Posts

Donald Trump Calls Obama the ‘Founder of ISIS’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continued his verbal assault on President Barack Obama on Wednesday, accusing him of being the “founder” of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).

He didn’t stop there, however. The construction magnate then took aim at his presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, saying that she had a role to play in the group’s formation too.

“ISIS is honoring President Obama,” he said of the group at the campaign rally in Sunrise, Florida. “He is the founder of ISIS. He founded ISIS. And, I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

But these comments are not a new tactic for Trump. Last month, he condemned Clinton for “unleashing destruction, terrorism and ISIS across the world” in a series of tweets.

He attacked Clinton for not uttering the words “radical Islam” when referring to extremist attacks carried out by Islamic State militant group (ISIS) inspired lone wolves, such as in Orlando or San Bernardino. (Read more from “Donald Trump Calls Obama the ‘Founder of ISIS'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Website Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama’s Lies

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails . . .

Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that the payment was part of the Iran nuclear deal and completely unconnected to the release of the men.

““[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time that the prisoners were released,” the Snopes article reads. “The Tribunal was created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”

The article largely sources a statement from State Department spokesman Jack Kirby.

“The negotiations over the (arms deal) settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” Kirby said in the statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.” (Read more from “Website Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama’s Lies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can

/0 Comments/in , , /by

States don’t have standing to sue Obama for illegally colonizing their cities with Syrian refugees, but illegal immigrants and criminal aliens have standing to sue for public benefits. That is the state of play in the modern judicial system and the contemporary legal profession.

One of the most basic principles of the social compact theory, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, is that only the existing members of a civil society, through their duly elected representatives, can determine who may enter and become part of that society or under what conditions that individual may become a member. As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy and why the courts, before they became autocratic in recent years, conceded that they have no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature on any immigration decision.

In Stolen Sovereignty, I warn that the unelected executive agencies and the courts are engaging in social transformation without representation by violating immigration statutes in order to achieve their de-civilization goals. As Conservative Review has observed throughout the past year, Obama is breaking statutes and abusing his power to use parole, refugee, asylum, and temporary protected status – and of course – executive amnesty – to bring in more immigrants against the consent of the people. Likewise, the courts are illegally overturning congressional immigration statutes and granting standing to illegal aliens and criminal immigrants to block deportations and even petition for affirmative rights, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and gun rights.

Yet, at the same time, American citizens, states, law enforcement, and even ICE agents have been denied standing to sue in court when Obama is violating immigration statutes and the sovereignty of the states and the people. Thus, while the courts illegally venture out of their jurisdiction to overturn congressional sovereignty statutes – the most inviolate area of settled law – they refuse to actually grant standing to cases within their core purview, which includes striking down illegal executive actions that run contrary to existing law. Remember that Civics 101 class about courts applying the law instead of nullifying it?

As we’ve noted before, while the federal government controls the refugee process, they must engage in advance consultation with the states at every stage of the resettlement process. Yet, Obama’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in conjunction with taxpayer-funded private organizations, are engaging in the ultimate social transformation without representation – jeopardizing the security, culture, and public services of localities – without even informing them of the resettlement after the fact.

Unfortunately, federal judges already blocked Texas from suing the Obama administration. Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the state of Alabama standing to sue the Administration for not engaging in advance consultation. In a 28-page memo, Ott wrote:

Nothing in the Refugee Act requires defendants to provide plaintiffs with information necessary to assess security and other potential risks posed by refugees, or information necessary to adequately plan and prepare for the arrival of refugees in the state, in regard to security and requests for social services and public assistance.

As I noted last year, statute absolutely requires ORR to take into account security and economic considerations and engage in advanced consultation with the states.

This is yet one more reason why the courts will always be a dead-end for conservatives and why simply “appointing better judges” will not help. Even good judges feel compelled to abide by existing precedent governing rules of standing, which is so one-sided against Americans that illegal aliens have more standing to fight immigration actions than taxpayers and states.

It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate. If Trump and Republicans actually wanted to turn around this pending electoral disaster and defeat Hillary Clinton, the nominee would immediately call for GOP leaders to reconvene for the summer and pass legislation empowering states to reject refugee resettlement. This is even more powerful than placing a national moratorium on resettlement; it allows the people and states to decide the future of their communities. These are the decisions the individual nation-states of the European Union never got to make before their societies were transformed into microcosms of the Middle East and now incur daily terror attacks – to the point that they are no longer newsworthy.

Any takers? (For more from the author of “States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Obvious Question No One’s Asking Obama

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s clear Obama has no use for Donald Trump. But that’s not really the point here . . .

The question this harsh, unprecedented attack by a sitting president on a major-party nominee to succeed him raises should be obvious: What happens if Donald Trump wins the election in November?

Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two centuries of transitions of power?

These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.

Should we not be concerned about what Obama might do? (Read more from “The Obvious Question No One’s Asking Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Civil service laws have made it nearly impossible to remove government bureaucrats from their jobs. President Barack Obama has a chance to place many of his political appointments in these secure positions for life and make it difficult for a new president with a different agenda to enact reforms.

It’s a process commonly known as “burrowing,” in which political appointees move into career government status. Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are difficult to fire, are hired through a merit system, and carry over throughout administrations, Republican or Democrat.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking into how many Obama political appointees will be transitioning to the civil service.

“For the federal government to regain the trust of the American people, we must be able to ensure that the federal hiring process is fair and open to everyone, not just the politically influential,” oversight committee member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington make decisions that impact everyday Americans, and even while we work for smaller government in Congress, we need to make sure that the federal employees here are the best and brightest, not the most well-connected.”

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 was passed in order to stop raw political party appointments from securing federal government jobs. The law introduced the merit system into hiring practices and made numerous positions untouchable after they were filled. Civil service law has been updated several times since the Pendleton Act’s passage, but the basics remain the same.

Donald Devine, who served as the Ronald Reagan administration’s director of Office of Personnel Management, said he discouraged the transition when he served. He added, the conversion from political appointee to career civil service has as much to do with job security as pushing an agenda.

“Contrary to all the nonsense, you can’t get better benefits and the pay is very competitive,” Devine told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I’m sure Obama would love to get his people in there. I would suspect this administration is probably encouraging this. … A lot of people who are in the career civil service system are political anyway. They vote about 60 to 70 percent Democrat.”

Devine, now a senior scholar at the free-market advocacy group Fund for American Studies, added there was a push in the 1980s among some Republicans to try to lock Reagan officials into the government, which Devine also opposed.

“During my time, some were saying, ‘Let’s get all the conservatives into the bureaucracy.’ I said if we do that, they won’t be conservatives anymore,” he said. “It’s a silly thing for Republicans to want to, but it makes sense that Democrats would work overtime to do this.”

Burrowing likely affects Republican administrations more than Democratic ones, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

“The reason is different political philosophies,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Republicans generally don’t like big government and Democrats might think a government job is the best they’ve had and it gives them the chance to enact their progressive utopia.”

He noted that when he served in the George W. Bush Justice Department, a former political appointee of President Bill Clinton had transferred to the position of a civil service DOJ lawyer. The attorney’s legal briefs were “completely untrustworthy” and meant to undermine Bush administration policies.

“We had enormous problems with such individuals when I served in the Justice Department during the Bush administration,” he said. “They did everything they could to sabotage and interfere with the policy directives and priorities of the administration while protected by onerous civil service rules.”

However, Democrats raised significant concerns about conversions in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, when about 26 conversions occurred.

Then-House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., inquired about burrowing by Bush political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, inquired about political appointees moving to civil service jobs at the Justice Department. Feinstein wrote a separate letter to the Defense Department, expressing concern that Bush political appointees conversions within the Office of Detainee Affairs.

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut, requested the Bush White House Office of Personnel Management provide him with a full accounting of conversions from April through December of 2008.

A Congressional Research Service report from 2012 found that 158 presidential appointees from the Clinton administration and 135 Bush political appointees moved to civil service jobs.

The federal government has about 3,200 political appointees, out of millions of federal employees, according to The Washington Post. The personnel management office did not yet confirm that number. Generally, the burrowing employees are low-level political employees.

Office of Personnel Management press secretary Samuel Schumach said his office does not have a way to determine how many Obama political appointees have or will apply for civil service employment, but explained the process.

“Political appointees are free to apply for positions in the civil service as any other applicant. If an agency selects a current or former political appointee (in the last 5 years), the agency is required to seek Office of Personnel Management review and approval prior to appointing them,” Schumach said in a written statement to The Daily Signal.

“[The Office of Personnel Management] will review the hiring action to ensure it is free from political influence and meets merit system principles,” Schumach continued. “If we cannot conclude the action is free from political influence and meets merit system principles, we will deny the request to appoint the individual and may refer the matter to the Office of Special Council for further investigation.”

As the Obama administration is winding down, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has asked 23 executive branch agencies to account for how many political appointees are seeking career jobs with civil service protection.

“Such conversions, sometimes referred to as burrowing, run the risk of favoring political staff at the expense of more qualified career applicants,” Chaffetz’s July 20 letter warned.

“Conversions also create morale problems, in that qualified career applicants who lose out on promotions to applicants from the agency’s political staff can rightly wonder if the process was legitimate. The appointing officials must ensure each conversion of a political appointee to a career position results from a fair and open competition. Hiring decisions must be free from political interference, legitimate, and justified.”

The ranking member of the oversight committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told The Washington Post the Chaffetz inquiry was “yet another unsurprising attack on federal workers.”

“The solution to dealing with a few bad employees is not to change civil service laws to undermine the due process rights of all federal employees but to find ways to help agencies and managers implement existing authorities more efficiently and effectively to discipline bad actors,” Cummings said.

New civil service reforms are needed, von Spakovsky said, to prevent agenda-driven employees from getting permanent civil service protections.

“New rules should be implemented that prevent any political appointee from getting a civil service job without a waiting period after they leave their political appointment—at least a year and perhaps even longer,” he said.

A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 found, “Conversions of political appointees to career positions must conform to merit system principles requiring that selection be determined solely on the basis of merit after fair and open competition.”

The accountability office found from May 1, 2005, to May 30, 2009, 143 former political appointees and congressional employees converted to civil service jobs. In most cases, the process was done properly, according to the report.

For seven of these conversions documentation indicates that agencies may not have adhered to merit system principles, followed proper procedures, or may have engaged in prohibited personnel practices or other improprieties. Some of the improper procedures included pre-selecting particular individuals for career positions and selecting former political appointees who appeared to have limited qualifications and/or experience relevant to the career positions. Of the seven conversions, five will be reviewed by [the Office of Personnel Management]; one involves an issue most appropriately reviewed by the agency’s ethics officer, and one does not warrant further action as both the official solely responsible for the conversion and the convertee are no longer with the agency.

(For more from the author of “Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran in January at the same time Tehran was releasing four jailed Americans, payment that a top congressional Republican is calling “ransom.”

The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional sources, reported that the administration procured the money from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The money was stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in an unmarked cargo plane.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement that the administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old failed arms deal signed before the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Journal reported.

The settlement came at the same time as formal implementation of the historic nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other world powers.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Obama said at the time, without revealing the $400 million payment. (Read more from “Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Obama School-Transgender Policy Child Abuse

/1 Comment/in , /by

The family policy experts at the Ruth Institute warn that the Obama administration agenda to push transgenderism on public schools, including demanding that boys be allowed in girls showers and vice versa, forces children to adopt the “ideological agenda” of homosexuality.

The organization has issued a report on the recent “Guidance to Help Schools Ensure the Civil Rights of Transgender Students” released by the departments of Justice and Education.

The guidance requires that public schools and universities allow students to choose their “gender identity” and grant them access to gender-specific facilities.

It would allow a man to shower with girls, for example, if he says he is a woman. Obama’s rules specifically forbid schools from asking for any sort of documentation or evidence . . .

Texas, jointed by eight other states, has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration policy, charging it has “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.” (Read more from “Report: Obama School-Transgender Policy Child Abuse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Baghdad Bob Speech Suitable for a Different Era

/0 Comments/in , /by

By all objective measures, the prose and delivery of Obama’s convention speech last night were excellent. If its intended purpose was to unify the Democrat Party and reconstitute the liberal base turnout that benefited Obama in 2008, this speech was likely a success. But if this speech was designed to slow the bleed of moderates and white blue-collar voters from the party, it was completely disjointed from the reality starring those voters in the face.

Obama tried to deliver a 1988-style “passing of the baton speech” much like Ronald Reagan did for George Bush. The problem for him is that while the snobby elite demographics of his party might view the present as the 1988 equivalent for Democrats, in the eyes of most swing voters this is more like 2008.

In 1988, nobody could deny that it was a tranquil and prosperous time for the country. The economy was experiencing the most protracted period of growth post-WWII and the Soviet Union was defeated. People were not looking for fundamental change. Reagan just had to pass the baton to his successor and project his popularity on his Vice President while assuaging some of the concerns from GOP base voters. Swing voters never had a problem with Bush. That was essentially a convention speech for Reagan’s third term. The crowd even chanted “four more years” – not referring to four more years of GOP governance, but of Reagan himself.

Fast-forward 28 years later and we have a similar dynamic with a two term president attempting to pass the baton to the “next in line” in his own party for a third term of his presidency. Sure, they can post slick videos demonstrating some successes, such as killing Osama bin Laden (but not the assassination of SEAL Team Six just three months later!). But no swing voter in this country believes we are living in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous era. While the economy recovered from the deep recession, it recovered in the most lethargic way imaginable, inducing an indefinite period of stagnation instead of the traditional boom we experience following a sharp economic downturn.

More important than the economy, nobody outside of the gender studies lecturing rooms in elite colleges believes we are living in a period of safety and security. In fact, most voters, including Democrats, likely believe we have never faced a time where our nation was confronted by such an existential threat. The killing of Bin Laden has been rendered moot by the rise of ubiquitous terror attacks throughout western countries. Just 18 percent of the country believes we are on the right track; 73 percent believe we are on the wrong track.

There is no way to sugarcoat reality; most voters, even those who are not appalled by Obama’s values and governance, do not want a third term of Obama. They want a dramatic change. As I noted following Trumps’ acceptance speech, the weakness of the GOP nominee is not his diagnosis of the problem; it’s some of his solutions or the lack thereof on many issues, along with his character. To attack his diagnosis and deny the problems is akin to Saddam Hussein’s Minister of Information, otherwise known as Baghdad Bob, telling the press that the American military was being defeated even as they entered Baghdad.

The crisis we face in this election is the national security equivalent of the economic meltdown in 2008 after 8 years of Republican rule. And it’s not like the economy is great now either. Tack on the domestic insurrection in our major cities and we are experiencing the convergence of the worst elements of many periods of our history. It is for this reason why the McCain convention in 2008 relegated the sitting president to a short video message rather than a blockbuster prime time speech like Reagan did for George H. W. Bush in 1988. If Democrats wanted to project a new image and chart a new path, something the voters are demanding, they would have followed the 2008 model rather than 1988.

But that is not what the DNC was trying to accomplish. This speech was about the triumph of liberalism; the triumph of their vision. This was a culture war/values speech. And there is no doubt Obama has been an unrivaled success at implementing the fundamental transformation, thanks in large part to the collapse of the Republican Party. While the country is experiencing stagnation, rising crime in major cities, and the worst homeland security threat of our generation, Obama has been unflinching in leading his movement to victory after victory in remaking the country in their extreme ideology. He reminded those base voters who are not excited about Hillary or who badly wanted to see Bernie Sanders accept the nomination, that the party has already adopted the “Bern,” and his vision is already well on its way to changing America. He left no doubt that Hillary is committed to that agenda as well.

The question that remains is can Democrats, thanks to the demographic changes, succeed in winning a base turnout election even in a macro political climate that would have destroyed an incumbent party in any other era. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Baghdad Bob Speech Suitable for a Different Era” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Elizabeth Warren Speech at DNC Is Actually a Stunning Indictment of Obama and Hillary

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA (F, 16%) spoke at the Democratic National Convention. While she intended to throw her political tomahawk at Republicans, she actually hit Obama.

In her remarks, Warren argued, “Washington works great for those at the top,” and that the favoritism for the elite has been facilitated only by Republicans.

Well, I have news for her. Those at the top have benefited more from the Obama administration than from any other president in history.

As a candidate, Obama promised to shut the White House doors to lobbyists – and curtail the revolving door mentality of administration officials rotating among government positions and high paying lobbying jobs.

Yet, it’s never been worse. In 2015 alone, there were 70 K street lobbyists who accepted powerful jobs in the White House. In 2014, Politico reported that Obama had decided to reverse part of a lobbyist ban put in place by President George W. Bush. Furthermore, they reported, “The Obama administration will release a new rule this week, which is expected to allow registered lobbyists to participate in policymaking deliberations in an advisory role.”

So, big corporations are going to write our laws? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Perhaps the lobbyist’s new role in drafting legislation can explain the White House visitor log, which certainly makes plenty of time for “those at the top.”

But it’s not just the cronyism that has Elizabeth Warren upset. She also went on a tirade against big banks, tax and regulatory loopholes, and special interests.

When giant companies wanted more tax loopholes, Washington got it done.

When huge energy companies wanted to tear up our environment, Washington got it done.

When enormous Wall Street banks wanted new regulatory loopholes, Washington got it done.

They sure did, Senator Warren, and it was all happened under the man who promised “change,” President Barack Obama.

Take, for example, a bill that Congress passed in December 2015, which provided $630 billion in tax breaks to special interests and lobbyists. It included specific tax cuts to industries like Puerto Rican Rum manufacturers, NASCAR, and the Hollywood film industry.

In my December analysis of the crony tax breaks, I wrote:

[H]ow lucrative are these tax breaks for K street? Americans for Tax Fairness in 2014 analyzed this very question. They found that corporate American hired a battalion of 1,359 lobbyists to infiltrate Capitol Hill [and the White House] at a cost of $2.9 billion.

Did President Obama reject the tax package as a “handout to lobbyists” or veto the legislation as “only benefiting the elites”? Absolutely not.

Regarding the “huge energy companies” that Senator Warren rails against, she should note that no Administration is more to blame for cronyism in the energy world than that of President Obama. This was the president that awarded a big donor a $535 million loan to fund a solar company named Solynda. Touted as an opportunity to provide clean energy and support 4,000 new jobs, this energy company went bankrupt on the backs of taxpayers.

At other times, it appears the Obama Administration’s energy policy is synonymous with political donations. In that sense, I suppose Obama really is trying to go “green.” In July 2012, Breitbart highlighted just a few of Obama’s cronies that received taxpayer funded loans, writing,

[Steve] Westley, who bundled between $700,000 and $1 million for Obama’s two campaigns and sits on an Energy Department advisory board, also unabashedly mixes politics and business. His venture firm, the Westley Group, saw federal green energy dollars steered to at least four companies in his portfolio.

I wonder if Senator Warren is referring to these shenanigans when she directs her angst towards Washington’s support of the big guy?

Finally, the Obama Administration is the king of Wall Street cronyism. Take Obama’s former National Economic Director, Larry Summers. Since his departure, he has been routinely paid millions as a keynote speaker by JP Morgan, and Hedge Bermuda Global Hedge Fund, among others.

David Markowitz, a former top assistant at the Securities and Exchange Commission under Obama, has also cleaned up in his new job as a general counsel at Goldman Sachs. Obama’s former Budget Director, has likewise decamped for a Vice Chairmanship at Citibank? The list goes on.

Contrary to popular myth, Obama never took on Wall Street. He bailed them out. Obama took the banks deemed “too big to fail,” saved them, and made them even larger. Consider this analysis from MIT economist, Simon Johnson in his book, 13 Bankers:

In the end, the major banks got business as usual. The shake out of 2008 left the big banks even bigger. Bank of American absorbed Countrywide and Merrill Lynch – and watched its assets grow from $1.7 trillion at the end of 2007 to $2.3 trillion in September 2009. JPMorgan grew from $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion.” And “…By the end of 2009, five banks together had over 95 percent of the market for derivative contracts trade by U.S. banks.

In fact, if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Wall Street cronyism is likely to be more pronounced than even under Obama. After all, Clinton is already bought and paid for. Since 2001, Bill and Hillary Clinton have made $153 million by delivering speeches to big corporations. That amount includes $7.7 million to big Wall Street banks.

Clinton has even proven she’s willing to promote legislation that supports the titans of Wall Street, for the right price. As the Washington Times reported in 2015, “Mrs. Clinton introduced a bill when she was New York’s junior Senator that allowed a donor to the Clinton Foundation to use tax-exempt bonds to build a shopping center in Syracuse, New York…”

In fact, if there is one candidate that is most friendly to the big guys on Wall Street, it is Clinton. The Wall Street Journal reported in May that half of all Hillary’s campaign contributions had come from Wall Street. On the other hand, Trump only garnered 1 percent of his from the same crowd.

Elizabeth Warren is absolutely correct; we can’t have another eight years of politicians who are only interested in enriching their friends and donors – or those simply looking out for the big guy. That is what we received under Obama; that is certainly what we’ll receive in Hillary. Warren didn’t realize it, but in calling for an end to favors for big business, she was actually urging voters to reject Obama, and thus reject Hillary. I agree. (For more from the author of “Elizabeth Warren Speech at DNC Is Actually a Stunning Indictment of Obama and Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Implies Russians Committed DNC Email Hack to Benefit Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama suggested there could be a relationship between Donald Trump and the Russians in an interview excerpt Tuesday, citing the Democratic National Committee email hack.

NBC’s Savannah Guthrie asked Obama a two-pronged question: the first was if the Russians were behind the hack, and the second was if they were trying in interfere in an American presidential election.

He said that the FBI still has an open investigation into this matter, but experts point to the Russians.

He then implied that there was a relationship between Russia and Trump. Even though the comment was vague, the suggestion was still present.

“Well, I think the FBI is still investigating what happened,” he said. “I know that experts have attributed this to the Russians. What we do know is that the Russians hack our systems, not just government systems, but private systems. But, you know, what the motives were in terms of leaks, all that, I can’t say directly. What I do know is that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin.” (Read more from “Obama Implies Russians Committed DNC Email Hack to Benefit Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.