College students in the nation’s capital thought it was a “tough question” whether former Cuban President Fidel Castro or American President-elect Donald Trump is more favorable.
Campus Reform, a project of the Leadership Institute, polled several students at American University in Washington, D.C., and captured the students’ responses in the video below.
Many students could not give a clear answer whether they thought Castro, the Cuban dictator who died last week, or Trump was a better leader.
Some of the American University students told Campus Reform they favored Castro over Trump.
“I would say at this very moment, I have a better opinion of Fidel Castro,” one female student said in the video.
As The Heritage Foundation’s Ana Quintana wrote in an op-ed piece for The Daily Signal, “Religion was criminalized, dissent was violently punished, and Cuban citizens became property of their communist state” under Castro’s rule.
One student told Campus Reform she didn’t have an opinion on either man.
“I never really had an opinion on [Castro] to start with other than he was really, really bad for the world,” the student said. “Donald Trump, I still don’t have any opinion on. I just choose to ignore it.”
Another student said that if Trump’s administration “is anything like he said it will be, then I think that Fidel Castro will absolutely have been a better leader to the Cuban people than Trump will be to the U.S., just based on his statements alone.” (For more from the author of “See College Students’ Responses When Asked to Compare Castro to Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/23691565882_46f5873d66_b-7.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-29 23:52:332016-11-29 23:52:39See College Students’ Responses When Asked to Compare Castro to Trump
President-elect Donald Trump asserted Tuesday his administration would not further investigate his vanquished opponent Hillary Clinton.
“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons,” Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times.
The news came after a rough campaign where Clinton faced an FBI investigation into classified information sent and received on her private email server.
FBI Director James Comey announced in July he was not recommending a prosecution. However, 11 days before the election, he announced he was reopening the probe, only to close it two days before Election Day.
The FBI is reportedly also investigating potential ties between donors to the Clinton Foundation and actions taken by Clinton when she was the secretary of state.
“It was a premature decision [not to continue investigating Clinton] because we don’t know what evidence on the email server or Clinton Foundation will emerge,” said Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, told The Daily Signal.
“It shouldn’t be the call of the White House anyway, but should be left up to the new attorney general—and IRS commissioner—whether to investigate,” Flaherty continued, noting the IRS should look into the nonprofit status of the Clinton Foundation. “Prosecuting Hillary might seem like piling on from a political sense, but if she broke the law, this is a decision that should be left to law enforcement.”
Trump’s comments to The New York Times followed an interview earlier Tuesday with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway in which she expressed a similar view. Trump said his administration would not pursue further investigation into the email server or the Clinton Foundation.
Trump further told the Times, “we’ll have people that do things,” which the newspaper said could mean the FBI, but Trump was clear he would not push the investigation.
Following her defeat, The Daily Signal reported that Clinton faced at least four legal probes. Regardless of Trump’s decision, she could still face scrutiny from Republican-controlled committees in the House and Senate, as well as a Federal Election Commission investigation of her presidential campaign.
During the second presidential debate, Trump told Clinton, “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton expressed disappointment in Trump’s decision.
“Donald Trump must commit his administration to a serious, independent investigation of the very serious Clinton national security, email, and pay-to-play scandals,” Fitton said in a statement.
“If Mr. Trump’s appointees continue the Obama administration’s politicized spiking of a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, it would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to ‘drain the swamp’ of out-of-control corruption in Washington, D.C.,” Fitton continued. “President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law, and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.”
The matter muddies the waters beyond what the FBI might already be investigating about Clinton, said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
“It’s a little disturbing for a president to say, ‘I’m showing mercy and the fate of my political opponent is in my power,’” Shapiro told The Daily Signal. “It’s not his place to decide which political enemies to go after or not go after. The FBI and the Department of Justice should go forward without political interference.”
Shapiro added this could be politically costly.
“I think more of his supporters voted against Clinton than for him, so it would have been better to stay silent rather than act like a benevolent leader who holds the fate of his opponent at his whim,” Shapiro added.
Conway, Trump’s campaign manager and current adviser in the transition, presented the case for turning the page during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday.
“I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy,” Conway said. “If Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing to do.”
Conway added, “I think he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them.”
Trump foreshadowed that he might not pursue a special prosecutor during an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” after the election.
From a political standpoint, Trump’s decision could be mixed, said Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University.
“This does make him more statesmanlike because it probably is for the good of the country to move on, even if his base will not be all that happy,” Rose told The Daily Signal. “It does seem to turn the page and provide a way to say ‘I’m a statesman.’ But, if a crime was committed, perhaps that wasn’t his call. A line might have been crossed.” (For more from the author of “Clinton Critics Voice Disappointment After Trump Vows to Drop Investigation” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8567828196_810cd563d5_b-5.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-22 18:37:352016-11-22 18:37:35Clinton Critics Voice Disappointment After Trump Vows to Drop Investigation
In a video message released Monday, President-elect Donald Trump told Americans the first executive actions he’ll take on Jan. 20 to “drain the swamp” in Washington. They include, in Trump’s words:
1. “On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country. Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.”
2. “On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy—including shale energy and clean coal—creating many millions of high-paying jobs. That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.”
3. “On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, it’s so important.”
4. “On national security, I will ask the Department of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyberattacks, and all other form of attacks.”
5. “On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.”
6. “On ethics reform, as part of our plan to drain the swamp, we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the administration—and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.”
(For more from the author of “Trump Outlines 6 Steps He’ll Take to ‘Drain the Swamp’ in Washington” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5440392565_4634fb9d24_b-4.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-21 20:17:422016-11-21 20:17:42Trump Outlines 6 Steps He’ll Take to ‘Drain the Swamp’ in Washington
With a new Republican administration in tow, conservative lawmakers are renewing their call for welfare reform that incentivizes families rather than punishing them.
“When we look at what we want for our society, when we look at the key ingredients that have to be contained within any thriving civilization, there are a couple of common themes,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said at an anti-poverty welfare event in the District of Columbia. “One is a strong family structure, and another involves opportunities for work.”
The problem, Lee said, is the current safety net, “in many respects, discourages these things, or undermines these interests.”
“In some instances, it discourages marriage, the formation of a family to begin with,” he said.
Lee, along with several other conservative lawmakers in favor of welfare reform, was speaking at The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Antipoverty Forum, where policy experts and community leaders came together to discuss how to help low-income Americans from both the state and federal levels.
Lee, joined on stage by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., addressed the Welfare Reform and Upward Mobility Act, which would make significant changes to the nation’s welfare system. With President-elect Donald Trump set to take control of the Oval Office next year, they hope to make this legislation a reality.
“Think about what we now have–don’t get married, don’t get a job, have more kids, and we’ll give you more money,” Jordan said, speaking at Thursday’s forum. “That’s pretty ridiculous, right? It’s anti-family–the key institution in our culture.”
The lawmakers cited the example of an unmarried couple with two children who receive assistance under the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is one of the government’s largest federal welfare cash assistance programs. If each individual were earning $20,000 out of wedlock, for example, they would lose about 10 percent of their benefits once they got married.
“I always tell folks: The first institution the good Lord put together wasn’t the church, wasn’t the state, it was moms and dads and kids,” Jordan said. “It was family. We have an anti-family welfare system, and we have an anti-work welfare [system]. The two values that helped make America the greatest country ever. Strong families, strong commitment to the work ethic. That’s what we have to incentivize.”
Attendees also addressed the importance of religious institutions in the fight against poverty, vowing to oppose efforts that they argue are discriminatory toward people of faith.
“We have got to resolve where we are as a nation, where we are on religious liberty,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the keynote speaker of the event.
The Obama administration, he said “has tried to isolate people of faith,” and “we have got to turn that back.”
Referencing faith-based adoption agencies that were forced to shut down for refusing to place children with same-sex couples, Lankford, added, “Why should the federal government care about their faith?”
The result, he added, is that “our country is becoming afraid of faith.”
While there are some legislative measures that he believes will fix the problem, the real difference, he said, comes from homes, churches, and communities.
“Our nonprofit entities are so much more efficient at taking care of poverty than our government,” he said. “Mentor a family. It will make a world of a difference.” (For more from the author of “Conservative Lawmakers Say Current Welfare System Is ‘Anti-Family'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/family-730320_960_720.jpg678960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-20 20:35:372016-11-20 20:35:37Conservative Lawmakers Say Current Welfare System Is ‘Anti-Family’
Anti-Trump protesters in Portland, Ore. attacked a vehicle driven by a young woman who claimed she was attempting to pass on a road blocked by demonstrators due to a personal emergency.
Local press covering the protest filmed the confrontation.
Protesters claim the altercation began when a motorist attempted to circumvent a Trump protest due to a personal emergency. The Daily Caller News Foundation is not able to confirm the nature of the alleged emergency. Demonstrators then claimed she attempted to run over one of the protesters with her car.
“I can’t agree with them,” the reporter covering the protests said. “I was out here, and someone jumped in front of her car while she was slowly trying to drive away.”
A bystander then attempted to intervene so the vehicle could pass. He in turn was pushed and shoved by protesters. At one point during the dispute, a demonstrator slammed and shattered the woman’s windshield. Though the reporter could not identify which specific protester was responsible, one individual immediately proximate to the vehicle throughout the encounter was brandishing a baseball bat.
“This woman is by herself, surrounded by protesters — hundreds of them,” the reporter said, as a camera crew filed the ongoing encounter. The woman sat alone inside the car and cried, her neck and shoulders tensed in a frightened posture.
The reporter indicated it was the second such confrontation between demonstrators and a motorist that evening. He also reported that police were not on the scene.
“I haven’t seen a police officer — I’m trying to think– all night.” he said. (For more from the author of “Anti-Trump Demonstrators Attack Unaccompanied Woman, Shatter Her Windshield” please click HERE)
President-elect Donald Trump’s belief that last summer’s gay marriage decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is settled law says a lot about where the incoming administration’s priorities are going to be. And it points to some potential future political problems from the federal courts, especially when it comes to immigration.
“It’s irrelevant,” he said on CBS’ Sunday’s airing of “60 Minutes,” regarding his personal views on gay marriage. “These cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been settled, and I’m fine with that.”
Firstly, this is a clear deviation from Trump’s stated position on Roe v. Wade in the same interview, which he and his surrogates have pledged to overturn. That clearly signals that, for some reason, SCOTUS railroading state sovereignty on making their own abortion laws isn’t the final word, but doing so for the kinds of unions that states recognize somehow is.
The myth of judicial supremacy drove one of the greatest narratives of the 2016 election cycle — that Americans had to get out the vote to decide on an executive who would pick the right oligarchs to legislate from the federal bench. Now it’s back, and some things apparently are “settled law,” while others are not.
Setting the inconsistencies here aside, conceding the myth of judicial supremacy as the president-elect has done here is going to create a host of problems down the road.
The transition team is already putting up a hard front on immigration, by staffing people like Kris Kobach, Kansas’ current secretary of state who helped write Arizona’s SB 1070. The state law, passed in 2010, drew intense criticism and boycotts from open-borders advocates for doing nothing more than giving police the ability to enforce America’s immigration laws. SB 1070 was gutted once and for all in a legal settlement with open-borders groups in September.
If the Trump administration and Congress are willing to kowtow to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, they shouldn’t hold their breath on getting any sort of meaningful reform accomplished when it comes to immigration, either. If the federal courts and the Supreme Court start getting ahold of forthcoming immigration bills and first-100 directives, we’re going to have a lot of really problematic “settled law” on our hands.
Despite the technical victory immigration enforcement advocates won in U.S. v. Texas earlier this year, the federal circuit courts have still been, for the most part, openly hostile to any sort of immigration control at the state level whatsoever. This hostility has reared its head in everything from forcing Arizona to issue drivers licenses to illegals to mandating that six states completely ignore ICE while voiding thousands of illegal immigration detainers.
But considering it’s hard to imagine that the Trump administration would take judicial tampering in immigration reforms lying down, the president-elect’s statement that Obergefell is “settled law” is probably best understood as an indicator of future priorities. That shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone, given his public stance in spring regarding bathroom bill battles, and his relationship with Peter Thiel.
However, despite this and other concessions that Trump has made to the LGBT community, others are still losing their minds and warning of the forthcoming homophobic cataclysm that will arise from a Trump-Pence administration. Following last week’s immediate election reactions (or, overreactions, rather), similar voices are now decrying the transition team’s inclusion of former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell as a sign of an oncoming assault on gay rights.
Huffington Post’s “Queer Voices” editor-at-large, Michelangelo Signorile points to comments made by Blackwell eight years about handling same-sex attraction and warns, “Expect each of these individuals and more religious bigots to have prominent positions in the Trump administration.”
Again, the heightened anxieties despite Trump’s historically moderate stance on the issue is beyond perplexing. Perhaps the shocking realization that a sizable chunk of the American people disagree with your agenda, that said voters’ First Amendment rights are no longer on the chopping block, and that the shiny new federal death ray you were going to use to obliterate the latter isn’t coming is a lot to deal with all at once.
Proponents of natural marriage have already made peace with the fact that many of their fellow citizens don’t see eye-to-eye with them. It’s time to realize that common-sense compromise on the subject at this juncture (like First Amendment Defense Act, which the president-elect has pledged to sign) isn’t persecution or discrimination; it’s a way forward in a republic that’s deeply divided on a fundamental issue of public and private import.
While it was grossly unrealistic in the first place that the Supreme Court — even with a shiny new originalist justice on board — would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, it looks like the issue won’t face much pressure from the oncoming administration the next four years. However, if the Trump administration actually wants to clamp down on illegal immigration against the forces of an overwhelmingly open-borders federal judiciary, the president-elect might want to be careful using phrases like “settled law.” (For more from the author of “Why Trump’s ‘Settled Law’ Comments on Gay Marriage Could Be Bad News for His Immigration Agenda” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/29119452334_7f6316c652_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-14 22:04:202016-11-14 22:04:20Why Trump’s ‘Settled Law’ Comments on Gay Marriage Could Be Bad News for His Immigration Agenda
From New York to the District of Columbia, Americans across the country took to the streets over the weekend to voice their dismay with President-elect Donald Trump. In the video above, The Daily Signal compiled a roundup of some signs, symbols, and messages used at these rallies. (Warning: Some signs contain profanity.)
(For more from the author of “Anti-Trump Protests in 31 Photos” please click HERE)
The men and women who serve the United States in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for their country. They volunteer to go overseas to strange, dangerous lands. The call of duty keeps them away from their wives and husbands, their sons and daughters, their mothers and fathers.
But when the soldier returns home, the long waits are worth it. This Veterans Day, we’ve found some of the most touching videos of soldiers returning home to surprise their loved ones.
These creative surprise returns are sure to make you tear up, so grab some tissues.
This big brother drove over 20 hours to make it to his little brother’s pep rally for his football team’s first playoff game. You can see No. 70 rush off the stands to greet his big brother.
And this Army soldier’s mother could barely contain herself when he surprised her at a restaurant. The pure joy on his father’s face is pretty great, too.
Returning from his deployment, the first words this soldier heard were, “It’s a boy!”
Airman First Class Corey Schreffler surprised his gradeschool-aged brother and sister after being stationed in New Mexico for 14 months.
And when this girl was called down to the office, she had no idea her father was waiting for her.
This girl’s Air Force father is a “superhero.” The dramatic reveal of the returning father behind the screen was a nice touch.
Then there were was this soldier who had a pressing question on his mind upon his return. Now this was one heck of a cheer.
US Army soldier Josh McCallum has known his girlfriend Lexi since junior high. She thought he was still in South Korea when he showed up at her beauty school with a ring.
There are far too many happy reunions to tell, but here are some of the best from 2016:
But wait! Don’t forget the furry friends. These pets are just as happy to see their masters:
We should all rejoice with these families and celebrate the return of their beloved service members [on] Veterans Day. (For more from the author of “Is There Anything More Heartwarming Than a Soldier Returning Early to Surprise His Kids?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5114510558_3d0946b2a0_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-12 03:34:052016-11-12 03:34:05Is There Anything More Heartwarming Than a Soldier Returning Early to Surprise His Kids?
The general reaction of Hollywood liberals following the 2016 presidential election results has been one of anger, sadness, and horror. But Miley Cyrus of all people had a surprisingly gracious response to Donald Trump’s victory.
After Wednesday morning’s announcement, the controversial pop singer tweeted a video to her fans in which she verbally grappled with the implications of a Trump win.
Some may argue that the tears were a little much, but those individuals should recall that many Republicans were just as devastated by the 2012 election results. Given this, Cyrus’ reflection was a refreshing departure from the pointless whining, name-calling, and anti-American rhetoric of her peers.
“…I do want to say that I’ve been very vocal [in] my support for everyone besides Donald Trump,” she admitted. “Heavily supported Bernie, heavily supported Hillary. And I still think that in her lifetime she deserves to be the first female president. And that’s what makes me so sad—is that I just wish she had that opportunity because she’s fought for so long, and because I believe her when she says she loves this country. This is all she’s ever done; she’s given her life to make it better.”
“But like Trump so ironically played after his speech, that said you can’t always get what you want. And happy hippies, we adjust, and we accept everyone, and who they are. And so Donald Trump, I accept you. And, this hurts to say, but I even accept you as the president of the United States. And that’s fine. That’s fine because, I think now, I want to be a hopeful hippie.
…
But please, please just treat people with love and treat people with compassion and treat people with respect, and I will do the same for you. And … anything you ever want to talk about or understand—maybe people that don’t think the same way that you and some of the people that support you do—please, if you wanna open your mind and you wanna open your heart, I would love to give you a key.”
Cyrus—the same person who vowed to flee the country should Trump win the election—demonstrated the type of humility and genuine care for the American people that is virtually nonexistent among the entertainment industry’s elite. If she can show a change of heart and humanize the man she once labeled her enemy, then liberals and conservatives should be hopeful about the hard conversations and compromises that undoubtedly lie ahead. (For more from the author of “Miley Cyrus’ Reaction to Trump’s Election Was Surprisingly Refreshing” please click HERE)
At least two FOX Business News hosts have claimed that President Barack Obama told illegal immigrants to vote in an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez late last week. The first was Neil Cavuto; the second was Stuart Varney.
Snopes was quick to pronounce it “False,” but their pronouncement seemed overly hasty. So what’s the truth?
It’s complicated. What seems to have happened is that Rodriguez asked a question, in which she claimed that illegal immigrants are citizens, and Obama answered a slightly different question. That only becomes clear later in the interview, however. Initially, it sounds like he is agreeing with her false premise, and encouraging illegals to vote.
Unfortunately, FOX Business ran a clip of the interview that did not include all of Obama’s comments (which, frankly, were garbled). When one listens to the entire interview two or three times, however, the more natural interpretation is that Obama is encouraging Latino citizens to vote, even if they have family members who are illegal immigrants. But the exchange is confusing. (See the full interview below.)
Here’s the relevant interchange (which starts at 3:23 in the interview):
RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.
OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school …
RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.
OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
What Else Obama (and Rodriguez) Said
There’s still plenty to object to in the interview. While Obama didn’t encourage illegal immigrants to vote, Rodriguez did. She also made the emotionally charged, but false, statement that citizenship is determined by those who “contribute to this country.”
Rodriguez and Obama also seemed to agree, in another part of the interview, that there is no fraud at the election booth, with the president emphatically saying “No” when asked about it.
Moreover, Obama said that “people are discouraged from voting” and that “fear is promoted … because they don’t want people voting.” While voter ID laws and other measures are locked in court battles across the country, many of the laws challenged by liberals (and the Obama administration) merely require voters to show proof of citizenship via a photo identification.
This is hardly a rerun of the Jim Crow era, especially with the growing circumstantial evidence of widespread voter fraud. And even Obama said just moments later that not everyone can vote, and moments earlier had said “when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.”
Fair Elections?
Obama’s comments came just a few days before the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it will send 500 people to 67 locations in 28 states to oversee voting. The announcement made passing references to stopping illegal voting, but spent far more time outlining how the DOJ plans to make sure people going to the polls aren’t blocked.
While all legally registered voters should be able to participate in the election process, it is concerning that the DOJ seemed to pass over the threat of illegal voting.
Then again, given the Tea Party targeting scandal of 2012 and the DOJ’s cover-ups for Hillary Clinton this year, why would we expect Obama to uphold fair elections?
Here’s the full interview:
(For more from the author of “Obama Didn’t Endorse Illegal Voting, but There’s Plenty Wrong With What He Did Say” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/451513699_1280x720-4.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-08 01:04:052016-11-12 20:02:22Obama Didn’t Endorse Illegal Voting, but There’s Plenty Wrong With What He Did Say
