How Left-Wing Billionaire George Soros Manipulated the 2016 Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

He’s “the puppet master,” Glenn Beck says. He creates what The Washington Times calls an “echo chamber” in the mainstream media. The studies and messages he manufactured were “used verbatim hundreds of times in sources ranging from The New York Times to the Philadelphia Inquirer.”

While left-wing billionaire George Soros wasn’t able to tip the presidential election to Hillary Clinton, he made a significant difference in other ways this election season.

Soros Exposed — Through Hacks

In August, the site DCLeaks released over 2,500 hacked internal documents from Soros’s organizations, primarily his Open Society Foundations. Although the mainstream media has virtually ignored the documents, a handful of conservative sites have been picking through them. J. Christian Adams of PJ Media has put together the biggest exposé.

The leaked documents revealed not just run-of-the-mill leftwing donations, but the type of activism worthy of the title “puppet master.” For instance:

Soros tried to influence European elections in 2014, and is seeking to influence Malaysia’s elections in 2018.

He sought to influence Supreme Court justices on illegal immigration in the case U.S. v. Texas, “primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy.”

The Open Society Foundations funded opposition research on critics of radical Islam.

The Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of the internet, to determine “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.”

He provided $33 million to radical groups like Black Lives Matter to foment unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and around the country.

Manipulates Media Coverage

Soros has built up a conglomerate of political and media organizations, which he uses to influence public policy and the mainstream media. The leaked documents, Adams observes, “reveal deliberate and successful efforts to manipulate media coverage of election issues in mainstream media outlets like The New York Times.”

For example, he funds organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice that claim there is no voter fraud. The idea of the “voter fraud myth” is then pushed out into the media through his own media operations, including “New America Media,” which caters to ethnic groups, and a “Media Consortium.”

In contrast, Adams notes, “Conservatives and Republicans have no opposing effort or source of funds that represents even a small fraction in opposition to level of the Soros-led manipulation contained in the leaked documents.”

Soros’s organizations include MoveOn.org, ACORN, and numerous pro-amnesty organizations. He has repeatedly referred to himself as a “god,” and wrote in his 1987 book, The Alchemy of Finance, “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance — to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”

He amassed his fortune through risky currency trades. He was convicted in 2002 of insider trading by a French appeals court. The Malaysian Prime Minister said in 1997 that Soros’s risky trading was partially responsible for the collapse of several Asian currencies.

Poured Over $25 Million Into the 2016 Election

Soros contributed $8 million to the super PAC associated with Hillary Clinton this past year, and $2 million to American Bridge 21st Century, a PAC that targeted Trump. He donated $3 million to a PAC called Immigrant Voters Win, which seeks to get out Hispanic voters in key swing states. During the primary, he even contributed $488,375 to a PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate John Kasich, in the hopes it would prevent Trump from winning the GOP nomination.

He paid organizations to cause chaos at the Republican National Convention. He gave the left-wing activist race-related organization Color of Change $500,000 to collect signatures for a petition demanding that Coke and other sponsors withdraw their support from the convention. It worked, scaring off several corporate sponsors, and Coke only contributed $65,000, far less than the $660,000 it gave in 2012. Color of Change seeks to defund law enforcement agencies that don’t “defend black lives.”

Soros paid $500,000 to Brave New Films to create a fake petition requesting open carry at the GOP convention. He gave the ACLU $1.7 million for lawsuits that successfully gave protesters more access to Trump events.

As part of his effort to overhaul the U.S. justice system, Soros poured money into several law enforcement races around the country. He contributed a total of $9.6 million to defeat white Republican male DAs in particular, and replace them with minorities who favor a radical transformation of the justice system. He also injected money into Democratic primaries, to ensure the most radical Democrat won. He won all but two of the elections he funded.

He targeted Arizona county Sheriff Joe Arpaio due to Arpaio’s tough approach to combating illegal immigration, contributing a stunning $2.3 million to defeat him. This enabled unknown Democrat challenger Paul Penzone to win, even though he has a history of domestic violence involving his ex-wife. It is extremely rare for a Democrat to get elected to a countywide office in Maricopa County, and would almost certainly not have happened in 2016 but for Soros’ intervention.

Racism, Voting Fraud and Other Meddling

Soros funds organizations that hype up cries of racism, like Black Lives Matter, and others that claim Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities. The fear-mongering seeks to radicalize minorities, and incentivize them to work registering voters and supporting far left candidates.

Soros is the largest contributor to Democratic efforts to block election integrity laws. He committed $5 million to Voting Rights Trust, an organization which fights election integrity laws.

This election cycle, he bankrolled lawsuits challenging these laws in the swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and North Carolina. The North Carolina law had a “strict photo-ID requirement, shaved a week off of early voting, and cut same-day registration, preregistration and out-of-precinct voting.” He successfully got it put on hold during the election. In Wisconsin, his efforts got a photo ID law reduced in scope.

Soros grants led to Oregon and California moving toward mandatory voter registration, where everyone who is on a government database is automatically put on the list of eligible voters.

At least George Soros is an equal-opportunity manipulator. The U.S. isn’t the only country he wants to change. Russia was so concerned about his influence that it banned the Soros Foundation as a “threat to national security and constitutional order.” (For more from the author of “How Left-Wing Billionaire George Soros Manipulated the 2016 Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Coddled Generation That Wasn’t Taught to Grow Up

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There are millions of fine young people across America today, people of character, people of principle, people of discipline, people of maturity. But there are millions of others who have been coddled all their lives, almost never taught to lose or be put in their place or take full responsibility for their actions. It is some of those young people who are protesting on the streets and being comforted by their professors as they cry on college campuses in the aftermath of the elections.

Just consider this scene from our campuses on the day after the elections, as reported by the Wall Street Journal: “At Tufts University, arts and crafts were on offer. And the University of Kansas reminded students via social media of the therapy dogs available for comfort every other Wednesday.”

Arts and crafts to comfort grieving college students? Therapy dogs?

And then this, from the University of Michigan: “There was a steady flow of students entering Ms. Boynton’s office Wednesday. They spent the day sprawled around the center, playing with Play-Doh and coloring in coloring books, as they sought comfort and distraction.”

Need I add the standard caveat: “I am not making this up!”?

To be sure, there were many things said and done by candidate (and now president-elect) Donald Trump that have caused concern, and I do understand why some Muslim or Mexican young people (or others) would be alarmed, fearing the worst. “Am I going to be deported? Will my family be kicked out of the country? Am I really welcome here?”

Again, I understand why they would be concerned, especially the way the media has portrayed Mr. Trump’s remarks, to the point of working people into a hysteria.

But it is the nature of the reaction to Trump’s shocking election that I’m focused on, along with the way these students are being treated.

Really now, even though millions of conservative Christians would have been terribly upset had Hillary won, do you think that students on Christian campuses would be sitting with therapy dogs and coloring books to comfort them in their grief?

But this should not surprise us in terms of the anti-Trump reaction on at these colleges and universities. These are the same campuses with “safe zones” and with guidelines against “microagressions.” And these are the same young people whose number one rule sometimes appears to be, “You shall not offend me or hurt my feelings!”

In her book Generation Me, author Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D., painted a picture of many of today’s young people using the description of a woman named Linda, who was born in the 50s, and whose “youngest child, Jessica, was born years after Whitney Houston’s No. 1 hit song “Greatest Love of All” declared that loving yourself was the greatest love.”

Prof. Twenge writes, “Jessica’s elementary school teachers believed that they should help Jessica feel good about herself. Jessica scribbled in a coloring book called We Are All Special, got a sticker on her worksheet just for filling it out, and did a sixth-grade project called ‘All About Me.’ . . . She dreams of being a model or a singer, takes numerous ‘selfies’ a day, and recently reached her personal goal of acquiring 5,000 followers on Instagram. She does not expect to marry until she is in her late 20s, and neither she nor her older sisters have any children yet. ‘You have to love yourself before you can love someone else,’ she says.”

Again, to repeat, there are many, fine young people today, and they are committed to helping others and making a positive difference in their world. Some of them put their elders to shame.

But the picture painted by Prof. Twenge is all too common, which is why there are elementary schools and middle schools across America that do not keep score in the children’s sports events, since everyone has to win (or, conversely, because no one can lose).

How does this prepare them for the realities of life, where every day, some people win and some people lose, where every day, there is disappointment and pain, where every day, some things go our way and some don’t, where every day, life is not always fair?

A friend of mine in the business world told me that it’s common now for college and university grads to have trouble on their jobs, but not because they lack intelligence or the necessary academic training. Instead, it’s because they can’t take correction, having been shielded from it during much of their upbringing and education. “You may be my boss, but you’re making me feel bad, which makes you a bad person, since I’m a good person and therefore a good employee.”

I may be exaggerating the sentiments, but not by much.

In the end, the problem is not with an age group as much as it is with a mindset, and it is a mindset that simply doesn’t work in real life — unless you want to be playing with Play-Doh to ease your pain when you’re married with kids and grandkids. (For more from the author of “The Coddled Generation That Wasn’t Taught to Grow Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is the Wall Possible? What Trump Can Do on Immigration

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When Donald Trump is inaugurated as president in January, he has the authority to dramatically reshape immigration policy by himself.

While Trump would need Congress to appropriate money to fund his biggest campaign promise — building a wall across the southern border — he can act alone in other areas, just like President Barack Obama has, in deciding how to enforce immigration law.

“The president does have a lot of executive authority and discretion to enforce the law as he wishes,” said David Leopold, an immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “There is a lot of immigration enforcement discretion.”

How Trump Can Act Alone

In interviews with The Daily Signal, Leopold and other experts described how Trump could act on the many promises he made to overhaul U.S. immigration policy.

Trump can take immediate actions by himself, starting with canceling Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which has provided deportation protection and work permits to about 800,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

The program grants protection for two years, after which beneficiaries can apply again. New applicants can still request DACA protection through the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

“One of questions is whether he would cut [DACA] off immediately or let the program sunset so that when people’s protection expires, he does not allow for renewals,” said Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “USCIS is still receiving first-time DACA applications, so that would occur in a pretty staged and staggered manner.”

Trump could also permanently cancel a broader Obama program that made more people eligible for DACA protection and extended legal status to include the parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents. The Supreme Court has blocked that program.

In addition, Trump, if he wishes, can change the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security on who it seeks to deport.

The Obama administration asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that handles most deportations, to focus its resources on those who are considered threats to public safety, or are have been convicted of crimes, usually a felony.

Other priorities for deportation include individuals who have been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, and recent arrivals who came here illegally after Jan. 1, 2014.

“Right now, the way the Obama administration is treating it, is unless you are a priority, we won’t actively go after you. Trump can flip that,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, the director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and a former policy advisor at the Department of Homeland Security.

After calling for mass deportations early on in his campaign, Trump has walked that back to say he would focus enforcement on illegal immigrants with criminal records.

“Right away, border security is one of the top five things he will try to address right out of the starting gate,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “That includes taking the handcuffs off the immigration agencies and letting them get back to doing their job according to the law. I don’t want to say there will be immediate drastic change. But there are many things the Trump administration can do on their own right away to restore control to immigration policy.”

Seeking Help From Congress

Trump would need Congress’ cooperation on his signature proposal — finishing the construction of a wall across the southern border.

The border security mechanism that Congress would support would likely not come in the form of a brick-and-mortar wall described by Trump, but as extended fencing.

Immigration experts say the U.S. has spent billions in recent years fencing about one-third of the border.

The next president has the template to finish the job.

In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which authorized 700 miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico. President George W. Bush signed the law. However, his administration later pushed for an amendment to the bill to give the government the discretion to determine what type of fencing was appropriate in the various areas of the border, depending on environmental and land-use restrictions.

As a result of that amendment, the majority of the fencing erected as a result of the law has been vehicle barriers — designed to stop vehicles rather than people, and single-layer pedestrian fencing. The original law called for double-layered fencing. Subsequent Republican attempts to require double fencing have failed.

“Depending on what type of infrastructure he wants, [Trump] probably already has the authorization to do it,” Brown said. “He just needs Congress to appropriate money.”

Similarly, Congress would have to approve the funding for another major Trump proposal: tripling the number of ICE agents who focus on deporting immigrants living in the country illegally.

Brown says personnel costs already make up about 80 to 90 percent of the budgets of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that protects the border.

The border patrol, meanwhile, has faced challenges fulfilling hiring goals mandated by Congress.

Republicans in Congress who share Trump’s hardline positions on immigration say they welcome his plans, even though they will certainly cost a lot of money.

“It seems to me the Republican conference sees we just had a seismic, historic election so there is a new mandate to get things right with immigration,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., in an interview with The Daily Signal. “It was one of [Trump’s] big issues, and one of my big issues that I ran on. So yes, it is worth the money. Look at France and Germany. If you don’t secure borders, you lose the entire country.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who met with Trump on Thursday, was asked by Fox News’ Bret Baier if he supports building a wall but committed only to “physical barriers.”

“I’m in favor of securing the border,” Ryan said. “And I do believe you need to have physical barriers on the border. I will defer to the experts on the border as to what is the right way to actually secure the border.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is less committal on whether he’d support paying for a border wall.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, McConnell did not directly answer questions about if he supports Trump’s wall proposal.

“I’m not going to go back and relitigate events of the past,” he said. “We have a new president. I would like to see him get off on a positive start. I think we should look forward and not backward and kind of rehash and relitigate the various debates we had internally and with the Democrats over the past year.”

Pressed again, McConnell added: “Border security is important. I think even our Democratic friends realize we haven’t done a very good job of that. Achieving border security is something that I think ought to be high on the list.”

But despite Republican control of the House and Senate, Trump’s border security plans needing congressional approval will likely be opposed by Democrats. In the Senate, Democrats still have the power of the filibuster to block legislation.

“If enforcement is his primary push, Democrats will be opposed to that unless legalization is part of the conversation,” Brown said. “That has been the quid pro quo on immigration for years.”

More Trump Proposals

Along with his more prominent proposals, Trump has also called for punishing so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Trump could withhold federal funding from those cities, but would need support from Congress to do so.

The president-elect has not limited his plans to illegal immigration.

He said he would reduce legal immigration levels, a step requiring the approval of Congress.

And Trump said he would suspend immigration from countries that are “compromised by terrorism,” although he has not clarified what countries he’d consider. (For more from the author of “Is the Wall Possible? What Trump Can Do on Immigration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WHEN A PICTURE IS WORTH A MILLION WORDS: Faces of White House Staffers Priceless as President Trump Arrives

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

So sad:

On Wednesday, however, the White House staff, along with the rest of America, listened as Obama discussed the election results in a televised address… And their faces said it all.

161110-white-house

After President Trump’s inauguration, I would like to ask that any former member of Valerie Jarrett’s Secret Service detail (why she warranted such a force is worthy of its own investigation) contact me. I have a case of beer I would like to send each and every one of you. (For more from the author of “WHEN A PICTURE IS WORTH A MILLION WORDS: Faces of White House Staffers Priceless as President Trump Arrives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is the LGBTQ Community Freaking out About the Most Pro-Gay Republican President-Elect in History?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President-elect Donald Trump has been reality for fewer than 48 hours now, and media outlets are already running stories about the LGBT fallout from the results. This is a special kind of absurd.

Two stories in the LGBT-centered Advocate highlight negative Trump reactions from gay voters online and in a gay bar in Columbus, Ohio.

“I hope that Canada will start taking refugees,” one person says in the latter. “They might have to build a wall themselves.”

Writing at Complex.com, deputy style editor Steve Dool, full of doom and gloom writes:

LGBTQIA+ rights were not anyone’s actual focus in this election. No marginalized group’s rights really were, if we’re being honest. The 2016 election cycle was more about emails and fear-mongering and walls and Russia and Billy Motherfucking Bush. And in the cold, hard light of Nov. 9, that’s embarrassing and hurtful. And there’s literally nothing we can do about that now. It’s done. We lost before a single ballot was cast.

Both The News Journal in Delaware and the Chicago Tribune ran stories highlighting supposed LGBT anxieties following Election Day results.

According to the Tribune story, a Naperville, Ill. LGBT activist is quaking in her boots at the prospect of a Trump administration, fearing that that it somehow signals “open season on the LGBT community,” that “paints an even bigger target on the back of our heads.”

Am I missing something here? Because this doesn’t really make sense. The Left has tried to cast Trump as all sorts of terrible “-ophobes” based on his rhetoric or proposed policies, but they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to LGBT issues. It’s not like Trump is pushing for a constitutional amendment going around Obergefell. It’s not like any of his immediate circle doesn’t buy into the supremacy of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as “the law of the land.”

Sure, VP-elect Mike Pence has a long career as a solid social conservative (the 2015 Indiana RFRA “compromise” notwithstanding), but the tone of the campaign was nothing but friendly to gay voters.

Donald Trump went as far as to wave the rainbow flag at a rally in Colorado before the election. And not only invited the first openly gay man to speak at the Republican National Convention (on the main stage during primetime, no less), but addressed gay voters directly during his RNC nomination acceptance speech, as he had since the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub a month before. Hell, Trump was first invited to CPAC by a gay conservatives group in 2011.

His team may not be in favor of using the anti-conscience steamroller that Hillary Clinton wanted to get through Congress, but it’s not like anyone is pushing a natural marriage-affirming amendment to the Constitution. If anyone in this equation should have any concern about the Trump administration’s LGBT stance and rhetoric, it should be the social conservatives who helped him get elected, hoping that everything mentioned above doesn’t signal a shift in the vital conscience protections they’re hoping for (See: First Amendment Defense Act, repealing Obamacare transgender mandate, etc).

I get that Hillary promised LGBT voters the moon (she pretty much had to in order to get around her marriage flip flop), but again: Trump’s nothing to be afraid of on this front. The reaction from the Left has ranged from schadenfreude-inducing histrionics, to disgusting levels of hypocrisy (undermining peaceful transition of power, much?). But to get bent out of shape about Donald Trump’s presumed agenda on gay issues is nothing short of perplexing. (For more from the author of “Why Is the LGBTQ Community Freaking out About the Most Pro-Gay Republican President-Elect in History?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump, President of the United States by the Sovereign Intervention of God

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As the political pundits weigh in on the many sociological and ideological factors that contributed to Donald Trump’s stunning victory, allow me to weigh in on the spiritual side of things.

I believe Trump has been elected president by divine intervention.

I’m aware, of course, that some people believe that everything happens by the will of God, which means that whoever wins the presidency wins by God’s express will.

Yet there are times when there are so many odds against something happening, when it so greatly defies logic, that it is easier to recognize God’s involvement.

That, I believe, is the case with Donald Trump winning — and remember, this comes from someone who endorsed Ted Cruz and was one of Trump’s stronger conservative critics during the primaries.

Just think of the obstacles Trump overcame, including: 1) The massive baggage of his past, including the release of a vulgar video with his tremendously offensive sexual comments along with numerous women accusing him of sexual assault (as reported by no less than the New York Times); 2) his myriad campaign errors, with enough misstatements and inappropriate remarks to sink several candidates; 3) a very strong Republican field, including governors like Bush, Christie, Kasich, Huckabee and Walker, senators like Cruz, Rubio and Santorum, and outsiders like Carson and Fiorina; 4) the massive power of the Clinton political machine; and 5) the overwhelming collusion of the mainstream media.

To be sure, some will say, “Yes, God has raised up Donald Trump, but it is to judge America, not bless America. He has given us what we deserve, and it is not good.”

That is certainly a possibility, and either way, Trump’s many negative qualities are still glaring and our nation remains terribly divided.

But if, indeed, God has raised Trump up for certain divine purposes, it behooves us to ask what those purposes are.

First, consider this post from Pastor Jeremiah Johnson, now just 28 years old, dating to July of last year.

Jeremiah knew very little about Trump when he wrote these words:

I was in a time of prayer several weeks ago when God began to speak to me concerning the destiny of Donald Trump in America. The Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, “Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.’

Obviously, Trump’s policies regarding immigration would seem to contradict the final sentence here, but if the rest of this proclamation is true, then perhaps this part will prove true too as well.

Second, consider the perspective of Dr. Lance Wallnau, a Christian speaker and leadership coach who often thinks outside the box. He too felt that God was raising up Trump to be a Cyrus-type leader — someone used by God to help the nation, even though he himself was not a believer — feeling directed to read a passage from Isaiah 45 to Trump (this passage speaks of Cyrus), and say that Trump was called to be the 45th president of the United States.

Wallnau believes that God is using Trump as a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness,” claiming, “His emergence is such a destabilizing threat to the vast deal making machinery embedded in both parties that he has the unique distinction of being rejected by both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans at the same time.”

In Wallnau’s words, Trump is God’s “chaos candidate.” (For my 90-minute interview with Dr. Wallnau on this subject, where he took calls from critics, see here.)

But here is the major caveat, even if all (or most of these things) are true: If Trump, indeed, is a divine wrecking ball, then he could do as much as harm as good, and to the extent that he is appealing to the fears and frustrations and anger of a nation, he is channeling some potentially dangerous emotions.

That means that we should pray that: 1) he will continue to surround himself with solid men like Mike Pence, his Vice President, or Rudy Giuliani, possibly his Attorney General ; 2) he will listen to the godly leaders who have been speaking into his life, like James Robison and Tony Perkins; 3) he will humble himself, recognizing that the pride that has brought him this far is the pride that could destroy him; 4) he will keep his word about the Supreme Court justices he will nominate; 5) he will not compromise the Republican Platform in some misguided effort to prove his moderation; 6) he will do his best not to alienate those who are horrified by his presidency, instead pledging to be the president of all Americans (that would mean, for example, declaring war on radical Islam without declaring war on all Muslims); 7) he will demonstrate that he will ultimately help our nation as a whole (for example, with good economic policies or by proposing something better than Obamacare); 8) he will learn to act presidential (rather than vengeful and impetuous) on both a national and international level.

In short, if Trump indeed is president by divine intervention, we should pray for divine restraint on his life as well, lest this divine wrecking ball wreak havoc on the nation while tearing down what is wrong. May he be a divinely guided wrecking ball! (For more from the author of “Donald Trump, President of the United States by the Sovereign Intervention of God” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Handicapping the Trump Cabinet

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a lot of speculation out there, but here are my guesses for President Trump’s (doesn’t that phrase feel good?) cabinet.

Attorney General Rudy Giuliani
Secretary of State former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
DHS Secretary Gov. Chris Christie
Secretary of Defense Sen. Jeff Sessions
Department of the Interior former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
Secretary of Energy Harold Hamm
Surgeon General Ben Carson
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Agriculture former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Labor Victoria Lipnic
Secretary of Education William Evers
Veterans Affairs House retiring Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller
EPA Director Myron Ebell

Alright, you geniuses: what did I get wrong? (For more from the author of “Handicapping the Trump Cabinet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Miley Cyrus’ Reaction to Trump’s Election Was Surprisingly Refreshing

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Didn’t Endorse Illegal Voting, but There’s Plenty Wrong With What He Did Say

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was It a Sin to Vote for Lisa Murkowski?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I consider the killing of more than 50 million innocent children via abortion to be the moral crisis of this age.

It is a scourge on our supposedly enlightened society. It is a blight on our humanity. It has corrupted the soul of our nation. It has proven how little regard we have for our own legacy as a people, when we’re willing to so cavalierly dispose of our only renewable resources — our own children.

For these reasons I won’t vote for a candidate that isn’t pro-life — regardless of party or who their opponent is—- for dog catcher let alone a more meaningful office. For where someone stands on the life issue isn’t just a litmus test but a window to the soul. If someone is willing to compromise or worse on something as sacred as life, then they can’t be counted on to be stewards of our less sacred resources, either.

What then, if you believe as I do that abortion is the murder of an innocent child and an abominable violation against the designs of heaven, should you do when you walk into your polling place on Tuesday?

Randall Terry is the original founder of Operation Rescue, which is one of the pioneer organizations in the pro-life movement. And he doesn’t pull any punches. In fact, he has been driving a bus around the southeast to various campaign events for the last two weeks with this main message emblazoned across the side:

It is a sin to vote for Hillary.

Large pictures of aborted babies also cover the side of the bus, as does the command to “not play the whore with your vote. If you vote for Hillary, you share in the guilt of her sins. Do not raise the anger of God by helping Hillary shed innocent blood.”

I recently interviewed Terry, and he said that message is intended for the 55 percent of Catholics and 33 percent of evangelicals who “betrayed Jesus Christ” in the last election by voting for the pro-killing Barack Obama. Not only is that unacceptable, he says, but a preposterous moral equivocation that ultimately leads to a spiritual death sentence for the one making such a wicked compromise.

It doesn’t matter what else you think Hillary will accomplish as president if she promises to accelerate the baby killing. Imagine, as Terry says, that somebody asks you to give them a ride so that they can run some errands. First they ask you to go to the grocery store, then to the pharmacy, and last to the bank. And oh, by the way, the stop at the bank will include a hold up complete with an execution style murder.

That’s what you are an accomplice to, says Terry, if you vote for Hillary. The relative innocence of the other stops along the way, or the other political issues du jour, are non-sequiturs by comparison.

“There are some sins that are higher than others,” Terry said. “There is a hierarchy of evil. And Christians who keep voting in support of abortion have the brazen face of a harlot. They are committed to their path of sin. There is a motive skewing their ethical compass.”

So if one accepts the fundamentals of such a moral economy, then the question becomes what to do next. In Terry’s case, he is supporting Donald Trump, saying that “he says he will make it a crime to kill an unborn baby. He’s the only one (in the GOP primary) who has said that and I believe him, and I know that I believe Hillary is proven to be a maniacal supporter of abortion.”

Note that Trump almost immediately took back his claim that abortion should be considered a criminal offense, like he is prone to do on almost every position he’s taken throughout this campaign. But just as Hillary’s sins don’t absolve Trump from his, neither do his absolve hers. Hillary does little to hide her zeal for baby-killing, nor her admiration for macabre Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

A pro-life leader I admire, Dr. Laurence White in Houston, has long said this about the infanticide holocaust we have permitted to occur on our watch:

The killing won’t stop until the church makes it stop, and not a moment sooner.

In his own, provocative way, Terry seems to be channeling a similar sentiment. “It is necessary for us to speak as harshly as God sometimes does in order to wake people up,” he adds.

This is on us when we affirmatively vote for those who enable and/or champion this rampage, which is why Terry believes it is a sin to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Whether or not you agree, I know this for sure. No matter who we vote for, if we have decided that Planned Parenthood’s freezer bags full of dismembered baby parts for sale are not really our concern, then we are doing it all wrong. (For more from the author of “Is It a Sin to Vote for Hillary Clinton?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.