Why 209 Is the Most Significant Number Behind Trump’s Victory

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Since her op-ed in the Washington Post last week lamenting “the way Trump won,” Clinton Communications Director Jen Palmieri has done a turn on a host of cable news shows, demanding “introspection” from the Trump team for supposedly winning by appealing to, and empowering, white supremacists.

Ms. Palmieri, it seems, has taken her sour grapes and disguised them as a self-righteous crusade against the very “deplorables” that cost her boss the election.

Ms. Palmieri’s op-ed and subsequent comments read like a calculated exercise in self-delusion; the kind where people construct an alternate reality to live in because reality itself is too difficult to accept. In this instance, Palmieri takes the existence of white supremacy in America as somehow proof that Donald Trump rode to power on its back.

While that might make a more comfortable world for Palmieri to live in — one where she doesn’t have to acknowledge the weaknesses of her own candidate — the electoral facts of this election simply do not bear that out.

Perhaps no detail illustrates this more than the number 209. That’s the number of counties that voted to send Barack Obama to the White House (and not just once, but twice), that flipped to support Trump — and overwhelmingly so.

Again, those are counties that voted for Trump after overwhelmingly supported a black president for two election cycles. If this election was indeed a cover for empowering white supremacists, how does Palmieri explain this statistic?

Aside from how impressive that number is, there are equally unimpressive numbers for Hillary Clinton. In fact, Palmieri might do well to heed the number six. That’s the number of counties that never supported Obama, but voted for Clinton. Yes, just six.

If Palmieri can’t discern the message embedded in those numbers, it’s this: Her candidate failed to reach reliable Democratic voters, but even worse, utterly failed to convince anyone else to join her team.

It wasn’t some bizarre pact with the Ku Klux Klan (an organization that Trump has disavowed) that put Trump in the White House. Nor was there an uprising of white supremacist voters for Donald Trump — or any popular upsurge for Trump at all, in fact. He received about as many votes as Mitt Romney did in 2012. Votes for Trump were just better distributed throughout traditionally blue states in the industrial Midwest — and that was crucial to his victory.

Even more damning for Ms. Palmieri’s claims of empowered sects white supremacists is that Trump actually did better with black and Hispanic voters than Romney did. As one pollster noted in recent analysis,

With Barack Obama off the ticket – and Ms. Clinton on it – higher percentages of both [black and Hispanic voters] voted Republican last month. Black voters helped Mr. Trump even more by staying home. In crucial Michigan and Wisconsin, Ms. Clinton received an estimated 129,000 fewer of their votes than Mr. Obama, more than Mr. Trump’s combined margin of victory in two states. [Emphasis added.]

Ms. Palmieri can bemoan the negative aspects of American society all she wants, but the simple fact is, that’s not why Donald Trump won.

Rather, the post-election analysis shows that Trump simply went to states that Hillary Clinton spent little time in instead taking them for granted. In Michigan and Wisconsin — traditionally blue states that went to Trump — Clinton’s campaign was drastically under resourced.

Per one report, Michigan had one-tenth the canvasser capacity utilized by then-Senator John Kerry during his 2004 presidential race. The same poor ground game cost Clinton Pennsylvania. As tellingly is where the candidates chose to spend the most time in the last 100 days of the election. Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Clinton made 87.

These electoral statistics don’t even begin to address the quality of candidates and their messaging, and the role that played in the election. Trump may have lacked the 30 years of political experience of Clinton; often much less polished, unfiltered, and politically incorrect.

In fact, it’s perhaps exactly what the voters were hungry for: a candidate that appealed to those voters who felt displaced, disenfranchises, and looking for real change (not the type promised by Senator Barack Obama back in 2008).

As for Hillary Clinton, she could not have been a more status-quo candidate. Moreover, she failed entirely to reach voters in rural areas, a constituency Democrats have long taken for granted. But without a compelling economic strategy, or any strategy really — except to promise another Obama-term — the Clinton campaign did little to sway them.

In fact, Politico reported that Clinton’s campaign team had one staffer dedicated to rural outreach — based in Brooklyn.

Despite Palmieri’s hysterics, perceived support from the fringe of American society is not responsible for electing Trump. Palmieri may not agree with all the Trump team’s rhetorical tactics. Indeed, some disagreement should in fact be expected, but her inability to recognize the strategic failures of the campaign she ran, not to mention the poor quality of her own candidate, should be evidence that Democrats are nothing but sore losers. (For more from the author of “Why 209 Is the Most Significant Number Behind Trump’s Victory” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Harry Reid Take a $2 Million Bribe? The Feds Won’t Let Investigators Find Out

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There are allegations that outgoing U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) may have accepted a massive bribe to push a bill legalizing online poker nationwide in 2010. And the federal government has reportedly “stymied” the investigation into those allegations.

Tom Harvey and Jennifer Dobner report for The Salt Lake Tribune that Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings is investigating the origins of a $2 million cashier’s check with connections to an online poker company that was laundered through “Mail Media LTD” — an outfit for laundering online-gambling funds — and may have landed in a Marshall Islands bank account in the name of a holding company “to benefit, or even bribe, Harry Reid, the once-powerful majority leader.”

According to their reporting, “state and federal investigations, court filings and public records requests — including audio recordings of interviews and thousands of pages of transcripts, summaries by investigators, emails, requests for evidence and other materials — show that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI failed to pursue a vigorous investigation of this money and any potential tie to Reid.”

The matter was brought to Rawlings’ attention when “disgraced” businessman Jeremy Johnson confessed that the money came out from a now-defunct business where Johnson and his cohorts illegally processed payments for poker companies. Johnson told FBI agents and Rawlings that Sen. Reid was going to get “a little something extra” in exchange for political help.

Rawlings’ investigation into the route of the $2 million check picked up the trail from two former Utah attorneys general of interest, with the officials’ suspicious actions motivating Rawlings to further pursue the case. Harvey and Dobner of the Tribune report:

The available evidence contains no direct connection between the money and the Nevada Democrat, only that Rawlings wants to dig into that possibility.

Federal authorities have stymied his effort, leaving Rawlings to wonder why. Were agents ordered to steer clear of that money trail? And, if so, by whom? In short, was there a cover-up? […]

Even at the state level, though, Rawlings’ push for funding for a grand jury also has stalled. Attorney General Sean Reyes’ office has not turned over any funds for such an inquiry despite months of negotiations.

Johnson had claimed to authorities at the time of Reid’s contentious 2010 reelection bid against Republican Sharon Angle, his company SunFirst was asked to distribute poker funds to Reid through various donors at a July 6, 2010 fundraiser.

The Salt Lake Tribune documents the following events thereafter:

Reid, according to Johnson, told the crowd — including Bitar, Ifrah and Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas — that he was switching positions and would now support legislation to ensure that online poker was legal at the federal level. Pappas said in an interview that he didn’t remember what Reid said at the meeting.

In his multiple accounts of the meeting, and specifically in a February 2014 interview with two FBI agents, Johnson has said, “Harry Reid is going around meeting people and saying ‘Hi’ and I was standing next to one of Ray’s entourage and I’m like, ‘How did you guys get Harry Reid to go against his own constituents and do this?’ and he’s like, ‘Well, let’s just say he’s getting a little something extra in his retirement fund.'”

Attorney Troy Rawlings has asked federal agencies for evidence linking Reid to this bank account. But while they have been happy to investigate other figures of interest, they have blocked efforts to gain information about the Democratic Senate minority leader: “Rawlings said he has been told by federal authorities to ‘forget Harry Reid.’”

A month after Sen. Reid’s reelection in 2010, he began campaigning in Congress to legalize online poker.

According to Tom Harvey and Jennifer Dobner, “Reid’s spokeswoman did not return emails and a phone message seeking comment for this story. Previously, his office called any bribery allegations “unsubstantiated” and accused Rawlings of grandstanding to advance his political career.” (For more from the author of “Did Harry Reid Take a $2 Million Bribe? The Feds Won’t Let Investigators Find Out” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Forty Electoral College Members Now Calling for Intelligence Briefing Before They Vote

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Thirty additional members of the Electoral College signed their names to a letter Tuesday demanding an intelligence briefing prior to casting their votes for president Dec. 19.

Forty electors have now signed the letter, all of them Democrats with the exception of one Republican, according to The Hill.

As reported by Western Journalism, a group of 10 electors requested more information Monday about the ongoing investigation regarding what influence the Russians may have had in the presidential election.

In an open letter addressed to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the electors stated they would need additional details before meeting Dec. 19 to formally vote for the country’s next president.

Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is one of the electors leading the effort.

The letter reads, in part: “The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations.”

“We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States,” the letter continues.

It concludes, “Additionally, the Electors will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.”

The campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton is backing the effort by the electors.

On Fox News Sunday, President-elect Trump was asked about a Washington Post story Friday headlined, “Secret CIA Assessment Says Russia Was Trying To Help Trump Win White House.”

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why, and I think it’s just — you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week, it’s another excuse,” he replied.

“So, why would the CIA put out this story that the Russians wanted you to win?” host Chris Wallace followed up.

“I’m not sure they put it out. I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. And, frankly, I think they’re putting it out. It’s ridiculous,” the president-elect responded.

During the race, the Clinton campaign and fellow Democrats blamed the Russians for being behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee that resulted in embarrassing emails being released by WikiLeaks.

Since the election, the Clinton team has supported Green Party Candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, despite the former secretary of state’s having described any attempts to undermine or not accept the election results as “horrifying” during a presidential debate in October.

“That is not the way our Democracy works,” Clinton said. “We have been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcome when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected. … [Trump] is talking down our democracy, and I, for one, am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.”

Additionally, the Democrat nominee has pointed to “fake news” and FBI Director James Comey as reasons Trump won the election. (For more from the author of “Forty Electoral College Members Now Calling for Intelligence Briefing Before They Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Key Questions About Russia’s Alleged Hacking of the US Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Central Intelligence Agency report that Russian operatives intervened in the U.S. election to help President-elect Donald Trump win has roiled Capitol Hill, producing a bipartisan call for congressional investigations.

But there is skepticism within the U.S. government, particularly at the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, that the evidence definitively proves that the Russians had the specific goal of influencing Americans to vote for Trump.

This split, amplified by Trump’s expressed disbelief in the CIA’s conclusion, sets up an early test for the next president, who will likely come into office as lawmakers—including Republicans—are investigating what happened.

At the same time, Trump, who has vowed a closer relationship with Russia, will have to deal with a range of policy challenges dealing with the Kremlin’s military interventions in wars in Syria and Ukraine.

The Daily Signal below explains the many questions of the Russian hacking controversy, and what consequences may come from it.

What Happened and When?

In early October, the Obama administration confirmed what the intelligence community had long expected, formally accusing Russia of trying to interfere in the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, and releasing the information to WikiLeaks.

In its announcement, the Obama administration noted Russia had previously attempted to interfere in other countries’ political processes, using other techniques to influence public opinion in Europe.

The White House, at this point, was considering potential responses, including economic sanctions, but it did not mount an offensive reply.

In the weeks before the presidential election, The New York Times reported that American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos into the campaign.

But last week, as The Washington Post first reported, the CIA produced a formal assessment to lawmakers concluding that Russia did not just intend to disrupt the election, but intervened with the primary goal of electing Trump as president.

“It doesn’t appear that there is any real uncertainty here about the origins of the attacks,” said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research for the foreign policy program at Brookings Institution, in a response to emailed questions from The Daily Signal. “I see the differences as ones of interpretation—who can really be sure of Russian motives based on observation of their actions?”

The FBI has not affirmatively concluded the Russians’ intent.

It is unclear why the CIA waited until after the election to reveal its judgment.

Intelligence officials also believe that Russia hacked the databases keeping Republican National Committee data, but chose to release only documents from the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

How Have Politicians Reacted?

Trump dismissed the CIA’s report, referencing the agency’s faulty 2002 conclusion that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction.

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,” Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News.

Republicans in Congress have also been careful about supporting the CIA’s assertion that Russia tried to throw the election to Trump—and that the Kremlin’s influence impacted the result. But many lawmakers in Trump’s party have been forceful in calling for investigations into what happened.

“I don’t believe any member of Congress should summarily dismiss an assessment from the intelligence community with respect to Russian interference in an American election,” Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:

We must take this seriously and investigate it. I have not seen any evidence thus far that the outcome of the presidential election was impacted by Russia’s actions. But with that said, it disturbs me greatly that Russia is attempting to interfere with our democratic process, not only in the U.S., but throughout Europe as well.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Monday that he supported congressional investigations of possible Russian cyberattacks, which will be led by the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee.

McConnell said the investigations would occur through the normal committee process, and he did not endorse the creation of a special select committee probe.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., seemed to suggest Monday he backs a similar investigation of Russian “state-sponsored cyberattacks.”

“Throughout this Congress, the Intelligence Committee [has] been working diligently on the cyber threats posed by foreign governments and terrorist organizations to the security and institutions of the United States,” Ryan said in a statement. “This important work will continue and has my support.”

Democrats also want a congressional probe, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign even said it supports a request by members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election, Politico reported.

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has ordered a full review into Russia’s hacking to capture “lessons learned” to be concluded before Trump’s inauguration.

Is It Normal for Intelligence Agencies to Disagree?

David Shedd, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency who has worked for the CIA, said it’s normal for the FBI to take a more cautious view of intelligence assessments because of its law enforcement obligation.

“The bureau [FBI] will be more conservative,” said Shedd, who is now a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “They are evidence driven. They are about making a court case, determining what will stand up in court. The intelligence community is not about making evidentiary conclusions rising to the level of a court action, but making a judgment that falls considerably short to what the FBI would need to make a similar call.”

Despite the CIA’s lower burden of proof, Patrick Eddington, a Cato Institute policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties and former CIA analyst, said it’s wrong to assume the agency’s conclusions are flimsy.

“The reality is the CIA does not always get it wrong, and I think because of the track record of the agency, people naturally have a level of skepticism on whether this is real,” Eddington told The Daily Signal in an interview. “That makes it all the more important for everything surrounding this judgment—all the raw intelligence it is based on—to be made public so everyone can make their own conclusions.”

How Can the US Respond?

If Obama elects not to take action, the Trump administration will have a range of options on how to respond to Russia.

These include imposing economic sanctions for “malicious cyber-enabled activities,” a new executive branch tool that Obama created last year, but hasn’t used yet.

The Justice Department could indict Russian actors for hacking. The National Security Agency may also retaliate with its own cyber tools against the Kremlin.

Shedd suggested the U.S. take broader actions to discourage Russia aggression not only in cyberspace, but in other foreign policy endeavors.

“If I were sitting again in the Situation Room, I would be making a very strong case that our response needs to be asymmetrical to the cyberattack,” Shedd said. “Why in the world would we do cyber on cyber as our only response? My advice is to look at what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s other objectives are. That could be getting him out of Syria and Ukraine—something that fits into our larger relationship with that country.”

Eddington suggested more caution, noting Putin’s unpredictability.

“You have to start with appropriate defensive measures, making sure our systems from a political and social engineering standpoint can’t be hacked,” Eddington said. “When we start talking about offensive measures, we have to be careful and calculated about what we do. At the end of the day, you need to make sure the response is such that Putin cannot afford a repeat, pays some sort short-term to medium-term cost, but at the same time, do not put Russia and the U.S. at the brink of confrontation. We are in uncharted territory in so many ways.” (For more from the author of “Key Questions About Russia’s Alleged Hacking of the US Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The state of Massachusetts has backed off a regulation that could have landed pastors in jail for operating church functions according to their faith.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the non-profit legal organization representing four churches who sued the state over the controversial regulations announced the victory Monday, after the churches agreed to drop the lawsuit.

“No church should fear government punishment simply for serving its community consistently with its faith,” ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a press release.

As The Stream previously reported, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released in September an updated Gender Identity Guidance that declared, “places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity.”

That meant during certain church events and activities, church leaders would have been forced to allow a biological man to use women’s restrooms or other facilities if he claimed to identify as a woman, regardless of the church’s religious beliefs regarding gender.

Specifically, the Gender Identity Guidance originally stated that “Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the public.”

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in the Washington Post at the time,

[E]ven church “secular events,” which I take it means events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by the church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means of the church modeling what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.

Punishment for violating these regulations included the possibility of a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Pastors could have even been jailed for refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

But the state backtracked after ADF initiated the legal case Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson by filing a lawsuit on behalf of four churches in early October.

Almost exactly one month later, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Division responded with a letter to ADF, saying that “your lawsuit caused us to focus on these issues and to make this revision.”

The Gender Identity Guidance has now been updated to say that the “law does not apply to a religious organization if subjecting the organization to the law would violate the organization’s First Amendment rights.” “Houses of worship” was also removed from the list of places of public accommodation from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s website.

ADF attorneys filed a notice of voluntary dismissal Monday.

“The government can’t encroach on the internal, religious practices of a church. The language revisions that our lawsuit prompted should ensure that doesn’t happen,” ADF Senior Counsel Steve O’Ban said in Monday’s press release. “The comments of commonwealth officials gave these churches reason for great concern, and so we are pleased wording changes have been made to respect the constitutionally protected freedoms these congregations and pastors have.”

ADF will be holding a press conference to discuss the state of the lawsuit on Wednesday, December 14 in Boston. (For more from the author of “Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Effort to Force Women into Combat, Allow Transgender Troops Results in $135 Billion Cover-Up, Deaths

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Just as the newly-elected Trump administration is preparing to take office, America gets a surprise reveal from The Washington Post that President Obama’s Pentagon deliberately suppressed a 2015 report revealing $125 billion in wasteful spending could be saved over five years. Secretary of Defense (not for long, thank God!) Ashton Carter, his deputy Robert Work and other underlings squashed the report and its findings, placing secrecy restrictions on it and removing it from public view. They were busy with more important things like getting women into combat units and people with gender identity confusion to serve openly. Exposed just three days after the $619 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 was passed, it reeks of a cover-up.

The Post reports:

Pentagon officials knew their back-office bureaucracy was overstaffed and overfunded. But nobody had ever gathered and analyzed such a comprehensive set of data before…Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management. The data showed that the Defense Department was paying a staggering number of people — 1,014,000 contractors, civilians and uniformed personnel — to fill back-office jobs far from the front lines.

Despite the recommendations to address the waste, namely through attrition and redirection of the funds to weapons repair and development and the troops themselves, officials used the scare tactic that revealing it would result in budget cuts. They used this excuse to hide it.

As I’ve previously reported, our military aircraft are at a mere 30 percent readiness, with the Marines even cannibalizing museum pieces to get some aircraft working. Our carrier fleet is in a similar state of disrepair and decline. The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U. S. Military Strength notes, with emphasis added:

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), testified in his March 2015 posture statement, the Navy was “compelled to further reduce the capacity of weapons and aircraft, slow modernization, and delay upgrades to all but the most critical shore infrastructure” due to continued budget shortfalls of $11 billion.

The Obama administration has slashed military personnel — 20,000 Marines in 2012, 20,000 from the Army in 2015 and another 30,000 this year — as well as military pay and pensions. While drawing down, however, they’ve prioritized spending for more recruiters to go after women for combat jobs because they want to see an increase in female representation in the ranks. Also on their priority list are mobile “unconscious bias” training units to disabuse grunts of believing in the physiological differences between men and women that are reconfirmed every time they test against men’s standards. And then there’s the “Transgender 101” training, sex change operations and safe spaces now being provided at taxpayer expense.

Reduced flight training due to budget cuts imposed on the services has resulted in several fatal crashes, including one last January that killed 12 Marines. The waste revelation is more than just a disgrace. Marines have died directly due to a lack of funding for the training they need, but Obama’s Pentagon wouldn’t deign to divulge the waste, let alone slash office jobs held by civil servants. The stink of Washington elitism is repugnant. Far from the fray, detached from the consequences of their actions, they’re willing to put men and women in harm’s way without the things they need to succeed and to survive.

The government’s first and most basic responsibility is to protect citizens against enemies foreign and domestic. Yet the hard-earned dollars of those same citizens are being squandered in the worst way. More importantly, the lives of those actually defending the country are not only being put in greater peril but are being squandered just to fund more overpriced contractors and civilian desk jockies. Ashton Carter couldn’t care less.

Luckily for us, far better leadership is soon to take over in the form of retired Marine General James Mattis, a man who cares deeply for America’s defenders. His oversight of the Pentagon can’t come soon enough. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Effort to Force Women into Combat, Allow Transgender Troops Results in $135 Billion Cover-Up, Deaths” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Team Clinton Can’t Stop Whining, and It’s Getting Embarrassing

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, you didn’t see Republicans whining. Quite the contrary: They got to work and launched the Tea Party wave. Unsurprisingly, after spending the year insulated in their Brooklyn safe space, the Clinton team has perfected the art of whining since voters rebuked them in early November. They are blaming everyone and everything but themselves and their horrible candidate for their loss. It’s really starting to get embarrassing.

While it is hard to select just one whine as the whiniest, there seems to be a winner.

Drumroll, please …

And the award for whiniest Clinton team whine goes to … Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Clinton’s campaign. You know the person most responsible — after Clinton herself — for the tone-deafness of the campaign.

Palmieri got into a verbal altercation with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway last week at Harvard University. The disdain was palpable.

Palmieri started the fireworks by stating that she was “more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-‘Right’ speech than any other moment of the campaign.” This statement elicited an audible, “Wow” from Conway. It got more heated from there when Conway asked Palmieri to explain, “How exactly did we win?” after Palmieri said she would “rather lose” than “win the way you did.”

Conway got the better of the altercation.

Now Palmieri is taking another shot at Conway this time in a Washington Post op-ed. She pats herself on the back, with both hands, for “standing up” to Conway. Then goes off on a diatribe about how Clinton really won, and basically the Trump administration has no mandate.

But it’s also important for the winners of this campaign to think long and hard about the voters who rejected them. I haven’t seen much evidence of such introspection from the Trump side. That’s concerning.

She then says that Trump’s words hurt people. It is basically a rehash of their entire campaign. That Trump’s a mean bully who won’t be the president, even if he got elected. Because as Palmieri likes “to note, Clinton received more votes for president than any white man in U.S. history.”

You can just feel the condescension with those words. Of course, they are meaningless because Trump actually won where it mattered. As far as a mandate goes, Trump has a pretty strong one. Conway explained to Chuck Todd after the encounter about the mandate:

People open up their mailboxes and fire up their computers and see these premium increases. But, you know, the idea that he doesn’t have a mandate, when on President Obama’s watch they now lost the White House, 60 seats in the House, over a dozen Senate seats, over a dozen governorships, and over 1,000 state legislative seats, this Democratic party is having an identity crisis in a circular firing squad, and what I heard at Harvard is the same thing I hear all the time, “It’s Jim Comey’s fault, it’s Bernie Sanders’ fault.”

There is most definitely a Republican-governing mandate. When folks like Palmieri claim there is none, they are trying to delegitimize a Trump presidency like they did to George W. Bush. Trump and his team seem willing to fight back hard against that.

Almost daily you hear another Democrat, or media analyst, talking about how Trump’s picks for his administration are going to destroy the country — or most laughably the environment. Take for example Dan Pfeiffer, a former member of the Obama administration.

That’s right. Up until the end, global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism.

These folks wonder why Trump can’t be gracious and consensus building like — make sure you have no fluids in your mouth for this — Barack Obama. (If you did a spit take, I warned you.) That’s right. They still can’t see that to many everyday Americans, Obama was worse and more divisive than their wildest fantasies about Donald Trump.

So maybe they should just take what Obama said after the 2008 election to heart. I’ve slightly edited it for them, “Elections have consequences and …” Donald Trump “… won.” (For more from the author of “Team Clinton Can’t Stop Whining, and It’s Getting Embarrassing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Is Appointing (Gasp!) Conservatives to Serve in His Administration

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The perplexity, outrage, and shock of the left over the election of Donald Trump has been hilarious for those of us watching the liberal commentariat and its (sometimes unwitting) journalistic allies.

In recent days, the geyser of leftist anger has been given new life by the President-elect’s appointment of conservatives to prominent positions in his nascent administration. One headline after another seems to herald amazement that a man who promised conservative governance would appoint conservatives to leadership posts as he assembles his Cabinet. Incredible, right?

Mainstream Media Horrified at Trump’s Appointment of a Pro-Life Health Secretary

Tom Price is a physician who has served in Congress for more than a decade. A solid advocate for the unborn and opponent of the predatory abortion industry, Price is esteemed by his colleagues for his good judgment and sharp mind. Currently serving as chairman of the House Budget Committee, his “Empowering Patients First Act” is a comprehensive alternative to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).

Yet Price’s appointment to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services has been greeted with crass vitriol by liberals accustomed to using HHS as their political tool of choice to advance abortion on demand, whether surgical or contraceptive, in every facet of the American health care system. Here are some samples of Rep. Price’s reception by the Left:

“With Extremist Tom Price at Helm, the ‘War on Women Has Reached HHS’” – Reddit.com

“Tom Price, A Radical Choice for Health Secretary” – New York Times editorial board

“Women’s Health Care Threatened by Trump HHS Choice, Tom Price” – Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC

“Trump Pledged to Protect Medicare. His Choice for Health Secretary Has Other Ideas” – Los Angeles Times

Donald Trump promised to be a strongly pro-life President. He has appointed a man to lead the Department of Health and Human Services who is strongly pro-life; in fact, Price, has a 100 percent lifetime legislative score from the National Right to Life organization.

Donald Trump wants to block-grant Medicare to the states. “The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead,” explains his campaign website. “States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.”

This idea is fiscally sound and commensurate with the principles of federalism. And it is neither new or radical. Tom Price has long supported block-granting Medicare. Yet now he is “outside the mainstream” (says Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer) and a “radical.”

Getting Personal

The attacks against some of Mr. Trump’s appointments are also personal. Senate Judiciary chairman and 20-year Senate veteran Jeff Sessions has been tapped by the President-elect to head the Justice Department. Sessions, a man who for decades has served the people of his home state without a whisper of personal scandal or political defamation, is now being accused of hidden racism because of off-hand comments he made 35 years ago.

I do not defend any racial bigotry on the part of Senator Sessions or anyone else, for that matter. However, to say that the “Specter of Race Shadows Jeff Sessions” (New York Times headline) is ludicrous. His record speaks to his belief that “all men are created equal.” “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People … has, without question, done more probably than any other organization to promote racial progress in the South,” he said in his 1986 Senate hearing concerning President Reagan’s nomination of him to be a federal judge and, during the same hearing, strongly condemned the Ku Klux Klan.

Should a remarkably well-qualified, dignified, and decent man be denied a post in which his leadership and probity could do so much good because of remarks he made in 1981? And could it not be that the real concern of determined liberals is not those long-ago comments but the fact that Sessions is a principled conservative who will bring strength, resolve, and courage to the task of de-politicizing a Justice Department that for eight years has been a forum of the extreme progressive agenda?

Here’s what Senator Quinton Ross, the African-American leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama State Senate, said about Sen. Sessions after the latter was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States: “We’ve spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people. We both acknowledge that there are no perfect men, but we continue to work daily to do the right thing for all people.”

Trump Was Elected by the People to Appoint Conservatives

Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. He has a constitutional duty to appoint people who will help him enact the agenda he was elected to implement. The Left should not be endlessly breathless over the conservatism of his appointees, nor so vicious in their hatred that they would destroy honorable people at whatever the cost.

They will continue their campaigns of disparagement and personal destruction, of course. But one thing is sure: If the media continue to parrot the excessive attacks of the left and if enraged liberal commentators continue to spew bile at the prospect of conservatives in charge of the executive branch, they will lose even more of the credibility they saw dissipate on the night of November 8, when their smug predictions and confident projections came to naught.

Even they should not be so out-of-touch as to recognize that. (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Is Appointing (Gasp!) Conservatives to Serve in His Administration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State of Georgia Finds Evidence That Feds Tried to Hack Official Election Computers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The state of Georgia on Thursday accused the U.S. Homeland Security Department of apparently trying to hack its election systems.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp said a computer traced back to the federal agency in Washington tried unsuccessfully to penetrate the state office’s firewall one week after the presidential election. The letter speculated that what it described as “a large unblocked scan event” might have been a security test.

It sought details, including whether the agency did in fact conduct the unauthorized scan, who authorized it and whether other states might have been similarly probed. Kemp cited the federal law against knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, which is a felony. (Read more from “State of Georgia Finds Evidence That Feds Tried to Hack Official Election Computers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Taps Open Borders Zealot to Head Department of Labor

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Amidst all of the political science theories analyzing the secret sauce for Trump’s victory, there is one factor we can say for certainly did not play a role in his victory. Nobody voted for him because they wanted him to be more like Bush on immigration. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Yet, that is exactly the sentiment expressed by Trump’s choice to head the Department of Labor, Andrew Puzder.

Puzder, the big restaurant mogul, is one of the most outspoken advocates for open borders in the business community and embodies everything the grassroots rejected in the elite mindset about immigration. Throughout his career, Puzder has parroted every straw-man, non-sequitur, and downright offensive talking point on immigration that we have heard from the elites all over Washington for years.

Here is a quick sample of Puzder’s ignorant open border talking points, each built upon a multitude of false premises:

Make the Gang of Eight great again

In 2013, Puzder praised the Gang of Eight bill, which was probably the worst piece of legislation introduced this decade after Obamacare. “A bill like the one before Congress could really be a benefit to the U.S. economy and it would be nice to participate in an economy that was constantly growing,” said Puzder at an open borders event in Washington.

Rather than learning the lessons of the rejected amnesty bill, Puzder wrote a patronizing column in the Wall Street Journal two years later, calling on Republicans to “end the drama” on immigration. Yes, as if we are the ones divorced from our history and tradition on immigration, not the Democrats. As the 2016 presidential primary began to heat up, Puzder advised that “every candidate should support a path to legal status — short of citizenship — for illegal immigrants willing to accept responsibility for their actions and take the consequences.”

Of course, it’s all about what to do for foreign nationals, not about putting American security, sovereignty, and fiscal interests first.

Make Bloomberg billionaires great again

That same year, Puzder signed a letter for a Bloomberg billionaire front group pushing Republicans to pass another amnesty bill. He joined a group of business moguls pushing the other candidates to follow in Jeb Bush’s footsteps: “People vote with their hearts… Our values indicate we should be the party of immigration reform,” Puzder said. “[Many undocumented immigrants] live in fear of being deported, losing what they’ve built and being separated from their families.”

Puzder also promoted endless low-skilled and high-skilled visas in the same op-ed: “The American Enterprise Institute found in 2011 that “temporary foreign workers — both skilled and less skilled — boost U.S. employment,” and that immigrants with advanced degrees working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields “boost employment for U.S. citizens.”

Then, in July of this year, after it was clear Trump would not follow in Jeb’s footsteps, Puzder wrote an op-ed together with Stephen Moore, in part, beseeching Trump to change his mind on immigration. They offered the classic false choice argument: “We believe that deporting 11 million people is unworkable, and we hope in the end Mr. Trump comes to this same conclusion. Deportation should be pursued only when an illegal immigrant has committed a felony or become a “public charge.”

Yes, in other words, send the message that anyone who comes here will never be deported. And history has shown that anyone who subscribes to this view will never deport those who are criminals and certainly not those who constitute a public charge either.

What happened to putting Americans first?

Every word of Puzder’s long record of advocacy for open borders stands in contrast to Trump’s intellectually clear immigration speech he delivered in Arizona in late August:

When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following, amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.…

The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants… Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington… There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.

I’m hearing some conservatives dismiss these concerns by noting that Puzder is rock-solid on labor regulations and is the right fit for the job of labor secretary. After all, he is not being chosen to head the Justice Department or Homeland Security. The problem with this assessment is that Puzder has been such a high-profile supporter of all of the people and issues driving the open borders lobby. Historically, the labor secretary has wielded an enormous influence on immigration policy because they oversee all of the guest worker programs.

But it’s not just about guest worker visas. Anyone who has followed the immigration issue understands that the entire cabal of open borders lobbyists — which is essentially everyone in power in business, law, politics, lobbying, academia, etc. (“masters of the universe,” as Sen. Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) calls them) — has formed an ideological logrolling gravy train. Every facet of the immigration expansionist community will vouch for each sphere of open borders policy, even if it doesn’t directly affect them. In other words, the agriculture lobby doesn’t care about H1-b visas, but they will support them because they view any restriction as an eventual threat to their turf. Likewise, Silicon Valley doesn’t need a flood of refugees from Somalia, but will fight any efforts to shut down the program.

With this understanding in mind, picture how the entire gravy train will have one of their own in a strategic position relevant to immigration (although not the most important position). Puzder will serve as a countervailing force against any effort to clamp down on refugees, mass migration from the Third World, and the endless scams with visa programs that place big business instead of the people as a whole in charge of our sovereignty and future destiny.

Make no mistake, we don’t need more countervailing forces on immigration. The inertia and political gravity on this issue is one-directional in Washington. Aside from Jeff Sessions, especially after passing over Kris Kobach as DHS secretary, there will be no strong force keeping Trump in line to begin with. He has already gone off message on the issue and has always been wobbly on visas. We certainly don’t need Michael Bloomberg in charge of the Labor Department. Conservatives in the Senate should get some answers from Puzder with regards to immigration before they vote to confirm him.

Immigration (along with Obamacare, of course) is the hill to die on in the Trump presidency. It’s no secret that a lot of free market conservatism will be sidelined during this administration and that conservatives will have to swallow a number of bitter pills. Many conservative Trump supporters have suggested all along that such concessions would be worth it as the price for finally getting immigration right. In that case, we better make sure of it, not simply hope for change. Otherwise, conservatives will be left with an empty bag of promises. (For more from the author of “Trump Taps Open Borders Zealot to Head Department of Labor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.