

(Read more from “Joe diGenova: American Embassy in Ukraine Blocked Giuliani and My Wife From Investigating Attempts to Frame Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE