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
How will history judge the national security and foreign policy of President Barack Obama? From the Iran deal to the Russian reset, the world is not a better or safer place after Obama’s eight-year tenure.
(For more from the author of “Obama’s 7 Biggest Foreign Policy Mistakes” please click HERE)
As millions of Americans united Wednesday night to watch one of the great traditions in American life — a World Series Game 7 — Walmart shared a vision of something deeper and grander that is also a part of the American tradition — families united in prayer on Thanksgiving Day.
The 30-second ad, which at World Series rates cost Walmart $500,000 — features the diversity of Americas families and the camaraderie of its service members as they gather, pray and enjoy the bonds of family.
Many expressed their delight with the ad on Twitter.
A commercial showing everyone praying before eating??? 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 great job Walmart!! #Walmart
The ad opens with shots of families gathered around their tables, as a voice solemnly asks all gathered, “Please bow your heads.”
“I’m just grateful that we can all be here in this moment,” says a man surrounded by his family.
The ad next cuts to a shot depicting active duty service members before cutting back to a small Asian-American child.
“I’m thankful for my family and that they care about me,” she says.
As the ad cuts back to another family seated around a table holding hands as they pray, a man’s voice reminds Americans of the struggles all families — and the nation — have endured.
“We’re another year older, we’ve been through a lot of trauma,” the speaker says.
The ad then shows a black female service member speaking to her fellow troops.
“No matter what color we are, no matter what uniform we got on, you guys are my family,” she says.
“There’s nothing more important than family today,” adds another uniformed soldier in a different setting. “It’s good to be together.”
The video then shows soldiers and families as they sit down for their Thanksgiving dinners as a woman sings a few words from the Beatles’ Come Together.
The ad was posted with a message from Walmart to America:
“America, let’s come together and take a moment to reflect on what we’re truly thankful for this holiday season. Friends, family and the chance to spend time with the ones we love. Walmart would like to give thanks to all of our Veterans and Active Duty Service Members at home and oversees this holiday season.” (For more from the author of “Walmart Goes Against the Grain With New Thanksgiving Ad” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/praying-hands-1381582628wU2-1.jpg12711920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-03 23:19:312016-11-12 19:59:33Walmart Goes Against the Grain With New Thanksgiving Ad
There’s a toxic myth in the culture that Christians and other pro-lifers need to debunk. Let’s call it the Seamless Snuggie, since it makes so many people so very comfortable. The Seamless Snuggie teaches:
The Left is the voice of compassion and empathy toward the vulnerable.
The Right is more attached to abstract rules than to concrete human beings.
So the Left is willing to trash abstractions such as property rights and national borders, for the sake of protecting the weak. The Right pushes back, defending the ideas which it cares about more than people.
However, the Left has a soft spot when it comes to sexual freedom, which gives it a blind spot on abortion. It misses the fact that the unborn are vulnerable and deserve protection.
The Right, because of its fetish for abstract rules (such as “Thou Shalt Not Murder”), opposes abortion. It is right, but only by accident.
So the Left is a much better candidate for protecting unborn children than the Right. We need to keep on electing pro-choice leftists like Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, but quietly try to help them see that the unborn deserve protection — just like illegal immigrants, Ivy grads with unpayable student loans, and transgender athletes.
Freedom Begins Below the Belt
Who wears the Seamless Snuggie? Bishops like Blaise Cupich of Chicago, members of groups like Democrats for Life, and all those “social justice Christians” out there who still insist that they are really pro-life, because while their candidates do want to keep abortion legal and taxpayer-funded for all nine months of pregnancy and for any reason including sex selection and killing the handicapped — they’re willing to offer bigger government programs for pregnant women. Of course, they want bigger government programs everywhere and for everyone, with the state taking ever greater control over every part of our lives — except in the bedroom. Freedom begins below the belt, and ends just above the thighs. So maybe the Seamless Snuggie is more like an astronaut diaper.
But we saw the Snuggie ripped off this weekend, trampled on the ground, and left in shreds on the streets of Hollywood Boulevard. Watch this video, which shows a mob of Hillary Clinton supporters confronting an elderly, homeless woman — who was holding up a Trump sign, trying to protect his “star” on the Walk of Fame from further vandalism. They surround her, assault, knock her down and taunt her. (WARNING: THIS VIDEO IS DISTURBING AND CONTAINS PROFANITY.)
The leftist who originally posted this video was part of the mob, and he put it on Youtube because he was proud of it, as Gateway Pundit reports. That site preserved his original commentary, which sneered at the beaten homeless woman — comments he later took down, before making the video private. His comments were seconded over and over again by anonymous cowards willing to gloat on the Internet over the violent assault on a homeless old lady, an American citizen who was stating her political views.
Life Unworthy of Life
This is the face of the Left today: Intolerant without being coherent, self-righteous without any rectitude, self-satisfied but insatiable. The Left wants to be seen as the face of compassion, but in fact there’s a long list of real human beings whom it has decided are beyond the pale of empathy — people who are, in the words of a long-ago German socialist party, “lives unworthy of life”:
Unborn children, especially those who are mentally handicapped or whose parents are poor.
The “deplorables” who reject liberal pieties on ethnicity, sex, and religion — who make up one fourth of the population, according to candidate Clinton.
Believers in the “middle ages dictatorship” of the Catholic church, according to email exchanges with Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.
Blue collar Americans who fear the impact of massive low-skill immigration on their neighborhoods and tax bills.
College professors who tell students to act like draft-age adults, and stop pretending that harmless Halloween costumes make them “feel unsafe.”
Cops risking their necks in neighborhoods pulverized by the Sexual Revolution and the welfare state
Nuns who don’t want to pay for the abortion pill
Christian bakers, florists, and college officials who object to same-sex marriage — a practice which both the Clintons and the Obamas claimed to oppose eight years ago.
Religious believers whose stance on unborn life threatens the “fundamental rights” of women, as Hillary told the United Nations, so it will “have to change.”
These are the people whom the Right wants to protect, along with everyone else, by insisting on “abstractions” like individual rights, human dignity, the natural law, and all the rest of those precious discoveries that our ancestors made and defended with their lives — from the Magna Carta through the American Revolution, from D-Day through the fight against ISIS. It is these precious safeguards, not smart phones or Netflix, that separate us from blood-crazed mobs that gloat over public executions, or theocratic rapists who cite sacred texts as pretexts for turning pre-teen girls into sex slaves. The Left has been assaulting such mores as hypocritical fictions for decades, and now we see what results: Naked, vicious tribalism, hatred, and blood in the streets.
I am the Image of God
The pro-life mission I Am Whole Life affirms the human dignity of every precious human being, from the persecuted Nubans of Sudan to the homeless in America’s city streets. I Am Whole Life conducts the “Imago Dei” outreach, sharing food, drug-store essentials, and t-shirts that remind these Americans down on their luck, or worn down by mental illness: “I am the image of God.” Here’s a video from one of those missions, conducted on the same street where that homeless American was attacked.
Anyone who can’t see that homeless people, unborn children, and people who disagree with their politics are really human beings too, with the same rights from the same God, has no place in public office. (For more from the author of “Homeless Trump Supporter Attacked by Pro-Clinton Mob” please click HERE)
The corrupt, buffoonish Nevada senator, Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) is at it again. You remember in 2012 when Reid said that Mitt Romney “hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” a claim that the Washington Post gave “Four Pinocchios.” Now, Senator Reid is saying that the FBI is withholding information about Donald Trump and Russia, in the wake of the FBI reopening the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Reid’s claim has a serious ring of déjà vu.
Here’s what Vox is reporting Reid is saying:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says that FBI Director James Comey is sitting on ‘explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.’
Comey isn’t telling the American public what he knows about Trump and the Russians, Reid says. But, he says, Comey seems eager to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton.
How can Reid expect the American public to believe him, after defending his previous lie to CNN with, “Well, Romney didn’t win, did he?”
Chris Cilliza of the Washington post called Reid’s answer to CNN “appalling.”
And yet the clip above shows Reid, in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, not only refusing to apologize for the claim but defending it — in a very weird way.
‘Romney didn’t win, did he?’ Reid said in response to Bash’s question of whether he regretted what he had said about Romney.
Think about that logic for a minute. What Reid is saying is that it’s entirely immaterial whether what he said about Romney and his taxes was true. All that mattered was that Romney didn’t win.
It was a rare glimpse into the tactics of the Left. A win-at-all costs mindset that has little regard for truth permeates everything they do. While we know that Hillary Clinton did, in fact, use a home-based email server — and that the server processed classified information — nothing has ever been disclosed about a secret Trump and Russia link.
When pressed about the connection, all Reid’s camp would say is: “There have been classified briefings.”
Asked Reid camp about claim of "coordination" btw Trump/Russia
That raises the question. If the briefings are classified, and did in fact happen, isn’t Reid breaking the law? Something he is now accusing Comey of doing?
Reid, of course, has been no stranger to corruption. Judicial Watch (JW) has put him on their “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list time and time again. In March of 2015, when Reid decided against running for reelection, JW highlighted the corruption scandals Reid has alleged involvement in.
JW highlights that in 2006, Reid allegedly violated: “Senate rules by concealing a seven-figured payoff on a suspicious land deal orchestrated by a longtime friend known for political bribery and mob ties.” In 2012, Reid was allegedly “embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal involving a Chinese “green energy” client of a Nevada law firm run by his son Rory.” Then, in 2013, Reid allegedly took “more than $130,000 in illegal campaign funds from a shady donor, Harvey Whittemore, who eventually went to jail.” And lastly, Reid allegedly “abused his authority to pressure the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite a $115 million foreign investor visa deal critical to his son’s casino client.”
When trying to determine if yet another one of Harry Reid’s outlandish claims has merit, remember to look at his past actions. When you do, you can chalk this one up to “Well, (insert name of political opponent here) didn’t win, did he?” (For more from the author of “Liar Harry Reid Makes Wild FBI Claims. Does Anyone Believe Him?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8277737463_c31d7d184e_b.jpg7311024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-10-31 20:06:092016-10-31 20:06:09Liar Harry Reid Makes Wild FBI Claims. Does Anyone Believe Him?
Gaining access to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama is a simple matter of cutting a check, according to a new video released by Project Veritas. (Mild language warning.)
In this video, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe describes an undercover operation where his group bought a shell company that sent $20,000 to a Democratic operation called Americans United for Change (AUC). Top Democratic operative Robert Creamer and AUC were told that the money was rerouted through Belize. According to Creamer, the cash would likely gain O’Keefe’s “donor” access to both the Democratic presidential nominee and the current occupant of the White House.
O’Keefe said AUC returned the donation after the first in the current Project Veritas video series was released earlier this month. According to The Washington Times, however, AUC president Brad Woodhouse claims the money was returned because “it was discovered that this was a Donald Trump-funded James O’Keefe scam,” and “the last thing we want to be associated with is a character like O’Keefe, who has been convicted and successfully sued for his illegal tactics and fraudulent activities.”
A spokesperson for AUC did not immediately return The Stream’s attempt to clarify whether AUC would have returned the possibly illegal donation if it was not affiliated with O’Keefe’s organization. O’Keefe notes AUC held onto the money for a month before discovering his involvement.
The video is the fourth in a series that appears to show Creamer, former AUC operative Scott Foval and others engaging in illegal and disruptive actions to help Clinton win the White House in November.
The first video, released in mid-October, catches Foval and Creamer discussing how they incite violence at GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s rallies. The second presents the Democrats’ possibly illegal Get Out The Vote efforts, while the third video shows evidence of illegal coordination between Clinton’s campaign and outside groups.
Foval was fired from AUC after the first video was released, and Creamer resigned from Democracy Partners, a group he founded. Both men and both groups have denied any wrongdoing. (For more from the author of “New Project Veritas Video Reveals How Pay for Play Creates Access to Clinton, Obama” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/23158392405_7ebf84db87_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-10-27 21:38:342016-10-27 21:38:34New Project Veritas Video Reveals How Pay for Play Creates Access to Clinton, Obama
In our culture war even a sports arena is a battlefield.
Whether it’s NFL’s Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling for the National Anthem or singer Denasia Lawrence’s kneeling while she sang the National Anthem, sporting events are increasingly becoming places where fans endure player protests at what should be a fun-filled occasion.
One artist did quite the opposite recently, Breitbart reports. Not only did Joe Everson sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at an East Coast Hockey League game, he did so while creating a painting based on the famous World War II photograph “Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.”
The original was taken in 1945 to commemorate several Marines hoisting Old Glory after a battle in the Pacific. This painting was rendered before a hockey match between the Toledo Walleye and the Brampton Beast.
Watch the amazing and patriotic video of Joe Everson painting the iconic image while singing our National Anthem.
This guy just sang the national anthem at the Walleye game…this is awesome…watch til the end! pic.twitter.com/6JCSR7F8ba
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/american-flag-1030808_960_720.jpg640960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-10-25 18:12:102016-10-25 18:12:10Painter Does Something Unusually Patriotic While Singing the National Anthem
Conservative funnyman and expert liberal ignorance-exposer Steven Crowder took to the streets in a new video to find out what “common sense” gun control actually means.
Apparently, it involves less “common sense” and more “common I-have-no-clue-what-I’m-talking-about.”
Check it out:
Yikes. “Ignorance, thy name is Leftism,” indeed.
For more from Steven Crowder, visit Louder With Crowder. (For more from the author of “These Gun-Grabbing Liberals Are So Ignorant It Hurts!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/beretta-906612_960_720.png620960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-10-24 23:36:402016-10-25 00:18:00These Gun-Grabbing Liberals Are So Ignorant It Hurts!
Hillary Clinton demonstrated tonight that if we only had a political party committed to American sovereignty — sans the gratuitous baggage that has come along with Trump — the Democrats would be decimated on the issue of immigration alone, not to mention other policies.
Kellyanne Conway must have invented a pill to finally keep Trump on message about the issues, and it especially showed with regard to immigration before it wore off later in the debate. Hillary got ensnared in the classic open borders canard in which the radicals extol the virtues of illegal immigration, but then are forced to proclaim why they still support border security. Which begs the question: what exactly are they trying to secure if they want illegal immigrants?
Hillary referred to “undocumented” immigrants almost a dozen times and refused to recognize the interests of American citizens. At one point she brazenly said this used to be a bipartisan issue. She is more correct than she knows!
In the 1995 State of the Union Address, her husband, President Bill Clinton, exalted the work of the Jordan Commission on immigration — which called for a reduction in immigration and comprehensive enforcement against illegal immigration. He railed against the unfairness of illegal immigration and sounded, ironically, a lot like …Trump.
During tonight’s debate, Hillary went on to offer the false choice between open borders and mass deportations by trains and buses. Nobody is buying that line anymore. We already have a deportation force — it’s called ICE. Husband deported four times as many people as Obama did and more than the Bush administration did using that force. And don’t even get me started on Harry Reid’s strong position on immigration in the ‘90s and the bipartisan bill after 9/11 to cut off visas to countries with a presence of Islamic terrorists.
Indeed, there was a time when both parties supported the concept of a nation state with borders.
Then, Chris Wallace caught her in the tight rope act between what she really believes on immigration and what she tells the public:
Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. So that’s the question…”
Hillary simply could not answer the question, and in an awkward pivot, began hitting Trump on his comments about Putin. She simply demurred on the issue of immigration by saying the comments were only about energy. Yeah, right.
You could hear the sucking sound coming out of her level of support from your average swing voter.
Unfortunately, this was probably a dollar late and a dime short to get to issues of substance, given that the contours of this race are already defined by baggage. But what this debate did demonstrate is that when the focus is on issues, Democrats lose; when it’s about personalities, Democrats win. It’s that simple. The few times Chris Wallace veered off his very effective and disciplined agenda into personal stuff you could feel Trump doing damage to himself. When it was about issues, Trump’s performance vacillated depending on the issue, but Hillary was not winning points on a single policy and was an utter disaster on immigration. In general, Trump expressed the least support for some of his liberal positions and the most support for conservative ideas than at any other time, especially towards the beginning on the topics of the Constitution and immigration.
Does this mean he is back in the game? It’s hard to see enough people moving beyond the character issues to dramatically alter the entrenched impressions of him, especially when he is down by so much with early voting already under way. He also didn’t help himself by refusing to accept the outcome of the election. Once again, when he wasn’t attacking Hillary from principle on issues he was hemorrhaging support. However, the exposure of Hillary’s radicalism on policies such as immigration will likely help Republicans down ballot by reminding voters that there is more to life than Donald Trump’s zaniness after November 8. The American people don’t want to give the keys of all of the federal government to the Democrats. Hillary will not have a mandate to pursue a single policy issue.
The field is wide open for a new movement, unencumbered by the distraction of personal baggage, to fight the Democrats on the issues. The Left has nothing left but to fight Republicans on their own glass jaw. What if we had a party unvarnished by Trump-like personal baggage or pale-pastel immigration and economic views of establishment Republicans? Perhaps, even if we accepted the outcome of the presidential election, their dangerous agenda would be crushed in the states and in Congress.
A Hillary victory will be an utter disaster. But tonight’s debate performance shows why there might also be a critical opportunity to finally fight back on the issues in a way we’ve never done before. (For more from the author of “Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies” please click HERE)
