Here’s Why State Election Officials Think Voter Fraud Is a Serious Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

Before he was the chief election officer for his state, Wayne Williams was the El Paso County, Colorado, clerk and saw firsthand how even a small amount of voter fraud can thwart the public will.

“As clerk, I saw two school board races decided by a single vote,” Williams told The Daily Signal. “I oversaw a municipal tax question that failed on a tie vote. So, yes, a single vote can make a difference. If someone is saying, well, it doesn’t happen a lot so it doesn’t matter, they’re just wrong, because it can make a difference. Even a single instance of an illegal vote causes an undermining in the confidence and diminishes turnout.”

Williams, now the Colorado secretary of state, was in the District of Columbia, for the winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State, which included a panel on election integrity.

The panel discussed the pending voter fraud commission that President Donald Trump has said he would appoint, to be headed by Vice President Mike Pence.

Trump has alleged that 3 million to 5 million illegal votes could have been cast in the November 2016 election, which he previously said might have cost him the popular vote against Hillary Clinton. In his pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, Trump said he would appoint Pence to head the probe.

Trump administration officials have cited an Old Dominion University study about noncitizens voting, and a Pew Research Center study that found millions of people listed on voter rolls across the country are listed in the wrong address, live in a different state, or in some cases are dead.

Williams, a Republican, thinks state and local election officials will play a major role in assisting in the probe.

“I welcome a process that’s designed to look at how we make the system better,” Williams said. “That’s true as a clerk, as secretary. I believe we ought to have that dialogue and explore ways we can clean up the process.”

Even as several speakers at the conference said that voter fraud doesn’t happen on a massive scale, Williams stressed that’s no reason to ignore it.

“Voter fraud is like bank robbery. It doesn’t happen most of the time, but it’s absolutely critical to take precautions against it,” Williams told The Daily Signal. “So, even though someone doesn’t rob a bank every day, they don’t put the money out in a pile and say, ‘Just take however much you like.’ It’s the same sense for we as elections officials. Most people who are voting accurately. They are eligible. But we have to have processes in place to protect against it. I know most people vote appropriately, but they need to have confidence their vote counts.”

During a panel on election integrity, Miles Rapoport, a senior fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, warned secretaries of state to be ready to answer questions from the Trump administration.

“We don’t know what will happen, but it’s entirely possible there will be a major commission on the subject of voter fraud,” Rapoport, a former head of liberal groups such as Demos and Common Cause, told the assembled secretaries.

Jesse Richman, a political science professor at Old Dominion University, did research extrapolating on a previous study that found 800,000 people may have voted in the 2016 presidential election. That’s significant, though well short of Trump’s alleged 3 million to 5 million illegal votes.

Because voter fraud is such a volatile issue, Richman said the commission must be transparent.

“Any result they find of significant or substantial levels of fraud will almost certainly be attacked,” Richman told The Daily Signal after speaking at a Judicial Watch forum on voter fraud.

Richman continued:

I think they should use the full range of data the federal government already has, as well as soliciting cooperation and collaboration with states, to try to address various aspects of election integrity and try to get a sense of magnitudes because magnitudes are really important. If we are trying to get a sense of a few thousand illegal votes cast by noncitizens across the country, that’s still potentially politically significant in a close race, but it’s not as big a problem as if we are talking about 100,000 or 200,000 or more. So I think it is important to get a sense of magnitude because stopping voter fraud is very costly and we want to figure out the least costly ways in terms of various kinds of cost to go about addressing the challenges.

The nation’s secretaries of state reached out to the administration, but haven’t received any response on details of the commission probe, said Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, chairwoman of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

“We have very little indication of exactly what they’re going to be doing thus far. I gather it will focus perhaps on lists, the accuracy of lists, the integrity of the eligibility of voters. It’s kind of hard to tell where they are going at this point,” Merrill, a Democrat, told The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why State Election Officials Think Voter Fraud Is a Serious Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Bashing the Media Channels America’s Disgust With Its Own Elites

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump’s latest news conference was at once a lot of fun, and kind of frustrating. My initial reaction was telling. I couldn’t help thinking, “Gosh I wish Ted Cruz were the man behind that microphone. He would deliver devastating answers, dismantle the reporters’ logic, cite chapter and verse of their actual news stories illustrating their leftist bias, and finish the event with a thin, victorious smile — having proved in meticulous detail that he was the smartest and best-prepared man in the room.”

Instead, Trump spoke in sweeping terms, dismissing the press corps as biased. He taunted, mocked, and all but jeered at the cream of the Washington press corps. He spoke in the way that he seems to have picked up from dealing with construction workers over decades in the building trade — bluntly and emotionally, with large dollops of chest-thumping. In pop culture terms, Trump sounded like a Robert De Niro character, confronting a room full of Jude Laws and Kelsey Grammars.

Trump Understands Why We’re Frustrated

But wasn’t that a reason Trump won the nomination, and Ted Cruz didn’t? The conservative who played the game of our country’s Progressive elites by their own rules at their best schools and beat them every time on the facts, the logic, and history … didn’t win over the voters. The guy whose politics were all over the map, who was driven by a simple, gut love of the concrete reality of America, was able to turn all those blue states red. He connected with blue collar workers, frustrated family men and women, and worried patriots, because he naturally spoke their language.

Too many conservatives whose policies and ideals really would benefit the country and protect the common man speak just like our toxic elites — who view national borders as tedious nuisances to vacation travel and millions of their fellow Americans as “deplorable.” That’s the reason my mailman dad would angrily switch off National Public Radio in our apartment — even when a (rare) conservative was speaking, or an announcer was just giving straight news. “Turn off those liberal fairies,” he would say, annoyed by their accents and diction. Come to think of it, he was probably irritated by mine. Think of Martin Crane rolling his eyes when Frasier and Niles start nattering about French cheeses.

What’s Really Deplorable is the Economy

The disconnect between our preening, self-congratulatory elites and harried, struggling Americans is real and based on more than cultural resentment, as a recent fact-packed story in Commentary reveals. Go read for yourself conservative scholar Nicholas Eberstadt’s alarming analysis of the economic indicators too often ignored by economists. What he concludes is that Trump’s populism is driven not by ethnic resentment, cultural backlash, or ideology — but the concrete reality that our economic and political systems have been optimized to benefit a narrow class of highly educated people with a homogeneous, narrow set of “acceptable” cultural, political, and religious views.

For proof of that fact, remember what Trump strategist Steve Bannon said at the Vatican in 2014 about the immoral 2008 bailout of reckless bankers’ gambling on shady mortgage investments. When ordinary taxpaying workers go to Vegas and clean out their savings, or get hooked on Vicodin after an injury, there isn’t some massive federal program that will make them whole again. There’s no golden parachute. But there are, as Eberstadt points out, just enough forms of government support (i.e., disability benefits) to keep people barely surviving. And in our staggering jobs market, that’s a temptation to which far too many once hard-working Americans are succumbing.

Learning to Talk Trump

Rather than dryly repeat them, let me sum up Eberstadt’s conclusions in terms that my dad would have gotten, and offer the kind of response that he and millions of Trump voters likely would have.

Rich investors are doing better than ever, but ordinary people are struggling to live as well as their parents did.

Unemployment is down, but that is only true because that number doesn’t count the tens of millions who have given up looking for jobs. (But we keep on importing a million unskilled workers every year — so the snooty people whose jobs are safe can feel good about themselves, and have lots of ethnic restaurants to choose from.)

Economic growth has slowed, and its benefits have narrowed to those social classes best at lobbying for their interests or shaping our institutions to protect themselves. (Yeah, the rich get richer, and the snobs rig the system. What else is new?)

What’s valuable about Eberstadt’s essay is that it repeats in sober prose and alarming fact the grim truths that Donald Trump talks about in fiery Tweets and angry exchanges with cosseted reporters. There’s a very good reason that millions of people saw the need to “Make America Great Again,” and it had nothing to do with preserving “white cis-gendered heterosexual privilege.”

Whether Trump and his team can overcome the massive institutional resistance to his proposals, and craft policies that actually change things, only time will tell. We don’t know if he has the answers. But at least he could hear the questions. (For more from the author of “Trump Bashing the Media Channels America’s Disgust With Its Own Elites” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty today. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs — beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well — her house, her savings, her retirement funds — by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.

Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronnelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronnelle rejected the proposed settlement.

She explained,

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.

Today, on my radio show, shortly after the ruling was announced, and with the full weight of the state’s ruling hanging over her head, she told me she would do the same thing again (stating that when God changes His Word, she will change her mind) — also stating without the slightest trace of bitterness that she would gladly serve Robert Ingersoll should he come into her store today.

Where are the Christians?

Friends, what we are witnessing today is a breathtaking abuse of power, an extreme overreach by the government, a shocking example of LGBT activism out of control. Yet, over the next 7 days, church services will come and go without a word being spoken, and over the next 48 hours, the Christian blogosphere will remain relatively quiet. How can this be?

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (Nov. 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well. And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis, and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.

Please stop and read these words carefully.

Schlink wrote,

We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues, we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes. But we lacked the ardor of love — love that is never passive, love that cannot bear it when its fellow men are in misery, particularly when they are subjected to such appalling treatment and tortured to death. Indeed, if we had loved God, we would not have endured seeing those houses of God set ablaze; and holy, divine wrath would have filled our souls. … Oh, that we as Germans and as Christians would stand aghast and cry out ever anew, “What have we done!” At every further evidence of our guilt may we repeat the cry. (From her book Israel, My Chosen People: A German Confession Before God and the Jews.)

What adds to the tragic irony of the moment is that in recent weeks, designers have said they will no longer work with Melania Trump and stores have dropped Ivanka Trump product lines, not because of deeply held religious beliefs, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, but because of political differences. And these companies and individuals are being praised by liberal Americans for standing on their convictions. But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronnelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away from the gospel — as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the LGBT community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Let me urge you, then, to do three things: 1) share this article with others to help spread the word; 2) make a statement about this gross injustice however you can (on social media; to your family; from your pulpit — I’m urging every pastor reading this column to say something to your flock the next opportunity you have); 3) go to this website to stand with Barronnelle and her team; 4) pray for God to awaken the Church of America.

Will you take a stand today? (For more from the author of “Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dismantling Obama Regulations Will Require Resolve in the Senate

/0 Comments/in , /by

In just eight years, the Obama administration was responsible for creating 22,700 new burdensome regulations on the American people.

During this time, federal agencies seized more power than ever in creating laws on their own, going largely unchecked by Congress.

Regulatory overreach became a hot-button issue during the 2016 election as the American people grew tired of unelected bureaucrats regulating their lives from Washington.

That’s when Donald Trump hit the campaign trail with a message that resonated. Trump told his supporters in September 2016, “I will eliminate all needless and job-killing regulations now on the books.”

Four months later, Trump followed through with his promise. In January, the Trump administration put a freeze on “new and pending” regulations and issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to get rid of two regulations for every new one issued.

A president willing to work toward ending the modern administrative state is a breath of fresh air in Washington. Trump has done his part. Now, it is time for Congress to contribute by utilizing the Congressional Review Act.

Passed into law in 1996, the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to invalidate an agency rule by passing a joint resolution of disapproval, not subject to a Senate filibuster, that the president signs into law.

Many conservatives see the Congressional Review Act as Congress’ most valuable tool in dismantling costly regulations dating back to the mid-1990s.

However, in the four weeks Republicans have controlled both the executive and legislative branches, the House of Representatives has introduced only 24 joint resolutions and passed just six of them over to the Senate for approval.

Of those six, the Senate has only passed three to be signed into law by Trump. He has signed all three.

>>>See Paul Larkin’s full explanation of the reach of the Congressional Review Act.

The question begging to be answered here is, what’s the hold up?

For what it’s worth, the Senate has been brought to a grinding halt due to the unprecedented obstruction Senate Democrats have imposed on Trump’s Cabinet nominees. But that should not detract Senate leadership from making deregulation a legislative priority in 2017.

As soon confirmation battles are finished, Congress should move swiftly to begin regulatory reform, a $120 billion yearly expense on the taxpayer.

Due to the Congressional Review Act’s unique structure and ability to evade obstruction, there are a few steps the Senate should take to start voting on these joint resolutions at a more consistent rate.

Perhaps one of the most important components of the Senate is time. Time is allocated to both the minority and majority party to debate legislation. The minority party often uses debate time to drag out the legislative process in order to slow down the opposition’s agenda.

Thankfully, the Congressional Review Act removes the filibuster from being used to block regulations from being overturned. Instead, debate is limited to 10 hours, and then the resolution overturning the rule can be passed with only a majority vote.

However, a little-noticed provision in the statute allows for those 10 hours to be even further reduced—again, only with a majority vote. Assuming all Senate Republicans voted together, that means the Senate could pass resolutions disproving troves of Obama-era regulations, with minimal debate and only a simple majority vote.

In addition, the Senate has yet to take up the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support on Jan. 4, 2017. This legislation would allow the House to batch up several of the Obama administration’s “midnight regulations” to be repealed in one resolution.

If passed and signed into law, the House would be able to speed up the process exponentially.

The House has already shown it is willing to do its part. It is simply waiting on the Senate to take action.

For a Congress looking to undo the damaging regulatory legacy of President Barack Obama, the Congressional Review Act is a gift. It just needs to be used. (For more from the author of “Dismantling Obama Regulations Will Require Resolve in the Senate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Globalists Strike Back With a Major Push Toward a Cashless Society

/0 Comments/in , /by

Their agenda may be on the rocks in the United States at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that the globalists are giving up. In fact, a major push toward a cashless society is being made in the European Union right now. Last May we learned that the 500 euro note is being completely eliminated, and just a few weeks ago the European Commission released a new “Action Plan” which instructs member states to explore “potential upper limits to cash payments”. In the name of “fighting terrorism”, this “Action Plan” discusses the benefits of “prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold” and it says that those prohibitions should include “virtual currencies (such as BitCoin) and prepaid instruments (such as pre-paid credit cards) when they are used anonymously.”

This new document does not mention what an appropriate threshold would be for member states, but we do know that Spain already bans certain cash transactions above 2,500 euros, and Italy and France already ban cash transactions above 1,000 euros.

This is a perfect way to transition to a cashless society without creating too much of an uproar. By setting a maximum legal level for cash transactions and slowly lowering it, in effect you can slowly but surely phase cash out without people understanding what is happening.

And there are many places in Europe where it is very difficult to even use cash at this point. In Sweden, many banks no longer take or give out cash, and approximately 95 percent of all retail transactions are entirely cashless. So even though Sweden has not officially banned cash, using cash is no longer practical in most situations. In fact, many tourists are shocked to find out that they cannot even pay bus fare with cash.

So most of Europe is already moving in this direction, and now this new Action Plan is intended to accelerate the transition toward a cashless society. The public is being told that these measures are being taken to fight money laundering and terrorism, but of course that is only a small part of the truth. The following comes from the Anti-Media…

The European Action Plan doesn’t mention a specific dollar amount for restrictions, but as expected, their reasoning for the move is to thwart money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Border checks between countries have already been bolstered to help implement these new standards on hard assets. Although these end goals are plausible, there are other clear motivations for governments to target paper money that aren’t as noble.

In a truly cashless society, governments would be able to track where everybody is and what everybody is doing all the time. And in order to have access to the cashless system, people would have to comply with whatever requirements governments wanted to impose on their helpless populations. The potential for tyranny that this would create would be off the charts, but very few people seem greatly alarmed by the move toward a cashless system all over the globe.

Even in the United States there are calls for a cashless system. For example, the former chief economist for the IMF wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal not too long ago in which he recommended the elimination of the $100 bill…

“There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism. There are substitutes for cash—cryptocurrencies, uncut diamonds, gold coins, prepaid cards—but for many kinds of criminal transactions, cash is still king. It delivers absolute anonymity, portability, liquidity and near-universal acceptance.”

Over in Asia restrictions are being put on cash as well. Legendary investor Jim Rogers commented on what is currently happening in India during one recent podcast…

The time will come when you won’t be able to buy a cup of coffee without being traced, warns investment guru Jim Rogers. To control people, governments will increasingly seek to hunt down cash spending, he adds.

“Governments are always looking out for themselves first, and it’s the same old thing that has been going on for hundreds of years. The Indians recently did the same thing. They withdrew 86 percent of the currency in circulation, and they have now made it illegal to spend more than, I think it’s about $4,000 in any cash transaction. In France you cannot use more than, I think it’s a €1,000,” said Rogers in an interview with MacroVoices Podcast.

The reason why this is taking place all over the planet is because this is a global agenda.

The globalists ultimately plan to completely eliminate cash, and this will give them an unprecedented level of control over humanity.

One thing that many fear may someday be implemented is some form of microchip identification system. In order to access the cashless grid, you would need your “ID chip” so that the system could positively identify you, but of course there are millions of people around the world that do not intend to get chipped under any circumstances.

In the old days, you would be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” just for suggesting that they may try to chip all of us one day, but in 2017 things have completely changed.

Just look at what is happening in Nevada. A bill has been introduced in the state senate that would outlaw the “forced microchipping of people”…

State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem, because it happens in some places around the world.

Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.

The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.

If that sounds very strange to you, then you may not know that companies all around the globe are already starting to explore this type of technology. For instance, a company in Belgium called NewFusion has actually begun to microchip their employees…

In a move that could be lifted straight from science fiction, workers at a Belgian marketing firm are being offered the chance to have microchips implanted in their bodies.

The chips contain personal information and provide access to the company’s IT systems and headquarters, replacing existing ID cards.

The controversial devices raise questions about personal security and safety, including whether they may allow the movements of people with implants to be tracked.

Technology like this often starts off being “voluntary”, but then after enough people willingly accept it the transition to “mandatory” is not too difficult.

We live at one of the most critical moments in all of human history, and the globalists are certainly not going to lay down and die just because Donald Trump won the election.

The U.S. represents less than five percent of the population of the planet, and in most of the world the agenda of the globalists is on track and is rapidly advancing.

The globalists want a unified one world economy, a unified one world religion and a unified one world government. The election of Donald Trump was a blow to the globalists, but it has also made them more dangerous, more ruthless and more determined than ever before.

And in case you think that using the term “globalists” is a bit strange, the truth is that even the New York Times is using it to describe the global elite and their global agenda.

We are in a life or death battle for the future of our society, and the globalists are never going to give up until they get what they want. So now is not a time for complacency, because the very future of our country is at stake. (For more from the author of “The Globalists Strike Back With a Major Push Toward a Cashless Society” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When it comes to taking on the LGBT lobby’s cultural cronies, officials in Texas are setting a new standard for conservative lawmakers, and going on the offensive against recent threats from the National Football League.

It all began when legislators introduced SB 6, a state-level privacy bill that would dare violate and blaspheme the LGBT lobby’s latest commandment: “Thou shalt not leave bathroom safety policies up to private institutions.”

Of course, the anticipated dragoons of artists and musicians deployed in an initial strike against the bill, as they have done countless other. But now the professional sports have gotten involved.

The most pertinent development in the brewing Lonestar Bathroom Battle™ came when the NFL issued a statement saying that, if passed, the legislation might interfere with future Super Bowls in the state.

“The NFL is walking on thin ice right here,” Republican Governor Greg Abbott told Glenn Beck Tuesday. “The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.”

A day later, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick doubled down, going after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s alleged hypocrisy on the issue:

“The NFL embraces inclusiveness,” an NFL spokesman told the Houston Chronicle in an email last week. “We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events, and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.”

Of course, the NFL, its teams, its owners, and its vendors can embrace whatever bathroom policy they want at games and events. The Texas bill – just like its maligned and misrepresented sister in North Carolina – is written to give private institutions the freedom to do so. If the NFL wants to enforce that everyone in the stands be assigned a different set of restrooms every quarter and institute a free-for-all co-ed scenario during halftime at every Cowboys game, the state would have no recourse under the provisions of SB 6.

These, however, are facts — “stubborn things” that should never be allowed to get in the way of a tear-jerking leftist narrative. Meanwhile, rather than wait out the inevitable storm, Patrick and Abbott are taking the fight to the cultural cronies themselves – disarming the playbook and pointing out the Left’s absurdity before it happens in full form. (For more from the author of “Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Blasts ‘Fake News’ and ‘Failing’ Media Outlets

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump went toe-to-toe with the media at the White House news conference Thursday, using terms such as “fake news” and “failing” to describe many of the recent stories about his administration.

“I turn on the TV, open the newspapers, and I see stories of chaos, chaos,” Trump said. “Yet it is the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my Cabinet approved.”

He also said, “In other words, the media’s trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they’re not happy about it for whatever reason.”

During the press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked, “Aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like ‘fake news?’”

Trump said, “I’m changing it from fake news, though. Very fake news.”

Trump continued:

It’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press—the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.

Trump said, “I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress. I think that’s right.”

Trump singled out CNN more than any other news outlet, saying, “I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.”

Acosta later said, “Just for the record, we don’t hate you. I don’t hate you.”

Trump responded, “Ask [CNN President] Jeff Zucker how he got his job. OK?”

Major media figures, such as NBC’s Chuck Todd, expressed alarm at Trump’s comments.

However, Jeff Mason, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association who covers the president for Reuters, had a more reserved view.

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, who has in the past been a critic of Trump, said some aspects of the press conference amused him.

This marks the third press conference for Trump this week, after holding two prior press conferences with foreign leaders.

Regarding the story about Trump’s recent firing of national security adviser Michael Flynn and his communication with a Russian ambassador, Trump said: “The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.”

Trump went on to denounce coverage about his campaign aides communicating with Russians.

“The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday and it was very much discredited, as you know,” Trump said. “It was—it’s a joke, and the people mentioned in the story, I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia. They weren’t even a part, really—I mean, they were such a minor part. They—I hadn’t spoken to them.”

He later talked about a Wall Street Journal story that said intelligence officials didn’t trust the president.

“And just while you’re at it, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Times’ story yesterday.”

Trump said he’s actually having fun speaking to the press:

I’m actually having a very good time, OK? … I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time. Tomorrow, they will say, ‘Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.’ I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.

(For more from the author of “Trump Blasts ‘Fake News’ and ‘Failing’ Media Outlets” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Confirms Mick Mulvaney as OMB Director

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate voted 51-49 Thursday to confirm Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., who will be tasked with addressing the nation’s $20 trillion in national debt, as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mulvaney, a Republican representing South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District in the House since 2011, will be responsible for directing the budget process and reforming entitlement policy at the Office of Management and Budget.

Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that Mulvaney has a proven track record of conservative leadership.

“With the national debt soon to exceed $20 trillion as spending on health care, old-age entitlements, and net interest is projected to grow steeply, driving our debt to ever greater heights, it’s extremely encouraging to see a fiscal conservative with a conservative track record, such as Mick Mulvaney, confirmed as director of the White House budget office,” Boccia said.

Rep. Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said Mulvaney will serve President Donald Trump’s administration well.

“The House’s loss is President Trump’s gain,” the North Carolina Republican said in a statement. “In my time serving in Congress, Mick Mulvaney is truly one of the sharpest minds and most principled men I have come to know. His passion for his work and his relentless commitment to fiscal responsibility will make him a tremendous OMB director.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted against Mulvaney’s confirmation, citing concerns that Mulvaney would support cuts to military funding.

During his confirmation hearing, Mulvaney acknowledged the importance of the military.

“The No. 1 priority of the United States federal government is to defend the nation,” Mulvaney said.

Other Republican lawmakers, however, voiced full confidence in Mulvaney’s ability to lead the Office of Management and Budget.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Mulvaney will “improve the way government does the people’s business.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., said Mulvaney is a “tireless advocate” for a responsible budget.

“Mick Mulvaney has been a tireless advocate for a sustainable budget that reduces the national debt,” Black said in a statement. “ … I am confident he will be a great partner in the White House as we work toward a balanced budget.”

Mulvaney has been a leader of the conservative movement in Congress.

He is one of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of members in the House who “support open, accountable, and limited government; the Constitution and the rule of law; and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.”

Before representing South Carolina in the House, Mulvaney served in the South Carolina state Senate.

In Congress, Mulvaney served on the House Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Boccia said she is confident that Mulvaney will work to reform entitlement programs and address government spending.

“I am hopeful he’ll be able to move the needle in the right direction on entitlement reforms, tackling the nation’s out-of-control spending and debt problem head on, to secure opportunity and prosperity for current and future generations,” she said. (For more from the author of “Senate Confirms Mick Mulvaney as OMB Director” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In an effort to help the Trump White House and “feckless” Republicans running for cover from the post-Flynn fallout, Mark Levin asked the real question about the recent intelligence leaks that led to National Secuirty Advisor Michael Flynn’s departure: “What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?”

“Where did the orders come from to intercept these phone calls? To record these phone calls?” Levin asked on his radio show Wednesday night. And, most-importantly, “Who knew about it?”

Listen:

“It is not that simple to get authorization from the FISA court … particularly when it comes to private citizens,” Levin said, recalling his experience in Reagan’s Department of Justice. “So the question is how many of these phone calls were intercepted and recorded by the Obama administration.”

“This, ladies and gentlemen, is the real scandal,” Levin concluded. “Because even the NYT has to admit that there is no evidence” Michael Flynn broke the law by communicating with his Russian counterparts.

It’s also important to know, Levin added, how many other members of the Trump team had their communications intercepted by the Obama administration.

“I don’t believe this intercept was a one-off,” he said. “I suspect there have been a lot more intercepts and I don’t believe that he is the only one.” (For more from the author of “Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Randomly Releases Trump Real Estate Investigation Records From the 1970s

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FBI on Wednesday released nearly 400 pages of records from an investigation it conducted on Donald Trump’s family real estate company in the early 1970s.

The documents consist of interview notes, handwritten statements and FBI reports compiled during the bureau’s investigation, which occurred between 1972 and 1974.

The FBI’s investigation centered on allegations that the Trump Management Company, which was owned by Trump’s father, Fred, discriminated against applicants for apartment rentals based on their race.

The federal lawsuit was widely reported during the presidential campaign with Democrats using the case to argue that Trump, an executive with the company at the time, is racist. The Justice Department settled with Trump Management in 1975 with the company admitting no wrongdoing but agreeing to provide more rentals to minority applicants.

The timing of the document dump is sure to raise questions given an ongoing battle between federal agencies and the Trump administration over leaks of classified information to the media.

(Read more from “FBI Randomly Releases Trump Real Estate Investigation Records From the 1970s” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.