By Jennifer Jacobs. Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.
But the Iowa Democratic Party’s final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.
“I voted for Bernie,” Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”
Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats’ caucus process . . .
Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn’t help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates. (Read more from “Iowans Claim Instances When Sanders Was Shorted Delegates” HERE)
_______________________________
Female Sanders Backers Slam ‘Insulting’ Clinton Supporters Who Say They’re Betraying Their Gender
By Hunter Walker. Many women who showed up at a presidential campaign rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., at Great Bay Community College on Sunday said they were insulted and “offended” by supporters of Hillary Clinton who have suggested it is somehow anti-feminist to back Sanders instead of Clinton’s quest to become the first female president.
Jane Sanders, the senator’s wife, had a succinct response when Yahoo News asked her opinion of those who suggest it’s sexist to support Sanders instead of Clinton . . .
Cokie Giles, a registered nurse from Bangor, Maine, who traveled to neighboring New Hampshire for the rally, said she does not appreciate being “herded along just because I’m a woman.”
“Well, I don’t want to think that I have to vote for a woman, being a woman, because there’s a woman running. They have to be who I would look at as … my best choice,” Giles said. “I’m not trashing Hillary. I’m just saying Bernie is the better of the choices. And I will get a chance to vote for a female president. I would like to see a female president, and there’s plenty out there that I would be very happy to do.” (Read more from “Female Sanders Backers Slam ‘Insulting’ Clinton Supporters Who Say They’re Betraying Their Gender” HERE)
The two most important issues of the 2016 election are non-partisan.
(1) The federal government and the media are, as institutions, hopelessly corrupt.
(2) The United States has elections, but we no longer have representative government.
None of the problems facing the country can be solved effectively without first confronting those two issues.
Those words still ring true and any candidate addressing those issues directly could capture the majority of voters on both sides of the political center.
Many Americans now believe that we are no longer citizens of a republic, but subjects of a reigning oligarchy composed of a self-absorbed permanent political class, which services the interests of wealthy financiers at the expense of the wider population. They maintain their authority by an ever-expanding and increasingly intrusive government and use a compliant media to manipulate public perception and opinion in order to maintain the illusion of democracy.
To maintain control, both Democrats and Republicans have fostered a culture of dependency. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice and co-opting or crushing independent candidates and grass roots political movements.
To sustain itself, the corrupt political-media establishment has the power to suppress the truth or interfere with honest inquiry by false authoritative pronouncements or by manipulating the news through the release of misleading information.
On January 2, 2014, I called for a “political insurgency” because there are no untainted elections, there is no rule of law, there is no means to petition elected officials or the courts for the redress of grievances and there is no independent press to challenge governmental abuse. In other words, all the traditional avenues to fight the corrupt practices of political expediency and crony capitalism have been blocked.
Democrat pollster Pat Caddell recently noted that the 2016 election “is not about ideology, not about issues, it’s about insurgency… The system is on the verge of coming apart…The politicians in Washington aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”
According to Caddell, such conditions are largely responsible for the rise of non-political-consultant-class candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders as well as the weakness of those considered establishment candidates.
The political insurgency feature of the 2016 campaign would also explain the fragmentation of the conservative moment.
Like the Republican Party in general, American conservatism appears to be fully and openly untethered from any principles. Like the Constitution, conservatism is now whatever you want it to be, and for most but not all, whatever is politically expedient in the pure pursuit of power.
The internal conflicts within the conservative movement have widened the already existing fissures, roughly dividing it into three groups: status quo, zealots and anti-establishment nationalists.
Status quo conservatives are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican establishment. They are the inhabitants of the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus, who provide a convenient venting mechanism as a substitute for meaningful political reform or opposition to Democrat legislation. They are the political pundits ensconced in the hallways of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, who, during every election cycle, help dress up Republican establishment candidates in appropriate conservative clothing.
Conservative zealots tend to espouse a multitude of widely varying conservative “values,” but, in practice, often consider Constitutional principles as optional and disposable components, when political expediency requires it. In an effort to resurrect Ronald Reagan, the zealots tend to produce candidates that more resemble Frankenstein.
A growing constituency of the fragmented conservative movement is the anti-establishment nationalists, which comprises the largest fraction of Donald Trump supporters. These voters are more insurgents than conservatives and are unlikely to respond to classical conservative or establishment Republican arguments. It is this constituency that is most likely to attract disaffected Democrats and has the greatest potential for disruptive political innovation.
Stay tuned. (For more from the author of “The 2016 Election for Dummies: ‘The System Is on the Verge of Coming Apart'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24397320205_bffeb97d49_b.jpg504706Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-07 23:44:312016-04-11 10:52:57The 2016 Election for Dummies: ‘The System Is on the Verge of Coming Apart’
There have been plenty of eyebrow-raising endorsements of GOP presidential candidates by unexpected people (like former VP candidate Sarah Palin backing Donald Trump), and this one from former LA Gov. Bobby Jindal might be just as unexpected.
Rubio has picked up former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s endorsement, earned SC Sen. Tim Scott‘s support, and also has SC Rep. Trey Gowdy on his side.
Of course, Jindal campaigned for the presidency during this current cycle, but never gained any traction in the polls nationwide.
(Read more from “Bobby Jindal Just Endorsed a Candidate for President – This Is Surprising” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5854234417_41ea423523_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-06 01:05:512016-04-11 10:52:58Bobby Jindal Just Endorsed a Candidate for President – This Is Surprising [+video]
By Zeke J. Miller, Alex Altman and Charlotte Alter. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz won the Iowa Republican caucuses Monday night, cementing his status as the conservative front-runner and top rival to Donald Trump in the first contest of the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic race was locked in “a virtual tie” early Tuesday.
Tens of thousands of Iowans cast the first votes of 2016, with reports of record turnout on the Republican side and high turnout in the Democratic race. The contest was set to winnow a wide and fractured Republican field and provide a key test in the Democratic race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
With about 99% of precincts reporting in the Republican race, Ted Cruz had 28% of the vote, compared to 24% for Trump.
“The Republican nominee and the next President of the United States will not be chosen by the media,” Cruz, who is running as a proud scourge of GOP leaders, told cheering supporters in Des Moines. “Will not be chosen by the Washington establishment. Will not be chosen by the lobbyists.” (Read more from “2016 Iowa Caucuses Unexpected Results Are in” HERE)
By Stephen Collinson. One thing is clear after Monday night’s Iowa caucuses: there’s a long, volatile election season ahead before two deeply fractured parties can unite behind a nominee.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are leaving the Hawkeye State in a virtual tie — a vote that underscores the Democratic party’s debate over whether it should solidify behind President Barack Obama’s legacy or move forward with more radical health care and economic reforms.
Republican Ted Cruz bested Donald Trump, raising questions about the billionaire’s reliance on his celebrity instead of traditional political organization. And Marco Rubio’s stronger-than-expected showing could mark him as the establishment’s best hope against a grassroots revolt in next week’s New Hampshire primary and beyond . . .
Claiming victory, Cruz fired immediate shots at both Trump and the party elites he has so infuriated by waging an anti-establishment crusade that has nevertheless endeared him to the GOP’s rank and file. (Read more from “Iowa Caucuses: Ted Cruz Wins; Clinton, Sanders Tied” HERE)
Belief among Republicans that Donald Trump will be the next GOP presidential nominee now ties its highest level ever, and among all likely voters, more than ever agree.
The first Rasmussen Reports Trump Change national telephone survey of the new year finds that 74% of Likely Republican Voters think the billionaire businessman is likely to be their nominee in 2016, with 31% who say it is Very Likely. Just 23% disagree, and that includes only 11% who say it is Not At All Likely.
Among all likely voters, 61% now say Trump is likely to be the official Republican presidential candidate, with 24% who think it is Very Likely.
Because of the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, this is our first Trump Change survey since mid-December. At that time, 66% of GOP voters said Trump is likely to win the nomination, with 27% who said it is Very Likely. Among all voters, 55% thought Trump is likely to be the nominee, including 21% who felt it is Very Likely.
Overall belief among GOP voters that Trump will be the eventual nominee hit a high of 74% in late October after running in the 50s for most weeks since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly Trump Change feature in mid-August. Following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November, this belief climbed into the 60s. (Read more from “Here’s Who Voters Believe Will Be the GOP Nominee” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-09 00:21:122016-04-11 10:54:04Here’s Who Voters Believe Will Be the GOP Nominee
High-profile endorsements can sometimes help candidates, but Bernie Sanders recently received one that might not do him any good.
Speaking on an episode of “Arkansas Week: Special Edition” that aired on January 1, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, offered tongue-in-cheek support for the Vermont senator in the Democratic presidential contest.
“For many months, I’ve been strongly in favor of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary,” Cotton said.
Cotton’s support would mark the first senator to back Sanders — 38 of his 46 Democratic colleagues have announced their support for front-runner Hillary Clinton. The remaining Democrats have yet to weigh in. (Read more from “Republican Senator Tom Cotton ‘Endorses’ 2016 Presidential Candidate – I Doubt Anyone Would’ve Expected This” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-05 23:28:002016-04-11 10:54:11Republican Senator Tom Cotton ‘Endorses’ 2016 Presidential Candidate – I Doubt Anyone Would’ve Expected This
The road to the White House officially kicked off in 2015, as more than a dozen Republican candidates launched presidential campaigns.
From Donald Trump’s biggest fan to Rand Paul literally destroying the tax code, the past year had its fair share of memorable moments.
As we get set to usher in 2016, let’s take a look back at some of them . . .
Rand Paul touted his plan for a one-page tax return by burning, wood-chipping and chain-sawing the 70,000 pages of the current tax code.
Donald Trump welcomed a Hispanic woman onto the stage at a rally in Las Vegas. He gave her a hug as she yelled “I’m Hispanic and I vote for Mr. Trump. We love you!”
(Read more from “2015 in Review: Memorable Moments From the Campaign Trail” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-01 01:10:412016-04-11 10:54:232015 in Review: Memorable Moments From the Campaign Trail [+video]
When Congress returns in January, there will be a robust debate over the authorization of use of military force (AUMF) in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. But while we debate a bunch of lousy options and the potential cost of lives and billions of dollars arming our enemies in endless Islamic civil wars, the politicians in both parties will never discuss the enemy within the United States. This is where the presidential candidates must lead by example.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have already drawn attention to the first half of the homeland security threat – the endless migration from the Middle East as manifest through our suicidal immigration policies. Unfortunately, Republicans didn’t listen, and despite the universally-accepted threat of the Syrian and Somali refugees, they gave Obama the full $1.67 billion for refugee resettlement in the Omnibus bill.
However, it is the second half of the equation – the most foundational threat to our homeland and society – that has garnered almost no attention from anyone in politics. That is the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America that have so much influence both on the Obama administration and the Muslim communities in our country.
Three questions should automatically come to mind in light of the San Bernardino attack and the nearly daily incidents of Muslims being arrested for plotting terror attacks or attempting to join ISIS.
Why is our government expunging any mention of Islamic terror from their official documents and hampering investigations into connections to local radical Muslim Brotherhood groups?
Why are so few moderate Muslims speaking out against the growing trend of radicalization?
Why are so many Muslims in America, even those who were born here, being drawn into groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda?
The answer to all these questions, point to the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence of their three North American affiliates that were implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust.
Last Wednesday, I had the privilege of guest hosting the Sean Hannity show along with my colleague, Deneen Borelli, and we discussed why the Muslim Brotherhood represents a more foundational threat to our homeland than ISIS or Al Qaeda. They are the enemy within that radicalizes American Muslims (the ones that weren’t already radicalized), marginalizes and intimidates moderates, and influences the government to eschew any policy that even mentions Islamic terror much less policies that actually combat Islamic terror.
This is why we need the GOP candidates to step up to the plate. But until now they have largely been silent. Ted Cruz has introduced an important piece of legislation, which would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, but he needs to make this issue more front and center in his campaign.
Just last week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron took the unprecedented step to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group after his government launched an exhaustive study into their activities. They will now ban visas to Muslim Brotherhood officials and increase surveillance of their offices. If the liberal Europeans are willing to protect themselves and root out their enemy within, cannot our “conservative” leaders muster the same courage?
Not surprisingly, Obama condemned Cameron’s move as a needless de-legitimizing of a non-violent group. But their use of “non-violent” means of subversion in western countries to marginalize moderates and quietly radicalize the Muslim communities and mosques is exactly what will destroy both America and Europe from the inside.
It was recently reported that the U.K. is experiencing a sharp drop off in cooperation from local Muslims in rooting out terrorists from their communities. Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood intimidation is a big part of this deterrent against cooperating with the authorities.
Earlier this month, Phil Haney, a former DHS counterterrorism official, wrote an expose on how he was stifled from connecting the dots between some of the very same foreign terror groups Tafsheen Malik was affiliated with and local Muslim groups in America:
“But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?
Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement.”
It’s not surprising that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division (CRCL) was responsible for shutting down the investigation. CRCL is the nexus for the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government. In 2008, under the Bush administration, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff drafted a memo for CRCL that called on government officials to strip all references of Islamic supremacism from their training. This memo was drafted, in the words of Chertoff, based on “its discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.” In 2011, based on the same recommendations of these Muslim Brotherhood “scholars,” DHS published its training and guidance manual on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda. The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”
If ISIS is the new quarterback for Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood is their all-star offensive linemen. In theory the United States should have a great defensive line capable of overwhelming ISIS’ strategy. But with our very own Department of Homeland Security playing ball for the Muslim Brotherhood, the fox appears to be guarding the henhouse. (For more from the author of “It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-12-30 00:11:492016-04-11 10:54:28It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within
It took Ted Cruz three months to raise $10 million for his campaign for president, a springtime sprint of $1,000-per-plate dinners, hundreds of handshakes and a stream of emails asking supporters to chip in a few bucks.
One check, from one donor, topped those results.
New York hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer’s $11 million gift to a group backing the Texas Republican’s White House bid put him atop a tiny group of millionaires and billionaires whose contributions already dwarf those made by the tens of thousands of people who have given to their favorite presidential candidate.
An Associated Press analysis of fundraising reports filed with federal regulators through Friday found that nearly 60 donations of a million dollars or more accounted for about a third of the more than $380 million brought in so far for the 2016 presidential election. Donors who gave at least $100,000 account for about half of all donations so far to candidates’ presidential committees and the super PACs that support them . . .
“We have never seen an election like this, in which the wealthiest people in America are dominating the financing of the presidential election and as a consequence are creating enormous debts and obligations from the candidates who are receiving this financial support,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that wants to limit money in politics. (Read more from “Data: Nearly 5 Dozen Give a Third of All ’16 Campaign Cash” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-08-03 02:39:142016-04-11 10:58:11Analysis: Less Than 60 Give ONE THIRD of All ’16 Campaign Cash
By Peter Nicholas and Carol E. Lee. Hillary Clinton and her close advisers are telling Democratic donors that she will enter the presidential race sooner than expected, likely in April, a move that would allay uncertainties within her party and allow her to rev up fundraising.
Clinton aides have spoken of the earlier timetable in private meetings, according to people engaged in recent discussions about the presumed Democratic front-runner’s emerging 2016 campaign. Many within her camp have advocated her staying out of the fray until the summer.
Jumping in sooner would help the Democratic field take shape, reassuring party leaders and donors that the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is running. A super PAC loyal to Mrs. Clinton has faced hesitation from donors who don’t want to make big pledges until she is a candidate. Such concerns would evaporate after she announces.
But Mrs. Clinton would become an even larger target for Republicans when she enters the race. She also would be pressed to opine on a raft of thorny issues in the news, including how to combat the military advances of Islamic State militants in the Middle East. (Read more about Hillary Clinton announcing her presidential bid HERE)
CPAC Announces Official Results of Its 2015 Presidential Straw Poll
By Nick Morpus. As the Conservative Political Action Conference comes to a close, it’s time to announce the results of its annual presidential poll.
Despite recent surges of Governors Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, Senator Rand Paul has won the poll for the third year in a row:
1. Rand Paul 25.7 (31)
2. Scott Walker 21.4 (7)
3. Ted Cruz 11.5 (11)
4. Ben Carson 11.4 (9)
5. Jeb Bush 8.3 (N/A)
6. Rick Santorum 4.3 (7)
7. Marco Rubio 3.7 (6)
8. Donald Trump 3.5 (2)
9. Carly Fiorina 3.0 (N/A)
10. Chris Christie 2.8 (8)
11. Rick Perry 1.1 (3)
12. Bobby Jindal 0.9 (2)
13. Sarah Palin 0.8 (2)
14. Mike Huckabee 0.3 (2)
15. John Bolton 0.3 (N/A)
16. Lindsey Graham 0.1 (N/A)
17. George Pataki 0.1 (N/A)
