Professional Republicans in the #NeverTrump movement continue to oppose the presumptive nominee selected by the GOP electorate and are now floating strategies to throw the election to Hillary Clinton.
However, an examination of Clinton’s campaign promises reveals that Republicans who are willing to thwart Trump in favor of Clinton will be complicit in electing a President who would seek to bring about the complete and, possibly irreversible, dissolution of our nation’s borders.
A review of Clinton’s stated positions on the issue suggests she is perhaps the most extreme candidate on immigration ever to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency. Her views place her even further outside the mainstream of the American electorate than President Barack Obama, who systematically dismantled U.S. immigration law during his two terms in office . . .
Clinton has pledged to enact amnesty within her first 100 days in office. As NBC recently reported: “If elected, the former secretary of state has promised to build on President Obama’s executive actions and introduce comprehensive immigration reform during her first 100 days in office.”
Clinton’s website has explained that by “comprehensive immigration reform,” Clinton means full citizenship for illegal immigrants, which would give them welfare access, voting privileges, and the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration. (Read more from “Clinton Releases Plan to Dissolve U.S. Border Within 100 Days” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24293026090_06ea9fef5d_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 23:25:182016-05-29 00:00:31Clinton Releases Plan to Dissolve U.S. Border Within 100 Days
The Obama administration is stepping in to prevent Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from being deposed in a legal case dealing with her use of a private email server for classified information.
The Hill reported Friday that the Justice Department has filed a motion opposing a request from legal watchdog Judicial Watch that Clinton be deposed.
The filing states Judicial Watch is, “seeking instead to transform these proceedings into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters beyond the scope of the court’s order and unrelated to the FOIA request at issue in this case.”
Attorneys filed the motion Thursday, calling the request to depose Clinton “wholly inappropriate.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the request to have Clinton deposed was made for an important purpose. “Mrs. Clinton’s testimony will help the courts determine whether her email practices thwarted the Freedom of Information Act.”
The case against Clinton is a result of Judicial Watch’s attempts to obtain documentation related to the 2012 terrorist attack’s in Benghazi. Investigation into the incident expanded into questions concerning Clinton’s handling of classified emails.
Although Clinton is not expected to be called on to answer questions in the original case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said, “Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.”
The Justice Department called the request to depose Clinton “overbroad and duplicative.” The motion also asserted the depositions in the original case should be finished before attempting to question Clinton. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Files Motion in an Effort to Protect Clinton” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2616365071_39d1125d07_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 23:24:372016-05-29 00:01:11Obama Administration Files Motion in an Effort to Protect Clinton
Donald Trump once again injected a conspiracy theory into the 2016 campaign cycle, saying in an interview published Monday that he found the death of former Clinton White House aide to be “very fishy.”
The presumptive Republican nominee told The Washington Post last week that the suicide of Vincent Foster was a “very serious” issue and appeared dubious.
“He had intimate knowledge of what was going on,” Trump told the newspaper. “He knew everything that was going on and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.”
“I don’t bring [Foster] up because I don’t know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder,” he added. “I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.” (Read more from “Trump: I Don’t Know Enough to Discuss, but Suicide of Former Clinton White House Aide ‘Very Fishy'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-59.jpg7331100Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 23:22:562016-05-29 00:02:45Trump: I Don’t Know Enough to Discuss, but Suicide of Former Clinton White House Aide ‘Very Fishy’
After suggesting a debate between himself and Bernie Sanders earlier this week, GOP nominee Donald Trump has since backed away from the proposal, claiming it would be “inappropriate” to hold a debate with Sanders, the “second-place finisher.”
“As much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders — and it would be an easy payday — I will wait to debate the first-place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be,” said Trump in a statement.
On Wednesday, Trump suggested a willingness to debate Sanders during a guest appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, provided the proceeds went to charity.
“Yes, I am [willing to debate Sanders],” Trump said. “How much is he going to pay me? If he paid a nice sum toward a charity, I’d love to do that.”
Trump doubled down on his suggestion the following day, claiming that such a debate could generate millions towards charitable contributions.
“If we can raise for maybe women’s health issues or something — if we can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well,” Trump said Thursday during a press conference.
In response, the Sanders campaign released a statement claiming they had received offers from at least two television networks expressing a desire to host the event.
“We look forward to a substantive debate that will contrast the very different visions that Sen. Sanders and Mr. Trump have for the future of our country,” read the statement.
Soon after, the Trump campaign released its own statement saying he was unwilling to participate, claiming the networks would “make a killing” with no guarantee they would donate to a charitable cause.
Sanders followed up by mocking Trump and telling reporters, “Well, I hope that he changes his mind again. Mr. Trump has been known to change his mind many times in a day.”
“Well Mr. Trump, what are you afraid of?” Sanders asked.
Charitable benefits aside, a Sanders/Trump debate provides little political advantage for Trump. He has guaranteed his place as the Republican nominee and has little need to debate anyone beyond his Democratic presidential opponent.
Sanders, on the other hand, is locked in a desperate fight with Hillary Clinton, and needs all the attention he can get. A nationally televised event would have helped him achieve that goal. (For more from the author of “Trump Cancels Plan to Debate ‘Second-Place Finisher’ Bernie Sanders” please click HERE)
President Barack Obama’s speech at Hiroshima was a poignant discourse on the horrors of war. He spoke eloquently of the death of innocent lives and the hope for a better tomorrow. But his trip is fraught with the potential for misinterpretation.
As the end of his presidency approaches, Obama sought to resurrect his utopian vision of a world without nuclear weapons that he first articulated in 2009.
The Obama administration promised that the president’s trip would be focused on the future. But by delivering his remarks at Hiroshima, he needlessly resurrected painful and contentious historic issues.
In his remarks, the president did not explicitly apologize for the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons to end World War II as some had advocated. But he implicitly criticizes the “terrible force unleashed” at Hiroshima and laments “how often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.”
His comments reflect an aloof view disdainful of all violence, lumping aggressors and defenders together. Hiroshima was a tragedy but so were all the lives lost in the preceding years of conflict.
Visiting the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., is a sobering experience. The cascade of gold stars adorning the walls are a heart-rending depiction of the 400,000 American service members who died in both the Pacific and European theaters of war.
Each of the 4,048 stars represents 100 American deaths—sons, fathers, and brothers who never came home. Imagine the human tragedy if the number of gold stars were doubled, which would result from a full-scale Allied invasion of Japan.
Nor does Obama mention the millions of Japanese lives spared by the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his memoir, President Harry Truman wrote that after Japan rejected another plea for surrender, he had no qualms about his decision to drop the bombs “if millions of lives could be saved … I meant both American and Japanese lives.”
Emperor Hirohito announced to his subjects that he based his decision to end the war on the “new and most cruel bomb … Should we continue to fight, it would … result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation.” In addition, there are estimates that 100,000 to 250,000 non-combatants in occupied Asia would have died for every month that the war was extended.
Hiroshima reflects the tragedy not just of a weapon of war, but of aggressive regimes and the wars they impose. Rather than a utopian quest to eliminate nuclear arms, he should have called on nations to band together against the despots who still threaten to impose their will over weaker neighbors.
As Americans prepare to enjoy the Memorial Day holiday, we should reflect on the meaning of the day.
We honor the brave men and women of the U.S. military who for centuries have fought and made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom for ourselves and others overseas subjugated to despots. Many of those did so during the four years brought on by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Rather than describing an idealistic vision of the future, perhaps Obama should have pondered George Orwell’s comment that “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
As President Ronald Reagan declared in his inauguration speech, “The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s Hiroshima Speech Reflects His Unrealistic View of History” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/barack-obama-45-110661297801680sCW.jpg9441280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 00:22:212016-05-28 00:22:21Obama’s Hiroshima Speech Reflects His Unrealistic View of History
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — a former GOP presidential candidate and rival of Donald Trump — has confirmed he will be attending the Republican National Convention and said he will even speak on Trump’s behalf if asked to do so.
In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Rubio said, “I want to be helpful. I don’t want to be harmful, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president.” The Republican National Convention will be held in Cleveland in July.
Pointing out the fact that his policy ideas and Trump’s differ, Rubio added, “That said … I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president. If there’s something I can do to help that from happening, and it’s helpful to the cause, I’d most certainly be honored to be considered for that.”
This is in direct contrast to a tweet from earlier this year in which Rubio, using the hashtag #NeverTrump, indicated he was joining with other Republicans who would not vote for Trump regardless of the circumstances.
Rubio also told Tapper that he would release his 167 delegates.
When asked if he would be interested in becoming Trump’s running mate, Rubio said he “wouldn’t be the right choice for Trump,” adding, “He won the nomination and he deserves to have a running mate that more fully embraces some of the things he stands for.”
Admitting to still having political aspirations, Rubio said it was a “safe assumption” that he would again run for political office, saying, “I can tell you I enjoy public service. If there’s an opportunity to serve again in a way that I feel passionate about, I’ll most certainly think I would explore it.” (For more from the author of “Rubio Makes Surprise Announcement About Republican Convention, Trump” please click HERE)
Is there an increasing hostility to Christian values and religious freedoms in our country today? Here are seven representative examples, all from the last few weeks. Judge for yourself.
1. The NCAA announced that it will not hold any men’s and women’s Final Four basketball events in a city that “discriminates” against anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
In its official statement, the NCAA declared, “The board’s decision follows the recent actions of legislatures in several states, which have passed laws allowing residents to refuse to provide services to some people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While proponents of the laws focus on how they protect religious beliefs, critics have voiced concerns that they create an environment of sanctioned discrimination.”
Not only, then, has the NCAA grossly mischaracterized these recent laws, but it is now guilty of discriminating against biblically based beliefs and declaring that no Final Four game will be held in any city that does not allow men to use women’s bathrooms or that protects a Christian photographer from being forced to shoot a same-sex “wedding.”
2. The Colorado Supreme Court has chosen not to hear the case of Christian baker Jack Phillips who was previously ordered by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, re-educate his staff, and file quarterly ‘compliance’ reports for two years.”
According to Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, “We asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take this case to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living. Jack, who has happily served people of all backgrounds for years, simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message and event with which he disagrees, and that freedom shouldn’t be placed in jeopardy for anyone.”
The Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the state’s Civil Rights Commission not only has the power to require a bakery to make same-sex “wedding” cakes but also to require that baker to “reeducate” his staff and file regular reports proving that he is baking those cakes.
Chairman Mao would be proud of state-mandated “reeducation” like this.
3. Dr. Eric Walsh, the highly qualified, newly hired District Health Director with the Georgia Department of Public Health was fired because of the content of his sermons as a Seventh Day Adventist.
As expressed by Jeremy Dys, an attorney with First Liberty, which has taken on Walsh’s case, “No one in this country should be fired from their job for something that was said in a church or from a pulpit during a sermon.” And as noted by attorney David French, “Working for former president Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views.”
How dare he preach what the Bible says and try to serve his country at the same time.
4. Several senators have introduced a bill that would deem “all efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity an ‘unfair or deceptive act or practice’ under the Federal Trade Commission Act.”
That’s right. It would be illegal — a form of “medical malpractice” — to counsel someone struggling with same-sex attraction or gender identify confusion, but it would be perfectly legal to encourage someone to embrace those attractions or act on that confusion.
Already in 2009, conservative journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman wryly observed:
A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”
The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”
Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”
The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”
Family therapist Adam Jessel offered a similar observation: “In today’s climate, if Bill tells me that he is attracted to his neighbor Fred’s young child and he wants to reduce these attractions, I, as a therapist, can try to help him. If Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred’s wife, this too is something I am permitted to help him with. But if Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred himself, then it’s regarded as unethical for me to help.”
If this new bill becomes law, it would not only be considered unethical to help Bill deal with his same-sex attractions, it would be illegal.
It would also be illegal to help a person get to the root of his or her gender confusion, but it would be perfectly legal for a counselor to recommend hormone blockers for a 10-year-old to stop the onset of puberty and then to prepare that child for sex-change surgery as soon as they were old enough.
Here are a few more examples, in shorter form, all from recent weeks.
5. The NBA announced that it will not hold next year’s All-Star game in Charlotte, North Carolina unless the state changes HB2, the Bathroom Privacy Act.
So, unless North Carolina agrees to let grown men use women’s locker rooms and changing facilities, and unless it removes protections for religious liberties, it will be punished.
6. The Department of Education has decided, “Religious schools that receive federal money yet obtain federal exemptions to [allegedly!] discriminate against LGBT students and employees will have their waivers posted online for public view.”
This means that any Christian institution receiving federal money and at the same time holding to biblical morality and sexuality could suffer adverse consequences.
“Led by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the lawmakers said in December, ‘We are concerned these waivers allow for discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.’”
Oh, those terrible religious freedoms!
7. As reported on Breitbart News, “A federal court sided with a transgender student who insisted that the Obama administration’s reading of federal Title IX rules would allow her to choose her own bathroom at her Virginia high school.”
According to the exultant Virginia ACLU, “With this decision, we hope that schools and legislators will finally get the message that excluding transgender kids from the restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination.”
In other words, no matter of what kind of hardship or inconvenience this puts on the rest of the students, and without any type of scientific proof that a child is actually “transgender,” the perceived needs of the one or two struggling children will be imposed on the other 1,000, and the Obama administration will come after your school if you fail to comply.
What’s scary is that I could have listed quite a few more examples, all from the month of April.
Believers in America, if somehow you are still sleeping, it is high time you woke up. (For more from the author of “7 Sure Signs America Has Declared War on Our Faith” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/cross-671379_960_720-1.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-27 22:33:442016-05-29 01:12:417 Sure Signs America Has Declared War on Our Faith
Donald Trump has reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the GOP presidential nomination, securing his status as the presumptive Republican nominee and avoiding a contested convention, according to a delegate count released Thursday by the Associated Press.
The AP reports that Trump was has reached 1,238 delegates, put over the 1,237 needed to win the nomination by a small number of the party’s unbound delegates who said they would support him at the convention. Trump will most likely add more delegates to his total before the convention in Cleveland, giving him a comfortable victory.
Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton . . .
Trump, a political neophyte who for years delivered caustic commentary on the state of the nation from the sidelines but had never run for office, fought off 16 other Republican contenders in an often ugly primary race.
Many on the right have been slow to warm to Trump, wary of his conservative bona fides and concerned about his crass personality. A so-called “Never Trump” movement, featuring high-profile conservatives, has frequently considered running a third-party candidate, but such efforts have so far not produced a candidate. (Read more from “Trump Reaches Delegate Number to Clinch GOP Nomination” HERE)
Hollywood has always loved making films about the walking dead, but in Southern California it appears they have a real life problem with “zombie” voters.
An investigation by CBSLA2 and KCAL9 found that hundreds of deceased persons are still on voter registration rolls in the area, and that many of these names have been voting for years in Los Angeles.
For example, John Cenkner died in 2003 according to Social Security Administration records, yet he voted in the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010 elections. His daughter told the station that she was “astounded” and couldn’t “understand how anybody” could get away with this.
Another voter, Julita Abutin, died in 2006 but voted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. According to CBS, the county confirmed they have “signed vote-by-mail envelopes” from Abutin since she passed away. So either someone has been forging her signature or her ghost has quite an earthly presence.
The investigation revealed that 265 deceases persons voted in Southern California, 215 of them in Los Angeles County. Thirty-two were repeat voters, with eight posthumously-cast ballots each. One woman who died in 1988 has been voting for 26 years, including in the 2014 election.
This report comes twenty years after the contested election of Rep. Loretta Sanchez. D-Calif., from this same area. An investigation by a U.S. House committee found that hundreds of illegal ballots were cast by noncitizens and improper absentee ballots.
In that 1996 election, when she defeated incumbent Bob Dornan, a winning margin of 979 votes was whittled down to only 35 votes or fewer when that voter fraud was factored in. In cases like these, where elections are decided by only a small number of votes, the harmful effects of voter fraud are most obvious.
Yet here, two decades later, California has still not taken the necessary steps to ensure the reliability of its electoral system.
As a result of the investigation, L.A. county supervisors called for an investigation into the findings. Even if these particular zombie voters did not change the outcome of an election, each fraudulently cast ballot stole and diluted the vote of a legitimate voter.
Cases like these and many others show that voter fraud is a real phenomenon and a potential threat to the integrity of the election process.
The Los Angeles county registrar pointed to the 1200-2000 voter registrations removed every month to update records and told reporters, “There’s really no way to connect a person whose death is recorded with a person who is registered to vote unless we get some kind of notification from the family.”
But that is plain nonsense. Other states do frequent comparisons between their voter registration lists and the death databases maintained by the Social Security Administration, and other state agencies consult vital records departments in order to remove voters who have died.
The CBS investigation shows both that voter fraud exists and that this type of fraudulent voting is detectable through proper investigation.
CBS reports that California is the only state that does not comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, something the Obama administration has basically ignored.
The Help America Vote Act establishes mandatory minimum standards of accuracy for state voter registration lists and requires states to engage in regular maintenance and updates to remove ineligible voters who die or move away.
California is obviously not complying with these requirements. (For more from the author of “California Refuses to Admit Its Voter Fraud Problem” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Voting_United_States-1.jpg28484288Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-27 00:59:102016-05-27 00:59:10California Refuses to Admit Its Voter Fraud Problem
Why are Trump supporters working overtime to get conservatives to vote for Trump when he himself admits he’s really not that into us?
We keep hearing that it’s our job as conservatives to try to get Trump to come around to our side of things, you know, to work to get a seat at the table. Funny, we hear that stuff from people who call themselves conservatives who have already jumped on the Trump train. It’s almost like they left work early to go to the club, and we have to stay behind, finish the dishes and vacuum and reset the entire restaurant.
But hey, we’ve done the responsible thing many times, mostly because our conscience won’t allow us to do otherwise.
But in all the confusion, what with Trump supporters guilting, shaming, and prodding conservatives on Twitter and in the blogosphere, something should be made clear. This presidential race is not between a Republican and a Democrat, nor a conservative and a liberal; it is between two ends of the liberal spectrum. So far, conservatives are split on whether to vote for Trump—one side figures he’s better than Hillary, while the other is struggling with lending credence to his stated policies that are proven to destroy the free market and cause massive economic and diplomatic problems. This is serious stuff that merits real thought. Still though, Trump isn’t really trying to mend fences with conservatives, and that, along with all the abuse conservatives are taking online from his supporters, begs the question, “Why isn’t Trump trying to get our votes?”
Perhaps because Donald Trump is a very different kind of Republican (just ask him), and one would think at least part of the hesitation toward voting for him would be that he is courting Bernie supporters.
Not that it’s a bad thing in itself to court Bernie supporters, but Trump isn’t trying to sell them on any Republican-centric messaging—he is trying to capture them by parroting Bernie. In fact, he told MSNBC, “Bernie Sanders has a message that’s interesting. I’m going to be taking a lot of the things Bernie said and using them.” And so he has.
Last night, Trump had a rally in New Mexico where he talked about Bernie supporters and Bernie himself a lot. As if he has the utmost respect for him, Trump said that Bernie was getting the short end of the stick—just like he himself did—that the system was rigged against him and poor Bernie. The difference is Trump beat the system, and Bernie can’t make good deals. Trump said that he is getting 40 percent of the Bernie supporters, too. For about a month, Trump has been talking a lot about Bernie, including that Bernie is being denied the nomination because he’s telling the truth.
According to People Magazine, 20 percent of Sanders voters will vote Trump, Nate Silver expects they will go to Clinton or sit out, and has numbers that only 15% will vote Trump. Some Democratic strategists believe the Berners will become Trumpers, some think it’ll never happen, and some are pushing to vote for Trump because he’s the empty vessel they can fill up with progressive groupthink.
So knowing that Trump reads all this stuff, it’s clear he believes that the more he offers them a spot, the more Berners will be by his side in November.
Think about this: Bernie is an avowed socialist and Trump and he overlap on trade. Trump has already “pivoted” on raising the minimum wage, and rejected the Citizen’s United case; in fact, the far-left MSNBC made the point that he is wrong on everything except that notorious freedom of speech case, that hinged on banning speech.
The thing is, I’m not sure there is enough Republican identity left for most Republicans who’ve jumped on the train to know why all that would be bad. It’s gotten to the point that nothing he says matters anymore—which used to be why we all marveled at how his supporters weren’t using their heads—but apparently that brain-drain is more catchy than the Zika virus.
It’s bad that Trump seems to want to replace conservative voters with Bernie supporters, because that would mean he will be out there promising socialism to get votes. And it also means, if you have already endorsed the Donald, then you have bought the ticket to ride the socialism rail car where everyone is promised everything and nobody learns anything, as they get nearer and nearer to Utopia which, for some reason, always looks like Siberia. That way, the mindlessness of socialism is reinforced within the Republican Party rather than rebuked.
Yet this relationship between conservatives and the Republican Party is over-the-top dysfunctional. For me, I find myself shaking my head over how great the party could be if it just did what it says it’ll do, champion conservative governance and stand up to the Democrats. But then, when reality hits, I know they’ll never do that… so why do I dream?
It’s bad enough that the same philosophy that founded America can’t seem to get decent treatment by a group of people who claim they can make America great, maybe even better than ever before, as Trump said last night. But it’s worse to know that there is a massive number of people who believe a president is their ruler, and not the other way around, and that the Trump train to Utopia doesn’t want or need conservative influence.
Trump is actively pursuing unity with Paul Ryan (who is far-left on amnesty), the tech industry, GOP insiders, the GOP elite, and Bernie supporters. While his SCOTUS list was supposed to be the reason conservatives would flock to him, the problem that he has abused fellow Republicans won’t go away until he himself buries it. Then there is the fact that much of his record suggests pathological deceit…
While there remains little faith among conservatives in the direction of the Republican Party in the first place, for Trump to want to take it in the direction it is already going without apology isn’t surprising when you consider human nature. But if the destination is America, the train is heading in the opposite direction. Those that climb aboard now when it is unclear where the train is headed are doing so for the wrong reasons, fear being at the top of the list. But they should not feel fear, but grief instead, grief for the sorry mess that was made of things. (For more from the author of “Trump Courting Bernie Voters at the Expense of His Principles – Wait, Never Mind” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/21671913601_df4c7e1fba_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-26 23:22:582016-05-26 23:22:58Trump Courting Bernie Voters at the Expense of His Principles – Wait, Never Mind