What Our Immigration System Really Looks Like

Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security posted the annual Yearbook of Immigration Statistics for 2016, and it appears that Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America didn’t disappoint. Here are some key details and observations of the report:

Near-record numbers: In 2016, DHS issued 1,183,505 green cards, the most of any year during Obama’s presidency. It is also the second highest number in the modern era, if we put aside 1990-1991, when we processed hundreds of thousands of extra green cards as a result of the 1986 amnesty. Of those roughly 1.2 million, 565,427 were already living here on temporary visas and 618,078 were new arrivals.

Chain migration dominates the system: Almost all the new immigrants were the result of chain migration or refugee-type programs. Very few green cards were apportioned based on skills or merit. A whopping 120,000 refugees were brought in. Overall, only 12 percent of all immigrants came through employment-based programs that require some sort of merit. Among the new arrivals, those numbers are starker. Just four percent of all new arrivals came in on employment visas, meaning the remaining 96 percent were either family visas or refugee, asylum, and quasi-amnesties. Only 2,410 individuals, .004 percent of new arrivals, came here with advanced degrees or extraordinary skills.

The fastest-growing category is parents of U.S. citizens. Those numbers increased by 23.5 percent from 2014 to 2016. Even open-borders fanatic Jeb Bush, at least while running for president in the GOP primary, voiced his support for the idea of abolishing the parent category, saying, “We need to narrow the number of people coming here through family petitioning … I would cut it down to spouse and minor children.” Abolishing all the other categories would reduce immigration among the new arrivals by more than two-thirds.

Do they even have jobs? Among those issued a green card this year, just 21 percent had known occupations. Roughly half did not work outside the home, and another third had no known occupation. Clearly, this is not being done for the economic benefit of this country.

Mexico still dominates legal immigration: Buttressed by chain migration, Mexican nationals were, by far, the most numerous recipients of green cards. In 2016, 174,534 Mexican nationals received green cards, double the number from the second most numerous recipients — Chinese nationals. The notion that we have not been generous enough to Mexican nationals through our legal immigration system and owe primarily Mexican nationals yet another amnesty for illegal aliens is downright insulting. Fifteen percent of all green cards were handed out to Mexico alone.

Massive increase in immigration from the Middle East: Most significantly, there was a large increase in immigration from the Middle East. According to Pew Research, over the past decade, we’ve admitted roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants per year, double the level in the ’90s. I counted the number of green cards given out in 2016 to nationals from 47 majority-Muslim countries, and the total number was up to 179,114. Overall, we’ve admitted 2 million immigrants from those countries from 2001 through 2016. Some of the most significant increases from the previous year were from countries on Trump’s immigration pause list, such as Yemen and Syria, or from countries of origin of recent domestic terrorists, such as Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. In 2016, we increased immigration from 36 of these 47 majority Muslim countries.

How can anyone look at our throttled-up immigration system and say with a straight face that it serves America’s economic and security interests? President Trump was right to suggest that we must, for the first time, make sound immigration policy and secure borders the foundation of our national security. “Leaders in Washington imposed on the country an immigration policy that Americans never voted for, never asked for, and never approved — a policy where the wrong people are allowed into our country and the right people are rejected,” lamented the president in his “America First” speech.

Sadly, leaders in both parties are plotting and scheming for more amnesty rather than first fixing immigration to work for Americans. According to CNN, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis are meeting in Sen. Dick Durbin’s office every day and are “making progress” toward amnesty. What about progress towards safety and prosperity for Americans? In light of the recent problems with Sharia chain migration, is anyone from either party in Congress interested in knowing how many of the 179K immigrants from these countries, almost exclusively brought in because of family ties, love America and how many hate America?

The president clearly understands the problem with our immigration system. But to take this to the next level, he must finally agree to get rid of DACA amnesty once and for all and make it clear that he will not renew the illegal program in March. Any effort to play ball with amnesty will provide him with no leverage to reform the broader immigration system. America first means sticking a fork in the amnesty agenda for good and focusing on the needs of the American citizen for a change. (For more from the author of “What Our Immigration System Really Looks Like” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was the FBI Weaponized to Take Down the Trump Presidency?

By Todd Starnes. It appears the Obama Administration weaponized the Federal Bureau of Investigation just like they weaponized the Internal Revenue Service . . .

We have a growing mountain of evidence to suggest the FBI was attempting to overthrow a duly elected president. We have evidence to suggest the FBI was protecting Hillary Clinton so she might be elected president . . .

“We are at risk of a coup d’etat in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected President of the United States,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said on the House Floor. “And I would offer that is precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice.”

“It is troubling, deeply troubling that the revelations have come to light there is extreme bias against this president with high up members of the team at the FBI,” J. Hogan Gidley told Fox & Friends . . .

“We know from texts and emails – those who were assigned to this investigation – gave largely to Democrats. It looks like an obvious bias here. When we have that kind of smoke there is almost always going to be fire behind that,” he added. (Read more from “Was the FBI Weaponized to Take Down the Trump Presidency?” HERE)

___________________________________

FBI Warned Trump in 2016 Russians Would Try to Infiltrate His Campaign

By NBC News. In the weeks after he became the Republican nominee on July 19, 2016, Donald Trump was warned that foreign adversaries, including Russia, would probably try to spy on and infiltrate his campaign, according to multiple government officials familiar with the matter.

The warning came in the form of a high-level counterintelligence briefing by senior FBI officials, the officials said. A similar briefing was given to Hillary Clinton, they added. They said the briefings, which are commonly provided to presidential nominees, were designed to educate the candidates and their top aides about potential threats from foreign spies.

The candidates were urged to alert the FBI about any suspicious overtures to their campaigns, the officials said.

The Clinton campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment. (Read more from “FBI Warned Trump in 2016 Russians Would Try to Infiltrate His Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Dead-Wrong Alabama Election Takes

Wednesday morning, following the upset victory of Democrat Doug Jones in the Alabama special election for U.S. Senate, political pundits and Twitter election “experts” are professing to know everything about why Republican candidate Roy Moore lost. The election takes are hotter than the sun, and everyone has begun prognosticating what the election results mean for President Trump, Congress, and the country at large as we head into the 2018 midterm elections.

Some takes are insightful. Some inciting. And some are dead wrong. Don’t look for any single person to have a comprehensive understanding of what happened Tuesday night. But guard yourself against some preconceptions that were proven misguided and some election reactions and predictions that are missing the point.

Above all, don’t believe these:

1) A Democrat can’t win in Alabama

This is my mea culpa. Going into last night’s special election, I was supremely confident that the Republican candidate would win in deep red Alabama. I was wrong.

Democrat Jones defeated Roy Moore by more than 20,000 votes in an election that was close but not close enough to trigger a recount. Jones’ victory should remind us all that electoral politics in America is not static. Voters are autonomous, they are not to be taken for granted, and they will respond to the circumstances of the race. Every political campaign needs to earn voter support, and that begins with nominating candidates worthy of that support.

I was guilty of naïve thinking to assume that Roy Moore would win despite the allegations of gross sexual misconduct against him, just because he is a Republican in Alabama. It is likewise naïve to assume that Democrats cannot win elsewhere in red states or that there will never be another Republican politician elected statewide in places like California, for example.

2) McConnell deserves no blame for what happened in Alabama

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is hated in the state of Alabama. His interference in the Republican primary was seen as intrusive and contributed to support for Moore as an alternative to the McConnell-backed Luther Strange. The National Republican Senate Committee’s decision to pull its funding from Roy Moore after the unproven sexual misconduct allegations were made against him doubtlessly aided Doug Jones by depriving Moore of the resources to launch campaign ads. Conservatives will point to Mitch McConnell’s failure to go all in for Moore to explain why a Democrat was just elected in deep-red Alabama.

Yet apologists for Mitch McConnell insist that he had no other choice. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg pointed out that the NRSC always backs GOP incumbents, “period.” Absolving McConnell of responsibility in the Alabama election ignores how the NRSC’s decision to wage a scorched-earth smear campaign against Rep. Brooks while leaving Moore alone until the runoff opened a window for Moore to beat Luther Strange without intense scrutiny. Rep. Mo Brooks is a fine conservative. He would have made an excellent senator. But Brooks was defined as an anti-Trump candidate by McConnell-backed attack ads, and his lack of name recognition hurt him when pitted against Washington D.C.’s money.

Excusing McConnell also ignores how he has repeatedly opposed qualified conservative candidates like Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz in Republican primaries in favor of liberal Republicans. To say that McConnell deserves no blame for what happened in Alabama is tone-deaf and will contribute to a status quo that most conservatives recognize is not working.

3) McConnell deserves all the blame for what happened in Alabama

Likewise, assigning sole blame for Roy Moore’s loss to Mitch McConnell is mistaken. Good candidates like Ted Cruz and others mentioned were able to overcome McConnell’s opposition and go on to defeat their Democratic opponents. Bad candidates like Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin lost their races.

You cannot excuse the candidate when he loses an election. Roy Moore lost. That means he was a bad candidate and he ran a bad campaign. Whether or not the accusations made against Moore are true is irrelevant to his ability to defend himself from them and present the case for electing him to the U.S. Senate.

Moore’s inability to articulate a credible and believable defense when faced with accusations of sexual misconduct show how he could not make the case for his candidacy. That’s on him. Moore’s disappearance from the campaign trail in the final days of the election might have convinced 20,000 Alabamians that he had something to hide if he couldn’t face voters. That mistake is on him, not McConnell.

4) Issues trump character

Roy Moore’s defeat shows that character still matters in politics. If voters don’t trust a candidate, if they think a candidate is immoral, they won’t support him, no matter what his positions on the issues.

Despite his egregious, extreme position on abortion and other progressive issues, Doug Jones was able to beat Moore because he did not have any glaring character flaws. Roy Moore lost because enough Republicans believed he might be a sexual predator, and they stayed home while Democrats were mobilized to score a win against Republicans and stick it to President Trump.

How, then, did a flawed individual like Donald Trump manage to beat Hillary Clinton, if character matters? Simple, really. Hillary Clinton was a terrible, morally depraved candidate who was even more flawed than Trump. Be careful of assuming the 2020 election will be a piece of cake for the president.

5) Everything Trump touches dies

The “Roy Moore lost because of Donald Trump” take is moronic. This election was not a referendum on Donald Trump, who was not only not on the ballot but also endorsed Luther Strange in the primary.

As Steve Deace previously said, “Trump’s base is driving Trump — it’s not Trump driving his base.” Trump’s campaigning in the primary was ineffective, and there is no reason to suggest he had an impact on the general election either way.

Another crucial point: Those who want to blame Trump for Moore’s loss are the same people who have been relentlessly condemning Moore as a child molester and completely unfit for office. The “hot takes” really can’t have it both ways. If Moore’s alleged moral unfitness swayed voters who otherwise would have been all in for Moore, is it likely that Trump’s endorsement made that worse among those voters?

6) Trump could have pushed Roy Moore out of the race

Rich Lowry suggested this. Consider that being removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice did not stop Roy Moore from running for U.S. Senate. Donald Trump’s endorsement of Luther Strange did not stop Moore from running for Senate. The bombshell Washington Post story alleging that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl did not drive Moore from the race for Senate. The calls from most Senate Republicans for Moore to step aside did not stop him from running for Senate.

Roy Moore was not going to stop running for U.S. Senate unless God Himself told him to, or he lost.

In the end, he lost. Alabama voters weighed the evidence against Moore and voted according to their consciences. That is all anyone could expect them to do. When Doug Jones is up for reelection in 2020, it will be the responsibility of Alabama conservatives to nominate an articulate, principled candidate with integrity to defeat him and reclaim the seat. (For more from the author of “6 Dead-Wrong Alabama Election Takes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Truth About Racial Profiling Is That Everyone Does It, Especially Leftists

My black brother who lives in Baltimore said something that has stuck with me. He said, “I am tired of having to show people (whites) that I am not like them (black thugs).” His comment was made to convince me that NFL players have valid reasons for protesting our country.

I told my brother it is not white America’s fault that blacks commit more crimes than any other race except whites. Blacks are only 13% of the population.

White Americans did not burden my brother with constantly having to show he is not a thug, blacks did. Like our dad, Dr. Rev. Lloyd E. Marcus, my brother is highly respected in his community; awarded for his service as commissioner of his county’s youth football league. However, my brother does dress urban style — the causal attire typical of inner city blacks. No, he does not wear his pants below his butt.

I am a black artisan; singer, songwriter, fine artist and writer. My signature black hat and attire reflect my artistic nature. Nine times out of 10, a white person would be correct in assuming I am a liberal democrat. I am a Christian, conservative, Republican activist. Seeing my artistic appearance and the fact that most blacks are democrats, it is reasonable for people to assume I am a liberal democrat. Therefore, it is silly for me to be offended when people read my visual message incorrectly . . .

Leftist news media and despicable race-baiting democrat politicians have made everyone hypersensitive regarding race. Leftists demand that we abandon common sense. (Read more from “The Truth About Racial Profiling Is That Everyone Does It, Especially Leftists” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

178,000 Bangladeshi Immigrants and the Threats of Non-Assimilation

It’s a mercy that nobody was killed in yesterday’s terror attack in New York. How many more attacks will it take before Americans demand serious, sovereign immigration policies?

Given that Americans have no input into who comes here and joins our society, most would be surprised to learn we’ve handed out over 178,000 green cards to Bangladeshi nationals since 9/11 — from 2001 to 2015. While some of them assimilate properly into our culture like any other groups of immigrants, there is a growing problem of Sharia supremacism from this almost exclusively Muslim country. Rather than being more judicious about immigration from the Middle East in this era of fervent Islamic jihad, we have made Bangladesh one of the fastest-growing source countries of immigrants. One can only hope that today’s botched suicide bombing in New York, allegedly perpetrated by a Bangladeshi immigrant, sheds light on this growing problem.

Rather than placing the brakes on immigration after 9/11, we stepped on the gas pedal. From 2001 to 2015, roughly 1.8 million individuals from 47 majority-Muslim countries, mainly in the Middle East and North Africa, have been granted green cards, according to the DHS Yearbook on immigration statistics. The rate has even grown in recent years. The sending countries with the largest percentage increase in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 are predominantly Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia (up 122 percent), Afghanistan (up 74 percent), Syria (up 62 percent), Bangladesh (up 53 percent), Nigeria (up 40 percent), Iraq (up 39 percent), Egypt (up 32 percent), and Pakistan (up 28 percent).

Notice Bangladesh is on that list. We gave out 178,466 green cards to Bangladeshi nationals from 2001 to 2015, topped only by Iran and Pakistan among predominantly Muslim countries. In addition, we admit a growing number of foreign students on non-immigrant visas, topping 7,100 this year. When did the American people ever vote for this?

With so many wonderful people among planet Earth’s 7.6 billion inhabitants, why should we bring in even one person who doesn’t love America and cherish our values? Instead, what percentage of people we bring in from the Middle East do you think hate America? It’s hard to tell, but the polling data revealing the values from these countries is not very reassuring. In Bangladesh, 82 percent of Muslims favor making Sharia the law of the land, according to Pew Research. While one would expect that number is less among those who come to America, it is quite evident the number living here in favor of Sharia is a lot higher than 0 percent — the number it should be under an effective system of immigration and assimilation.

Before yesterday’s bombing, it had been six weeks since the last terror attack, perpetrated by a Muslim immigrant from Uzbekistan who came here through the diversity visa lottery. Yet Congress has no intention of abolishing this odious policy and is instead, of course, clamoring for more amnesty.

Bangladesh is the perfect example of what is wrong with the infuriating combination of the diversity lottery and chain migration. The diversity lottery began as a program for countries that had low rates of immigration. In the ’90s and early 2000s, Bangladesh was one of those countries. But once the first wave gained a foothold in this country, chain migration policies allowed those numbers to multiply simply due to relationships to the initial immigrants, not because of particular skills or attachment to America, much less assessment of security concerns. This is the very definition of stolen sovereignty.

Bangladesh is now off the diversity lottery as of 2012, because we have so much immigration from that country.

Bangladeshis in Brooklyn

In a prescient article from 2014 titled, “Beheadings, Bombings, and New York’s Little Bangladesh,” Daniel Greenfield warned of a long-term problem in Brooklyn, NY:

For now the Bangladeshi settlements in Brooklyn are quiet places where the tenements and shops close off the streets into small private worlds with their own justice systems, feuds and secrets.

“I feel like I’m living in my own country,” the editor of one of the Bangladeshi newspapers in New York, said. “You don’t have to learn English to live here. That’s a great thing!”

Overhead may be the same sky, but Little Bangladesh has been cut off from Brooklyn and attached to a country thousands of miles away. Immigrants step off a plane from Bangladesh at JFK airport, get into a taxi driven by a Bangladeshi playing Bengali pop tapes and step out into a small slice of Bangladesh on McDonald Avenue.

And when the infidels of Brooklyn wander into their territory, they are glared at as the foreign intruders that they are.

I have heard similar complaints from a relative of mine who lives near that neighborhood.

The suspect in today’s bombing, Akayed Ullah, appears to have lived in “little Bangladesh” on Ocean Parkway in Kensington, Brooklyn. How many more Akayed Ullahs are there in that neighborhood? And when will Congress finally wake up? The “clustering” problem that has plagued Europe is creeping in to America. Is it too much to ask that we slow down the unchecked flow of immigration while we deal with the existing assimilation problems? According to the International Organization for Migration, Bangladesh is now the single biggest sending country of refugees to Europe, even more than Syria and Afghanistan.

Non-assimilation leads to “clustering” — and more non-assimilation

Terrorism is downstream from the much broader culture problem of Sharia supremacism that we have needlessly imported. This culture of Sharia supremacism and anti-Americanism cultivated in clustered communities becomes the breeding ground for terrorism. Just this past Friday, a large gathering of Muslims assembled in New York to protest Israel. They chanted violent pro-Hamas slogans and called for an Intifada. These are people living on our shores, not in some far-off land like Gaza, most of whom were admitted relatively recently. This should scare all of us.

A sane Congress that represented Americans would immediately do the following:

Terminate the diversity visa lottery.

Pass the RAISE Act to place Americans, not immigrant families, back in charge of immigration policy.

Expand Trump’s immigration moratorium to more countries.

Tighten up statutes mandating deportation for those with green cards who subscribe to or espouse jihadist views, similar to the way we did with communists and anarchists. Under current law, “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.” [212(a)(3)(D)(iv).] Congress must apply this to Islamic supremacists.

Sadly, this Congress will do nothing for Americans in the budget bill. “Our representatives” only care about illegal immigrants, not fixing legal immigration to work best for Americans. Trump must double down and make specific demands in the budget bill to defund the diversity visa lottery and visas from the countries he seeks to ban.

Until then, the million-dollar question still looms: Given that we have stepped up immigration since 9/11, would there ever be an attack deadly enough to make it fashionable among the political elites to stop importing the danger? (For more from the author of “178,000 Bangladeshi Immigrants and the Threats of Non-Assimilation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christians Persecuted in More Ways Than Ever

. . .This cosmic irony – of genuine godliness inspiring loathing and violence – has been reflected throughout the world ever since. Christianity inspired hostility from the beginning; not only was Jesus crucified, but 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred. Today, sincere followers of Jesus Christ are under attack everywhere, not only in lands dominated by religions and governments hostile to Christianity, but increasingly in those parts of the world historically home to, and founded by, Christians.

Think of it. The most transcendent way of life a man or woman can embrace on this earth – one that commands not only that you love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, but that you love your enemies, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you” – is cursed, hated and persecuted.

This persecution shows up in a broad spectrum of ways. In the United States it is, as a rule, far less overt and brutal than overseas, taking the form of censorship, demonization and criminalization – for example, the never-ending prosecutions of Christian businesses and individuals (including the jailing of a Christian county clerk) for being unwilling to actively participate in homosexual weddings. Then there are the ubiquitous assaults on Christian expression in the public square and within our public schools and armed forces, and the ongoing destruction of Christian memorials, crosses, nativity scenes and the like, and even the recent equating of Christianity with white supremacism and the open mockery of prayer.

Of course, in much of the rest of the world no such subtlety or restraints exist, with scores of nations persecuting, torturing, enslaving and slaughtering Christians daily. By every measure, Christian persecution – and even more fundamentally, fear and loathing of biblical Christianity – is growing worldwide, even in the once-Christian West, including Europe, the United Kingdom and North America.

Around the world, sums up Open Doors, a ministry serving the needs of the persecuted faithful, “Christians are being persecuted in more countries and in more ways than ever before.” (Read more from “Christians Persecuted in More Ways Than Ever” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Honest Skepticism Is Not a Vice

Watching Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) announce his intention to resign from the U.S. Senate was an unexpected pleasure last week. But Franken couldn’t just go quietly into the night. He called his downfall ironic because “a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office.”

By that tape, he was referring to Donald Trump’s vulgar conversation with NBC journalist Billy Bush, captured on a hot mic in 2005 but not broadcast until 11 years later. It was so crude and offensive that even Trump’s vice presidential running mate condemned his comments.

The most outrageous comment, the one most cited by Democrats, involved grabbing women by their private parts. Trump apologized, but said it was just “locker room talk,” male banter, and that Bill Clinton had made worse comments to him on the golf course.

Without exaggeration, I would estimate that I listened to the Billy Bush tape at least 60 or 70 times last year, thanks mostly to MSNBC. This week I pulled up the Youtube to listen again, to be sure of my recollection. I would encourage you to do the same.

The fact is that Trump never bragged in that tape that he had grabbed women by their private parts. He didn’t joke that he had done so, either. What he said was that celebrities can grab women by their private parts with impunity.

Until very recently, that was mostly a true statement. Democrat celebrities like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Matt Lauer have groped their way through a couple of generations of ambitious, vulnerable interns, actresses, campaign volunteers, television producers and at least one 14-year-old boy. Chickens are coming home to roost now, but in 2005, and in 2016, they were getting away with it.

Franken claimed his forced resignation was ironic also because of Republicans’ “full support” for the Senate campaign of “a man who repeatedly preyed on young girls.” He was referring to Roy Moore, 70, of Alabama. Moore was recently accused of pursuing sexual relationships with teenagers when he was in his early thirties.

Senate (Republican) Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for Moore to “step aside” after he won the Republican primary, and said he is “obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate.” If that’s what Al Franken considers the”full support” of Republicans, I’d hate to see them oppose anybody.

Franken’s claim of a paradox is also based on the assumption that the accusations against Moore are true. It is an assumption. I believe that the accusations should be taken seriously, and that there should be no smear campaign against Moore’s accusers. But he has denied the accusations, and he is entitled to confront the evidence against him.

Ivanka Trump believes there should be a presumption of Moore’s guilt. “I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts,” she said last month. Fortunately for Moore, he lives in America, where a presumption of innocence puts the burden of proof on accusers. It puts a premium on evidence.

I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, most of the Alabama voters weren’t there, and so – even though this isn’t a criminal proceeding – we have to rely on evidence for our inferences about Moore’s guilt or innocence of the accusations against him.

One piece of evidence that Democrats and swamp Republicans found persuasive was an accuser’s 40-year-old high school yearbook, with a complimentary inscription that she said Moore had written. There was nothing salacious in the inscription, but in any case Moore denied writing it.

That accuser’s attorney, Gloria Allred, is a California Democrat who served as a Hillary Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention. She displayed the yearbook, opened to the inscription, at a press conference last month. After Moore denied writing in the yearbook, and said he doesn’t even remember the restaurant where his accuser said he signed it, Allred was questioned closely about it by various journalists.

Allred told them she had never asked her client if she actually saw Moore sign the yearbook. She said her client would be willing to produce the yearbook for expert testing and analysis. But she never handed the yearbook over to a third-party custodian to supervise independent expert analysis. She just hired her own expert, and reported his opinion to the press. That’s obviously not an acceptable substitute, and it suggests that the attorney is worried about her client’s evidence.

Last Friday, several weeks after vouching for the inscription in its entirety, Allred called another press conference to admit that part of it was added by her client as a notation of its date and location. This was important because the numerals in the inscription don’t match other samples of Moore’s 1977 handwriting. The accuser said she added “D.A.” after the signature, as a note to remind herself who Moore was (district attorney).

She needed a good explanation for this because skeptics pointed out that it was implausible that Moore would have signed anything that way. He was an assistant district attorney at the time, and it would be have been buffoonish for him to call himself the district attorney.

Moore’s attorney suggested that his accuser got the “D.A.” nomenclature from her own divorce document issued decades later by Moore, as a judge. It appeared after his signature on that document because “D.A.” were the initials of his assistant who stamped the judge’s signature. Although alleged victim never appeared in court before Moore, she certainly was provided with the document dismissing her divorce action.

If the accuser’s account of Moore’s sexual aggression in 1977 were true, you would expect that she would have asked for his recusal from her 1999 divorce case. She and her attorney could have asked to have it heard by a different judge. But she didn’t. That suggests that the accusation is younger than the divorce case.

The accuser told reporters that she recounted Moore’s assault to her most recent husband before they married. But her adult stepson has undermined that claim.

“If she told him, you would think that somewhere along the conversations of talking to his son and talking to his family that he would have mentioned something like that,” the Georgia man said. “That’s something you don’t hide from anybody.”

He said he couldn’t rule out the possibility that she is being paid to ruin Moore’s Senate election attempt.

I was in Alaska when swamp Republicans successfully defeated TEA Party Republican Joe Miller, who had beaten their incumbent in the primary. One incident that discredited Miller was when one of his security personnel roughed up a reporter at a rally. Later, after Miller was beaten in the general election, the security guy admitted that he had infiltrated the campaign with the intention of helping defeat Miller.

Perhaps Ivanka has no reason to doubt the accounts of the accusers. But I have. You can only ignore the timing of these accusations with steely determination. Moore has been a contentious, controversial candidate in four statewide elections in Alabama. How could he be in the fight this long without true victims ever telling their story to the media or to his rivals?

There’s a very important election at stake. Moore led in the polls until these accusations crashed over his bow. Democrats and swamp Republicans are united.

Would they lie to win? Would they persuade others to do their lying for them? They might. It wouldn’t be the first time. Honest skepticism is not a vice. Let them prove their cases.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Crediting Any of This to Obama Is Absurd

t’s stories like this that make it absolutely impossible to have sensible conversations with liberals. Trump is now nearly a year into his presidency, and the economy, by any reasonable measure, is booming.

For example:

Economic growth rates have now, for 2 consecutive quarters, surpassed 3 percent — an annual growth rate that Obama never achieved in any year of his presidency.

The unemployment rate is dropping as the labor force participation rate is going up, a phenomenon that largely eluded Obama during his presidency.

Wages are finally rising. This only happened during a brief period at the end of the Obama presidency.

Crediting any of this to Obama is absurd. How does any reasonable Obama supporter explain away the fact that after 8 years of the Obama tax hikes, regulatory overreach, and explosive government spending, our economy grew at the slowest pace in modern times? And yet, when Trump entered the Oval Office, this all turned around as Obama’s policies were slowly dismantled.

We’re never going to be able to evaluate the effects of sensible economic policies if we continue to ignore the reality staring us in the face. Facts matter. (For more from the author of “Crediting Any of This to Obama Is Absurd” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Do Americans Really Oppose a Government Shutdown?

Oh no, it’s government shutdown time again!

We are always told that a government shutdown is the worst thing in the world. And even if it isn’t the worst thing in the world, everybody thinks it is. The voters will simply not tolerate shutting down the government, and any political party that attempts it will surely suffer the consequences at the next election. Never mind that this was conclusively proven to be untrue when, in the 2014 election, Republicans made significant gains despite having shut down the government earlier that year. Forget about that. It’s history. The important thing is that, as government funding is about to expire, Congress must unconditionally authorize more spending … or else!

To demonstrate this point with data, the folks at Politico are touting a poll that claims 63 percent of Americans want Congress to avoid a shutdown AT ALL COSTS. Only 18 percent think a temporary shutdown is okay as a bargaining chip to further policy goals. And 19 percent have no opinion one way or the other.

So there you have it. “At all costs” is pretty unambiguous. For a majority of Americans, there is literally nothing more important than keeping the government (or at least the 17 percent of it actually affected by a shutdown) up and running. Except none of that is true.

A close look at the data reveals that the words “at all costs” actually translate to “as long as it doesn’t cost anything I care about.” When pollsters ask more detailed questions about specific programs (What if a shutdown is needed to reauthorize CHIP, the children’s health insurance program? What if a shutdown is needed to address DACA or other immigration concerns?), suddenly shutting down the government doesn’t seem so scary. It turns out most people are perfectly willing to shut down the government temporarily in order to achieve an outcome they favor, even if they won’t admit this right out to pollsters.

What does this mean? It means that, contrary to the overwhelming media narrative that endless, bottomless, and limitless government funding must come before all else and that shutdowns are terrible symptoms of broken democracy, the actual American people don’t really care. What people actually care about is the implementation of specific policies that align with their values and priorities. How we get there and whether a shutdown is a path toward implementation aren’t really important. To put it another way, voters don’t want to see how the sausage is made; they just want to eat it.

Despite the Left’s fondness for polls, statistics, and the illusion that number-crunching will yield useful insights about inherently unpredictable things like human behavior, more often than not we see methodology being manipulated to produce a result that fits a political narrative. If we learned anything from the 2016 election, it should be that we can’t trust polls, at least not at face value. How you ask the questions matters. Who you ask matters. Even the person doing the asking matters. Presenting topline numbers, as Politico has done, and using them to draw conclusions about what the American people actually think, especially about issues many people don’t really understand, yields neither knowledge nor wisdom. It just allows hack journalists to make claims that support what they already believe. (For more from the author of “Do Americans Really Oppose a Government Shutdown?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mueller Probe ‘as Partisan a Hack Job as I’ve Ever Seen’

LevinTV host Mark Levin began his radio show Tuesday highlighting the extreme bias of “special impeachment counsel” Robert Mueller in his investigation of alleged Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

“This is as partisan a hack job as I’ve ever seen,” Levin commented, reacting to the revelations that several members of Mueller’s team have had a great anti-Trump bias. “Mr. Mueller is completely out of control. Mr. Mueller is a hack — I don’t care if he’s registered as a Republican or not. What does that have to do with anything?”

Levin reminded his audience that when Mueller was first nominated for FBI director, one of his “primary sponsors” was former California Sen. Barbara Boxer, known for her far-left stances and ideology.

“He’s hired a bunch of hacks,” Levin said of Mueller and his special counsel team. “Disgusting left-wing pukes.”

Levin also discussed the breaking Judicial Watch story regarding another top Mueller deputy, prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who cheered on former administration official Sally Yates in her efforts to fight President Trump’s agenda. Listen:

(For more from the author of “Mueller Probe ‘as Partisan a Hack Job as I’ve Ever Seen'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.