Posts

Conservative Media Needs to Do Its Job and Start Telling People the Truth

/0 Comments/in , /by

During the 2014 general election, I sat aside my differences with the Republican Party’s more moderate and/or establishment wings, and did what I could to encourage people to vote GOP since control of the U.S. Senate was at stake.

Let’s just say the ROI for that resounding election victory has been underwhelming.

Republicans have rubber-stamped all of Obama’s administrative and lower court judicial appointments. They funded all of Obama’s schemes, and aside from show votes used none of their constitutional power of the purse to stop either Obama’s illegal amnesty or Obamacare. Instead, the GOP opted to file meaningless lawsuits and force taxpayers foot the legal bills for on both sides. Other than filling the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by Antonin Scalia’s untimely death, it’s tough to pinpoint exactly how things would be substantively different if Nancy Pelosi were speaker and Harry Reid the majority Lleader.

In short, Republicans made campaign promises their post-election courage couldn’t cash. And unless politics is nothing more to you than a my team versus your team type of sporting event, those of us who encouraged our audiences to rally behind them at the time did nothing but create unmet expectations.

I fear the same thing is happening in the 2016 election.

We’re beyond debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Donald Trump as the GOP nominee now. That die is cast, and that ship has long since sailed. People’s minds are likely all made up on both sides, and it’s time to just let the voters decide for themselves come November 8th.

This is really about the credibility of our movement, as well as the industry known as “conservative media.” For facts are coming to light, which at the very least cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of some of the fundamental claims/promises Trump made to our people that caused a chunk of them to flock to his candidacy.

These include:

Trump promised a self-funding campaign

A recent investigation into Trump’s holdings shows he may be upwards of $650 million in debt, which is more than twice what was previously speculated. If true, this would show his liquidity lacks the wherewithal to compete against Hillary Clinton. It would also explain why until his recent modest ad-buy, Clinton had outspent Trump $52 million to nothing in campaign advertising through August 9th. A year ago at the Iowa State Fair, Trump pledged to spend a billion dollars of his own money to win the presidency. Fast forward twelve months and Trump has spent only about $50 million of his fortune. A sizable sum, yes, but a meager pittance compared to the at least $992 million Romney and his allies spent to lose in 2012. In fact, what Trump has spent so far is only about 5% of that. Just take a look at Trump’s most recent FEC campaign disclosure for July, where the devil is most assuredly in the details:

Trump campaign spent $18 million, twice what it spent in June, but didn’t run/purchase any ads during the month.

Hillary has almost $20 million more cash on hand than the “self-funding billionaire.”

Trump campaign raised $36 million in July, which is about one-third the total Mitt Romney raised in July of 2012.

Over $8 million of the $18 million the Trump campaign spent in July went to a Texas web design firm for online fundraising. When the largest expenditure for a campaign with little to no ground game is further developing its fundraising platform, that’s never a good sign.

Trump campaign only spent about $26k more on staff than it did hats in July. No, seriously.

Trump campaign spent almost a half million dollars on hats. Hats. That’s right, I said hats. In only one month.

Trump campaign paid $660,000 for outside legal counsel. By comparison, Hillary’s campaign spent only about one-sixth of that on legal counsel in July.

Former Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Sam Clovis made $15,000 last month for reasons only Allah knows.

Trump campaign spent $2.5 million on private air travel, which is almost six times more than what it spent on staff/organization/ground game in July.

Trump promised to oppose ‘globalism’

Trump has frequently attacked Hillary Clinton for her high, six-figure speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, a multi-national banking company. During the GOP primary, he also attacked rival Ted Cruz as a ‘globalist’ because his wife, Heidi, previously worked at Goldman Sachs as well. However, Trump recently hired former Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon as his latest campaign manager. Furthermore, Trump has let it be known that if elected president he plans to nominate another former Goldman Sachs banker, Steve Mnuchin, for U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Trump promised to fight amnesty

Perhaps the only conservative issue upon which rump has built any semblance of credibility is illegal immigration. But now that too appears to be changing. Univision is reporting Trump will soon unveil his own amnesty proposal, a report the Trump campaign disputes. On Sunday, however, Trump’s latest campaign strategist, Kellyanne Conway, said on national television the “deportation force” Trump has long been advocating is “to be determined” and may be scrapped altogether. Conway, a well-known and well-respected GOP pollster/strategist, was paid to help Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg lobby for amnesty in 2014.

Trump promised to expand the election map

What would we say if trailing consistently in polls, Hillary Clinton decided to hold rallies in unlosable blue states like California and Massachusetts with less than 80 days to go before the election? Because that’s essentially what Trump is doing by campaigning in Texas and Mississippi this week. Trump lacks organization in Hamilton County, which may be the most pivotal county in must-win Ohio. Last week, Trump opened a second field office in must-win Florida, where Hillary Clinton already had 14 field offices. Trump’s organization lags behind Hillary’s in Virginia, which no Republican has won the presidency without since before Reconstruction. Earlier this summer GOP leaders in Pennsylvania, which is crucial to any hopes Trump has of winning the White House, said there was “almost no sign” of a Trump organization there.

Again, this isn’t about our varied opinions on the merits of Trump’s candidacy. This is about yet another Republican politician over-promising the conservative base and then under-delivering. As conservative media, I would argue we have an obligation to our fellow conservatives to alert them to what is happening here, even if we’re staunchly pro-Trump. Because if this isn’t malfeasance it’s incompetence, and it will do more to help get Hillary elected than anything #NeverTrump is capable of if the Trump campaign doesn’t right the ship.

I think we’ve already proven becoming water carriers and shills for the Republican Party doesn’t serve the conservative cause. So let’s see if telling the truth works. Who knows? It might actually prompt the Trump campaign to get its act together. (For more from the author of “Conservative Media Needs to Do Its Job and Start Telling People the Truth” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AARP’s Retreat From Conservative Forum Part of ‘Great Silencing’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The decision by the seniors group AARP to drop its membership in an influential legislative reform coalition is the latest example of the left’s successful pressure on corporations and other organizations to disown the group.

As of December, according to the liberal website SourceWatch.org, “at least 108 corporations and 19 nonprofits” announced cutting ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council in the previous five years.

Among those listed as parting ways with ALEC: Coca-Cola Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, and Hewlett-Packard Co.

“A great silencing is taking place across America,” ALEC spokesman Bill Meierling told The Daily Signal. “All people should be deeply concerned when any group believes solutions come from intimidation rather than discussion.”

Of all the organizations in the conservative movement that have antagonized the left during the Obama presidency, this one stands out.

The American Legislative Exchange Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan network of state lawmakers, policy analysts, and private sector leaders that advances model legislation with an eye toward free market policy solutions.

The organization that became known as ALEC grew out of informal meetings of conservative activists in Chicago during autumn 1973. Forty-three years later, the exchange council includes “nearly one-quarter of the country’s state legislators and stakeholders from across the policy spectrum,” according to its website.

ALEC now has a long history of successfully promoting local and state legislation built on the constitutional principles of limited government, the free market, and federalism.

While the exchange council has attracted both positive attention and negative scrutiny since its founding, well-funded, well-organized opponents on the left have made a concerted effort over the past five years to marginalize, discredit, and defund it.

As previously reported by The Daily Signal, eight of the Senate’s most liberal Democrats also targeted ALEC last month in a letter to national and state-based think tanks and policy organizations demanding to know the names of donors.

Conservative policy analysts and think tank leaders who are familiar with the assault on ALEC have some insight.

A critical turning point came after the 2010 midterm elections, they say, when left-leaning lawmakers lost ground in statehouses across the country, making it possible for ALEC’s proposals to become policy at an accelerated pace.

Matthew Vadum is a senior vice president at Capital Research Center, which investigates the “aims and activities of left-liberal special interest groups.” Vadum said he suspects that because ALEC worked successfully to “frame the debate” during the Obama presidency, it aroused the ire of liberal groups such as Common Cause.

Those groups now see some of their most prized policy achievements in danger of losing their grip at the local and state levels, he said.

Obamacare and Voter ID

After President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, into law in March 2010, ALEC “sprang into action” and “drafted model legislation aimed at blocking states from enforcing the new health insurance monstrosity,” Vadum noted in a research paper.

In November 2011, ALEC published its “State Lawmakers Guide to Repealing Obamacare.”

At least 10 states took up ALEC’s model proposal to block the federal health care law by 2013, Vadum wrote. But what rankled the left above all else is the exchange council’s commitment to passing voter identification laws as a safeguard against voter fraud, he says.

Two opponents, The Nation magazine and the Center for Media and Democracy, have led the charge against ALEC for the past five years.

Founded in 1865, The Nation describes itself as providing a progressive outlook on political and cultural questions. Its print circulation peaked at 187,000 in 2006; by 2010 it had dropped to 145,000.

The Center for Media and Democracy is a left-leaning investigative journalism outfit based in Madison, Wisconsin, that describes itself as a watchdog on the use of public relations by corporations and political figures. The center, founded in 1993 by progressive Wisconsin writer John Stauber, publishes SourceWatch, PR Watch, and BanksterUSA.

In July 2011, the magazine and the center partnered on a series of articles highlighting ALEC’s model bills and emphasizing its connections with the Koch brothers and their companies, organizations, and foundations.

Charles and David Koch, wealthy entrepreneurs and philanthropists, drew the left’s ire by organizing contributions to libertarian and conservative causes and candidates. The Nation’s first article on ALEC called the Koch brothers the exchange council’s “billionaire benefactors.”

The left’s opposition to laws requiring voters to produce photo identification figures prominently in the articles. One, for example, says ALEC is “peddling ‘Voter ID’ laws to disenfranchise voters.”

The Center for Media and Democracy operates a website called ALEC Exposed, also dating to July 2011, that focuses on ALEC’s funding sources and policy proposals. The site criticizes corporations and nonprofits that support ALEC.

Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries Inc., shakes that off.

“We support ALEC and the work it is doing on criminal justice reform legislation, protecting free speech, and promoting policies that remove barriers to opportunity for all Americans, especially the least advantaged,” Holden said in an email to The Daily Signal.

‘Seek to Silence’

The pressure tactics appear to have met with considerable success.

As of December, according to the Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch.org, “at least 108 corporations and 19 nonprofits—for a total of 127 private sector members—have publicly announced that they cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council.”

Four of the 127 returned to ALEC, according to the website, but the left continues to claim new scalps such as AARP.

ALEC declined to comment on membership details or the exchange council’s success rate in state legislatures, saying opponents exploit the information.

Kevin Kane, president of Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a free market think tank based in New Orleans, said the anti-ALEC campaign is undermining free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

“There has been an important tactical shift in the campaign against ALEC and other organizations that do not toe the line on certain policy issues,” Kane told The Daily Signal. “Many organizations on the left are no longer content to engage in a debate over the issues, instead they seek to silence opponents by convincing donors and sponsors that certain policy positions are beyond the pale and therefore unworthy of consideration.”

In an email, Kane added:

This creates an environment where policymakers and citizens are less likely to be exposed to a wide range of arguments over important policy questions. Organizations like Pelican Institute do not benefit from this development, but the real losers in this campaign are policymakers and their constituents, who are denied the many benefits that flow from robust and open debate over important policy questions.

Pelican Institute, part of the State Policy Network, a coalition of state-based think tanks, sometimes partners with ALEC on legislative proposals.

AARP ‘Decides Not to Renew‘

Most recently, liberal advocacy groups succeeded in pressuring AARP, the nation’s most powerful organization of older Americans, to drop its affiliation with ALEC.

AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, announced Aug. 4 it would not continue membership.

In a letter that same day to Jo Ann Jenkins, chief executive officer of AARP, liberal groups accused the exchange council of pushing for policy changes that harm senior citizens.

“AARP’s support of ALEC is antithetical to your mission to fight for the issues that matter most to families—such as health care, employment, and income security,” the letter to Jenkins said.

The letter, which called on the seniors organization to withdraw from the exchange council, was signed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the Center for Media and Democracy; Social Security Works; and ClimateTruth.org, among other groups.

“After hearing from many of you, we’ve decided not to renew our membership to ALEC,” AARP said in a post that evening on its Facebook page. Politico broke the news.

The liberal organizations’ letter to AARP’s Jenkins said in part:

By partnering with ALEC, you have allowed it to use the powerful AARP brand to lend credibility to legislation harmful to seniors that is introduced in statehouses across the country. ALEC has been at the forefront of protecting drug companies and their ability to charge unreasonable prices, has been a strong advocate against the Affordable Care Act and has opposed Medicaid expansion, forcing lower-income retirees to make terrible choices between paying medical bills and buying groceries. …

ALEC also blocks action on climate change, causing irreparable harm to the world we will leave our children and grandchildren. ALEC has spearheaded calls for a dangerous Article V convention to enact a federal balanced budget amendment that would ultimately gut critical programs for seniors like Social Security, Medicare and the Older Americans Act. ALEC has also spent years pushing the dismantling of retirement security for older Americans by promoting the elimination of defined benefit pensions and the privatization of Social Security, at least in part, in favor of risky investment accounts.

‘Contemptible Betrayal’

“AARP should be ashamed and embarrassed at its action in withdrawing from ALEC,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. He added:

This is another sign of how much the progressive left wants to silence anyone who disagrees with them on matters of public policy. Their basic betrayal of the tenets of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment is disgraceful—and AARP’s going along with this censorship is contemptible.

Meierling, vice president of public affairs for the American Legislative Exchange Council, told The Daily Signal that left-leaning activist groups are working to silence organizations such as ALEC that hold alternative views on public policy.

“ALEC members represent many millions of retired Americans and work on issues such as health care, employment, and income security—key AARP issues,” Meierling said, adding:

All seniors benefit when their issues are discussed openly and with as many decision makers and stakeholders as possible. It is a shame that under the banner of good government, activists groups such as the Center for Media and Democracy would pressure any organization out of the free exchange of ideas.

“The left succeeded in pressuring AARP to disassociate itself from ALEC by using the same smears and pressure tactics it has long used in its jihad against ALEC,” Capital Research Center’s Vadum said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“Here the left claimed ALEC hates minorities and elderly people because it backed electoral integrity laws like photo ID requirements that combat election fraud,” he said. “It’s an absurd argument but it’s been quite effective in hitting ALEC in the pocketbook.”

Vadum also argues that ALEC receives relatively little support from foundations and no government grants, according to tax filings.

That contrasts with the National Conference of State Legislatures, its “left-wing counterpart,” he said, which “relies heavily on taxpayer funding.” (For more from the author of “AARP’s Retreat From Conservative Forum Part of ‘Great Silencing'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Push Leadership to Deny Obama His Last Lame-Duck Session

/0 Comments/in , /by

While lawmakers are away from Capitol Hill on August recess, the two largest conservative caucuses in Congress are working to keep a lame-duck spending bill from getting off the ground after the elections.

Before Congress recessed, the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee gathered enough signatures to force GOP leadership into scheduling a conference to discuss the party’s plan for funding the federal government, The Daily Signal has learned.

That moves coincides with a shift in conservative strategy on government funding. Conservatives aren’t trying to reduce spending anymore this year. They’re trying to buy time.

“Are we going to reduce the deficit, yes or no?” Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., asked in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The answer is no and the American people aren’t happy with that. So now we just need to do damage control.”

Reducing government spending remains the long-term goal for conservatives, Brat said. But for now, their immediate concern is preventing any new increases before the year ends.

That requires convincing the GOP conference to abandon a stalled appropriations process and to adopt instead a continuing resolution, a measure that would lock in government spending at current levels until next March.

“[Republican Study Committee Chairman] Bill Flores and a number of us have called for a special conference on the [continuing resolution] issue,” Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal. “When we get back, we’re going to push for a longer [continuing resolution] that gets us to next session.”

Conservatives won’t have much time to make their case when Congress returns to session Sept. 6. To avoid a shutdown, lawmakers must reach a deal before the government’s spending authority expires at the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

But by reaching a permanent deal now, conservatives hope to avoid a last-minute omnibus bill later during the lame-duck session, which follows the Nov. 8 elections and precedes the swearing-in of the new president and Congress in January.

There are significant trade-offs, though. Conservatives would have to surrender and abandon their long-standing budget battle with leadership.

Since last January, spending hawks have tried to torpedo the $1.07 trillion Obama-Boehner budget deal backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The continuing resolution currently pushed by members of the Freedom Caucus would set top-line spending $30 billion below that level.

But that relatively small amount is worth it, Jordan told The Daily Signal, because while conservatives loath higher spending, “experience and recent history” have taught them to fear the lame duck more.

“Many members are willing to tolerate the spending level that we don’t think is right,” Jordan said, “but we can only tolerate that if we can avoid the lame duck, if we can get the right time frame.”

Part of every congressional life cycle, the lame-duck session occurs after the November election but before newly elected lawmakers arrive in Washington. Unaccountable to their constituents, outgoing politicians often use the window to help pass controversial legislation.

If Congress votes on an omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session, conservatives fear, liberals will try to slip policy riders on controversial subjects into the must-pass piece of legislation.

The session, for instance, represents the last best chance for President Barack Obama to advance his marquee trade agreement, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. The White House indicated in June that it plans to run a two-minute drill on trade during the lame duck.

“There is a pathway forward here,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, the White House’s ambassador on trade matters, told The New York Times. “And what we’re trying to do right now is just maximize the likelihood that we’ll be able to walk down that path successfully.”

As Obama’s exit from the White House approaches, anxiety over the lame-duck session has increased exponentially.

“The session happens every time there’s an election,” a senior Republican aide told The Daily Signal. “But what are Obama and Reid going to try and get though now that it’s their last time around?”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will retire Jan. 3 after 30 years in the Senate.

If Congress passes a continuing resolution now, conservatives argue, there won’t be any pressure to pass an omnibus spending bill later and no legislative vehicle for amendments by Democrats.

The conservative strategy already has gained some traction among Senate Republicans.

“I’m not a fan of kicking things into a lame-duck session,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas told reporters before Congress adjourned for recess. “If you held a gun to my head and made me choose the length of the [continuing resolution] as the last option, I’d say let’s kick this over into the first part of next year.”

House leadership, however, has been hesitant to get on board.

Ryan has made funding the government according to regular order a top priority during his short tenure as House speaker. Congress should pass individual spending bills for specific government programs, the Wisconsin representative argues, rather than a one-and-done omnibus package.

But with only 17 legislative days before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, many on Capitol Hill see a continuing resolution as inevitable. And Democrats are already fighting to defeat any continuing resolution that puts spending levels on autopilot until next March.

“We would be very strongly opposed to that. It wouldn’t happen,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the third-ranking Senate Democrat, told Politico. “We’re going to work and get a good omnibus bill.”

Conservatives say House leadership has been unresponsive so far to their pleas for a continuing resolution. A senior leadership aide told The Daily Signal that “no decisions have been made” about embracing a continuing resolution.

The longer Republicans wait to vote on a continuing resolution, Brat said, the more likely it is that Congress will make a last-minute deal in December.

“Do we want leadership negotiating right before Christmas like they have these last two years?” the Virginia Republican asked, “when we bust the spending caps again, increase the deficit even more, and lose all conservative policy riders?”

“That’s the last thing we want and that’s why we want a [continuing resolution] going into March,” Brat concluded.

The conservative effort to end the lame-duck session isn’t anything new. A group of 75 conservative organizations sent an April 14 letter to Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging them to take steps to avoid a lame duck.

That effort hasn’t always been warmly received.

“What has the Freedom Caucus been fighting about—on not doing the budget all year—if they’re going to turn around and cave on a [$1.07 trillion] level at the last minute,” a senior Republican staffer told The Daily Signal.

More establishment Republicans complain that major legislative business wouldn’t be necessary in a lame-duck session if conservatives would have gotten on board with higher spending earlier on.

Things won’t “magically” look better for conservatives next year anyway, the staffer predicted, suggesting Democrats could win the Senate and the White House on Nov. 8.

“Don’t they realize they could be negotiating with a Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer and a President Clinton? What then?” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Push Leadership to Deny Obama His Last Lame-Duck Session” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Congressmen: We Can Lead No Matter Who’s in the White House

/0 Comments/in , /by

Several members of Congress told The Stream Thursday that conservative policies will emerge from the House no matter who is President in 2017.

“We’ve got things we’re going to do here regardless of who the president is,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said at the monthly Conversations with Conservatives in response to a question from The Stream about how conservatives plan to lead if Donald Trump wins the White House.

Gohmert recalled that under President George W. Bush, “We had a Republican in the White House,” he said. “We had some great things we wanted to move forward on, and I was surprised as a freshman how much we were affected by the agenda that President Bush had at the time.”

So who the president is “does have an effect, it is a legitimate question,” he continued. “But I think because this is not an election like we’ve ever seen in my lifetime, we’re going to be able to have more say than we have in the past, if we will stand up and say. But that’s been a concern in the past. We just kind of limped along with whatever agenda anybody else had. I think that now you’ve got people who are actually pulling the wagon, and pushing from the other side, and we’ve got a real chance to start achieving some of our agenda.”

Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp praised House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a series of policy proposals in recent weeks. “As it stands now, we have a Democrat nominee and a Republican nominee that have the highest negatives probably ever in the history of presidential politics,” said Huelskamp at the Capitol Hill meeting, “and I think for Republicans, personalities divide, but policies unite.”

“I think on plenty of issues, it’s very unclear what Donald Trump thinks, and what his official stands are,” he said.

According to House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), “We anticipate unveiling five pieces of legislation we think are important.” Jordan, who like Huelskamp praised Ryan’s policy agenda, named the religious liberty-focused First Amendment Defense Act and welfare reform as two areas of top concern for the Freedom Caucus.

One area of common concern for conservatives and establishment Republicans is education reform. Moderator Genevieve Wood, a senior fellow in communications at the Heritage Foundation, asked Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) about a bill she has introduced that would improve school choice and relieve parents of some of the burdens imposed by federal mandates.

According to Lummis, her bill would allow parents who object to federal mandates to “get an education savings account for their child in the amount that is the average for that state to educate a student” and take that money elsewhere. Lummis said that while the bill would apply to all federal mandates, it was introduced after President Obama’s May mandate that schools will risk federal funding if they do not allow gender-confused teenagers to use the restroom, locker room and other sex-segregated facilities of their choice.

That mandate is being opposed by states that filed a lawsuit against the federal government late last month. (For more from the author of “Conservative Congressmen: We Can Lead No Matter Who’s in the White House” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why This Man Is the Last of the Senate Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

During my time in Washington, I have seen well intentioned people arrive on the Hill ready to challenge the Establishment. Yet, too often I witness those same individuals lured into a system that promises power and prestige.

Conservatives know this all too well. A quick scroll through the Conservative Review score card shows that a majority of “conservative” politicians are hardly distinguishable from their Democratic counterparts.

Perhaps there is no better example of this than the recent Senate vote on the energy and water spending bill. It is a bill that funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or USACE), the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy. I know, this sounds really boring. My intent is not to bore you with what seems to be a hippie’s bawdy dream (no pun intended); instead, liberty-minded voters must understand why this bill is so important to the conservative movement.

(Here’s a short clip on the bill’s chief sponsor, RINO Lisa Murkowski:)

First, it’s important to remember that the energy and water bill is a Republican bill. Yet, it out-liberal’d the liberals and it increased the size of (bad) government.

In total, the bill increased the size of government by $355 million. Most shocking, this is $261 million more than Obama requested! Let me repeat: The liberal, environmentalist loving bill provides nearly $300 million more than Obama wanted to spend.

In addition, the bill increased funding for the Corps, a big government regulator, engaged in economically and environmentally “dubious” projects, most of which are wasteful. Furthermore, the Corps enforces a dangerous, liberal regulation known as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Conservatives have long championed proposals to defund this regulation; yet, none of the funds in this bill were blocked from enforcing it.

WOTUS is a regulation is part of the Clean Water Act, passed in the 1970s. At the time, the bill mandated that agencies were to regulate “waters” on any property. There was just one problem: Congress never adequately defined the term “waters.” Instead, rogue agencies have been left to define it themselves.

Needless to say, its’ been a disaster. The regulation has been used to imprison Americans, destroy lands and seize homes. Republicans correctly offered amendments to reduce Corps funds from being used to enforce this regulation. The amendment failed, but not because of liberals. Instead, it failed because of Mitch McConnell. Republican leader Mitch McConnell used his powers to crush his own party.

An amendment of this nature would normally only require a simple majority to pass. Instead, McConnell used Senate rules to require the amendment to pass at 60 votes. Had the amendment proceeded under normal circumstances, the vote tally of 56 in favor; 42 against, would have been enough for it to pass!

Ready for the most devastating news? This bill actually rejected a proposal by Obama to reduce Corps spending by $1.4 billion. That’s right – the Corps is an agency that promotes a liberal, environmentalist agenda; it stands alone on the pedestal of government inefficiency and lawlessness, so much so that even Obama wants to defund the damn thing.

The Republicans thought otherwise.

But there’s more. The bill also provides new money to “green energy” projects, including energy loans that have been used as a personal piggy bank for Obama’s buddies. Do you remember the “green energy” loans to Solyndra, Abound Solar, Beacon Power or Ener1? They all received DOE loans and are now bankrupt.

Republicans at least cut funding for climate change research, right? Wrong. Republicans actually increased funding for climate change research by $40 million.

In the end, this Republican bill spends more money on liberal priorities, and provides funding for regulations that are devastating the American people and conservative states.

So, here is why it matters that we pay close attention:

The Last of the Senate Conservatives.

This bill passed the Senate with overwhelming support, 90 in favor and eight against. Each of the eight Senators who opposed the bill were Republicans including members you would expect like Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

Sadly, that’s the narrative that will fill press releases and voting records. But it’s not the entire story. See in the Senate, a bill never receives just one vote as you might believe. Rather, a bill must go through a web of votes in order for that final, pass or fail, vote to take place. The one vote that matters most, perhaps, is a vote called the “cloture” vote.

A cloture vote is basically an inquiry from all Senators as to whether they are prepared to move forward on a bill – it’s a vote in favor of ending debate on the bill and proceeding to a final vote.

However, a cloture vote requires 60 votes to pass, which means it often takes every Republican and a handful of Democrats in order for the bill to move forward.

The failure to receive the required 60 votes simply stalls the bill. This is crucial, because a 60 vote threshold is the most powerful vote for conservative members. Do the math, and it becomes clear that a simple majority, as is needed on final passage, never needs conservative votes – either to pass or deny a bill. Yet, a cloture vote provides much greater weight.

This gamesmanship is twisted into a convenient narrative. Conservative members can let the Republican establishment pass their liberal bills and act innocent by pointing to the weaker and less relevant vote for final passage. They do this by knowing an affirmative vote on cloture is moving them into a position where their vote becomes mathematically irrelevant.

During my time on Capitol Hill I routinely heard conservative members argue that a vote on cloture was a vote to end debate, even as they emphasized that it was not an affirmative vote for the bill. It should be noted, however, that for conservative members the cloture vote is the most important vote they cast – and they know it.

On a more principled argument, lets assume for a moment a cloture vote didn’t carry as much clout. It still begs the question: why would a conservative member ever agree to cease a continued debate on a bill that increases spending, especially for new climate change funding and environmental regulations?

Should we not perpetuate the debate on these conservative issues? Should the debate not continue indefinitely on the unsustainability of a growing government? Since when do conservatives surrender the debate to bigger government, more regulations and climate change funding?

Here is the Bombshell: Nearly every single conservative senator voted to end debate on this bill; nearly every single conservative member gave a hat tip for this to proceed to a final vote – a vote those members know would end in the bill passing the Senate.

There is one important exception: Senator Mike Lee.

Senator Mike Lee is the only truly conservative member to vote against cloture. He did so not once, but three time – or each time Republican Mitch McConnell tried to force a cloture vote on this liberal garbage.

He is the only conservative member who refused to end debate on these important issues. He is the only conservative member who refused to accept that this bill was ready to pass the Senate.

The energy and water bill may be boring. But it reflects the true nature of the Republican Party. It reflects the façade that we face in a party that prides itself on small government. To think that standing with Obama would have reduced spending to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by $1.4 billion, or standing against Mitch McConnell may have pushed us one step closer to defunding the worst, if not most anti-liberty, regulation that is WOTUS.

This bill is symbolic of what the Republican Party has become. More so, it truly reflects the one and final champion we have in the senate. He is the last of the conservative members, and his name is Senator Mike Lee. (For more from the author of “Why This Man Is the Last of the Senate Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Ways Conservative Lawmakers Could Respond to Obama’s Bathroom Directive

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration’s bathroom directive, ordering local school districts to allow transgender students to use the restrooms of their choice, has caught congressional Republicans off guard.

The response has been a mix of pessimism, frustration, and a call for the states to defy the directive at the local level.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., ventured into the fray Tuesday with a strongly worded letter to Department of Education Secretary John King Jr. Lankford wrote that the department’s directive “conflates an individual’s gender identity with the widely accepted and longstanding understanding of sex without support in Title IX.”

The new guidelines, released Friday by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, instruct local schools to extend Title IX protections, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, to transgender students.

The Oklahoma senator slammed King for advancing “substantive and binding regulatory policies” that didn’t go through the regular rule-making process or through an act of Congress.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, decried the directive and told The Daily Signal that “Obama has again abused his executive authority to disrupt the lives of millions of Americans.”

The bathroom directive, Lee said, underscores the need for reforms that “would defang the Department of Education.” But an aide to the senator noted that there were “no immediate plans” to advance reform.

Republican leadership has not tangled with the administration over the issue directly. Instead, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has maintained that states, not the federal government, should take point in crafting policies that best address the issue at the local level.

A Ryan aide told The Daily Signal that the speaker “believes this is a state and local issue and the federal government should respect that.” When asked if Ryan planned to offer a rebuttal, the aide predicted the speaker would let any legislative fix work its way through the committee process.

Ryan’s counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has remained quiet on the issue and didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

1. Push States to Ignore Obama’s Directive

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., advised states and local school districts “to just disregard the president’s directive.”

“It’s not a rule,” the Freedom Caucus board member told The Daily Signal. The administration “hasn’t gone through the rule-making process because it’d have to come through our [congressional] oversight. You would actually have to change a rule for it to have the effect of law.”

Many conservatives in both the House and the Senate see the bathroom battle as a conflict best suited to the terrain at the state level. Asked what recourse public schools have now, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., said he couldn’t “imagine what it is.”

“I would love to see some local school districts, mine included, just say ‘No, we’re not going to do it,’” Mulvaney, who is also a Freedom Caucus board member, said. “If that means having to figure out how to do without federal funds, then God bless them. You have to fight at some point and Congress is not showing the ability to fight back during this administration.”

While President Barack Obama’s directive does not carry the force of law, it’s been widely received as a veiled threat to local districts: comply or lose federal funds.

2. Clarify What Title IX Means

Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan Anderson explained that Congress could clarify federal law to stop what he considers “the Obama administration’s unlawful rewriting of Title IX.”

That would require the legislature, he said, to “reaffirm that ‘sex’ does not mean ‘gender-identity’ in statutes passed decades ago.”

3. A Voucher System

But there is some discussion in conservative circles about a potential fix—albeit a long-term one.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., imagines a voucher system specifically for families who have concerns with social issues.

“For any school that accepts federal funds, and the strings that come attached,” Lummis told The Daily Signal, “the families who send their children to those public schools should be able to receive a voucher to go to the school of their choice if any matter of social mores is inconsistent with their realm.”

The Wyoming lawmaker aims, she said, to introduce the plan as a standalone measure and gauge how much bipartisan support it attracts this year. As a standalone bill, that plan faces an uphill trek to passage in the current political climate.

What’s Next

Mulvaney interprets Republican leadership’s silence as a reluctance to challenge Obama on the issue through the legislative process. That would require tying a bill to a must-pass piece of legislation, Mulvaney said, and risking a government shutdown.

“We all know that there’s too many Republicans who just abhor the thought of any discussion of a shutdown during an election year,” he said, “so we won’t fight.” (For more from the author of “3 Ways Conservative Lawmakers Could Respond to Obama’s Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top 10 Slam-Dunk Issues for Conservatives in 2016

/2 Comments/in , /by

4908231553_32d3f417efImagine a Republican Party that spent the remainder of the congressional session focusing on the most important current issues that distinguish themselves from the opposition? Imagine if they spent this election year demonstrating why Democrats cannot be trusted with our sovereignty, security, and society and how Republicans will provide a refreshing change?

Rather than run out the clock on boring and liberal legislation, here are 10 winning issues Republicans could pursue that will place Hillary Clinton and congressional Democrats on defense across the map:

Halt Refugee Resettlement

With the first Syrian refugees arriving now under an expedited process, it’s time for Republicans to make this election a referendum on Obama’s dangerous fundamental transformation. They should immediately move Rep. Brian Babin’s bill to shut off refugee resettlement until the Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducts a complete audit of the fiscal and security costs of the program. They should further pass legislation granting local governments the power to veto refugee resettlement in their jurisdiction. When Obama’s own FBI Director says they have no way of vetting these refugees, this should be a slam-dunk issue for Republicans to embarrass their opponents in critical states. Empowering local governments on such a critical issue will mobilize the grassroots for the general election like never before.

Davis-Oliver Interior Enforcement

How about true “comprehensive” immigration reform for a change? With endless cases of Americans being killed by criminal aliens, thanks in large part to sanctuary cities and Obama’s amnesty at the federal level, Republicans should immediately pass the Davis-Oliver bill. It addresses all levels of interior enforcement and clamps down on sanctuary cities. The bill already passed the House Judiciary Committee last session, but leadership has refused to move it to the floor. Let Democrats be the ones to run on placing the well being of criminal aliens ahead of their constituents.

Visa Tracking

Implementing biometric exit-entry at our ports of entry has been a ubiquitous talking point for both parties. It is so popular that even Democrats publicly express support for it, knowing they will never actually have to pass it. At a time when we have lost track of hundreds of thousands of people in this country on visas, why not force Democrats to own up to their promise? They should place a visa-tracking bill on the floors of both houses and make Democrats own any opposition to this common sense idea. Republicans should also call the Democrat bluff on the Visa Waiver Program and repeal it altogether, in place of their phony bill, which did nothing meaningful to protect against security risks. And for good measure? How about putting a moratorium on all long-term foreign visas until the GAO audits these programs from a fiscal and security standpoint?

Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Terror Group

Even the British managed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group. As we’ve explained before, no terror group poses more of a foundational threat to our homeland security and cultural cohesion than the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has just announced a $270,000 grant for a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. Republicans should bring the Cruz/Diaz-Balart bill to the floor of both houses. It has already passed the House Judiciary Committee. Let the Democrats go home to their constituents and defend a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Stop Obama’s War on the Suburbs

One of the more “under the radar” manifestations of Obama’s fundamental transformation of America is HUD’s new “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule.” This program mandates suburban jurisdictions construct a certain number of “low income” housing. At the same time, HUD channels federal funds to crony left-wing organizations to move people out of the city into the suburbs, overwriting the zoning codes of the local governments. This unconstitutional executive action, cheered on by the lawless courts, violates property rights, federalism, and the true ideals of equal opportunity. It also represents a backdoor federal gerrymander and de facto eminent domain for ACORN-style organizations. Baltimore County, for example, has already been punished with a $30 million settlement to HUD and its cronies for not meeting the mandates on time. [Listen to Mark Levin’s radio segment on this settlement from last month.]

While Republicans run scared every time Democrats shout a racialist agenda in a crowded theater, this is one of the most promising political issues for Republicans. This hits close to home for the most important swing demographics in the upcoming election. Republicans win rural counties; Democrats win urban centers. The true battle is for the suburbs, and there is no better way to win over the suburbs than by attacking this issue head on.

Save Landlords from Criminals

Speaking of HUD, we reported earlier this month that the housing department was barring landlords from using criminal records as a criterion to deny rentals in many instances. This is another winning issue that hits home with local businesses who don’t want to face a lawsuit simply for keeping their tenants and property safe from dangerous criminals. Let Democrats stand with criminals over business owners.

Protect Religious Liberty

There is a raging fire across this country whereby private businesses and individuals are being targeted by the radical homosexual lobby because of their religious beliefs. We need federal civil rights-style legislation to protect private property rights and the right of conscience from states, courts, and individuals. This, at its core, is why we created the federal union. Religious liberty is still popular with the silent majority of the country, as witnessed by the results of the 2015 elections.

Shut Down Iran Deal

How about a bill blocking all new sanctions relief until Iran apologizes and pays reparations for the hundreds of U.S. soldiers they killed in Iraq? I wouldn’t want to be on the Democrat side of that debate.

Declassify the Full Report on Saudi Involvement in 9/11

It is widely believed that the 28 pages of classified material from the joint congressional inquiry report fully implicates the Saudi government in their involvement planning the 9/11 attacks. Former Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is one of the leading advocates for declassifying it. Let Obama and Hillary be forced to defend their Saudi friends.

Cut Funding for the Palestinians

This is an 80 percent issue. With the endless attacks on Israel, isn’t it time we stop sending $500 million of our taxpayer funds to the Palestinians every year? The Palestinian Accountability Act (H.R. 1337), sponsored by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), would cut off funding for Hamas and the UN agency that helps them. Then confront the Democrats with endless ads showing them supporting Hamas with our money.

There are endless other ideas ideas that are simple to message, speak to our times, and resonate with the overwhelming majority of voters.

But won’t Obama veto them? Some might ask. Won’t Harry Reid filibuster this bills in the Senate?

Well, Republicans have already put their leverage on the budget process; all they have left is the ability to message bills and speak directly to the voters. They can either run out the clock of their time in control of Congress by passing meaningless or downright liberal bills that obfuscate the party divide. Or they can spend one 2-4 days on each one of these proposals and move them bicameraly, harness media attention, and have the members go back to their constituents on the weekend exposing the extremism of the Democrat Party for opposing common sense and bedrock ideals of sovereignty, security, and religious liberty.

The real question is: do they really want to win? (For more from the author of “Top 10 Slam-Dunk Issues for Conservatives in 2016” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Conservatism Is Cracking up in the Age of Trump

/10 Comments/in , /by

Thursday I was talking on the radio to my old friend Eric Metaxas, who had brought me on to balance out an appearance by Ann Coulter — one of Donald Trump’s loudest supporters.

I was grateful for the opportunity, but I’ll confess: The conversation, and this election, puts me in a rather awkward position: Many of my old friends and mentors, including a man I backed and looked up to for decades, Patrick Buchanan, are supporting Donald Trump. They see him as an imperfect but hopeful vehicle for reshaping a Republican party they think has fallen out of balance. They’re right about the problem, but Trump is no solution.

The GOP has long been a reflection of what makes America work, a vital tension between two different but equally crucial elements:

1. The Golden Egg: moral, civic, and economic principles that could, in theory, be applied to any country on earth, and to any group of immigrants we admitted to America, however large. These principles are simply true for every human being, and we must insist on that fact. Instead of the left’s relativism and politics of group resentment, these principles offer conservatives an inclusive, persuasive program which should appeal to any voter of good will. You can find an excellent summary of America’s guiding principles right here at The Stream. Key among them are truths such as “Every human being has equal value and dignity,” and “Judeo-Christian religious faith guards our freedom.” If pursued consistently, these principles should always produce a more peaceful, prosperous, free country than would otherwise be possible. (For a deeper analysis, see my 2003 essay, “America the Abstraction,” which Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner was citing just this past month to explain the Trump phenomenon.)

2. The Goose: real, existing, historically-founded facts that explain why these principles have worked here in America, while failing spectacularly when tried elsewhere — for instance in the Latin American republics that declared independence shortly after the 13 colonies did, wrote similar declarations and comparable constitutions, and degenerated into a 200-year cycle of dictatorships and chaos. The most important of these facts was the dominance of a tolerant, Anglo-Protestant culture grounded in some 800 years of English resistance to oppressive governments. (I’m a faithful Catholic, by the way.) Change this fact too radically or too quickly, and the principles we treasure will wither and die. Another critical fact is broad economic and social mobility, which has generally made Americans unwilling to tax the successful to death because they hope someday to join them, or to watch their children join them. Income inequality in America is both greater than in Europe, and much less politically explosive — at least, until this election, which has seen the rise both of a radical socialist and an angry populist contender. (For a deeper look at the historical, Anglo heritage that gave birth to freedom, see Daniel Hannan’s Inventing Freedom.)

The word “establishment” in reference to the GOP’s donors, thinkers and leaders has been bandied about almost to the point of meaninglessness. But we can reclaim some use for it in light of the Egg and the Goose — and explain the profound alienation that has erupted in this election. Those who support Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in this election think that the GOP establishment has mastered the art of shining and selling the Golden Egg, but forgot to care for the Goose.

By promoting massive low-skill immigration from countries (ranging from Mexico to Syria) that are completely devoid of the Anglo-Protestant ethos, and into a spendthrift American welfare state, GOP elites have served the interests of large companies seeking cheap labor. But they have endangered the crucial social matrix that makes the free market and a free society possible — a matrix that one of the great free market economists (and an anti-Nazi hero), Wilhelm Röpke, warned is the very foundation of freedom.

Conversely, mainstream conservative critics of Donald Trump have been pointing with grave alarm to his role in the rise of angry, racially motivated white activists — many of whom call themselves, wonkishly, “alt-right.” They reject America’s principles. Some even denounce the Constitution itself as a “boring,” antiquated “piece of paper” that stands in the way of their pursuing what they consider the legitimate self-interests of the “white community.” Indeed, these activists accept many of the multiculturalist principles of the left, and seek to hijack them for the benefit of a new political movement: a white ethnic lobby, with race-specific demands that take no account of American liberty, or universal moral principles. This tribal cult scrambles the Golden Egg, but kneels to worship the Goose.

This “alt-right” group is ugly, and I have fought them for many years. Their views cannot possibly be the basis for a unifying agenda that could govern modern America. It is telling that the vast majority of these “alt-right” activists reject Christianity for paganism or neo-Darwinian eugenics. Few object to abortion, and some even mutter cynically about the “benefits” of poor people “breeding” more slowly. They’re bad news, and they deserve to remain in obscurity.

“Trump!” Is the Noise the Goose Makes as It’s Dying

But the eruption of such activists should not be some deep mystery. Yes, they are a pathological phenomenon, but they are a symptom as much as a sickness. They’re the noise the Goose makes as it’s dying. Take the reckless, cynical willingness of leftist elites to trash Western culture, vilify our national heritage and treat tolerant Christianity as something worse than jihadist Islam — then add to that the total disinterest that conservative elites have shown in the care and feeding, the defense and preservation, of any aspect of that culture beyond “small government” and the “free market,” and it’s no surprise that many have rushed to back a demagogue like Trump, who claims that he can cure the Goose. Or as he might say it on Twitter: “Only I can solve.”

Trump’s problem is that he doesn’t really value America’s principles of freedom and equality. He shrugs at its Golden Egg. But too many of his critics fail to realize that we need a live Goose as well. GOP contender Ted Cruz, by contrast, has based his campaign squarely on both crucial elements of a successful, responsible conservative movement in modern America. He will defend the Goose, while also championing and polishing the Golden Egg. Thus, Cruz knows and fiercely believes that we are fallen creatures called to be free, whose freedom and virtue thrive best in the context of a strictly limited government. He also sees that such principles can only thrive in a stable nation with the rule of law and some continuity of culture, which isn’t constantly choking to assimilate millions of foreign newcomers, many of whom have little or no commitment to our principles of civic, religious, and economic liberty.

Should the GOP convention get as far as a second ballot, will the leaders of the party attempt to shove Cruz aside in favor of some safe establishment figure? That’s an option Karl Rove is already floating. If that happens, many among the vast majority of GOP voters who rejected the “egg-only” establishment candidates will be sorely tempted to back sore loser Trump in a third-party kamikaze mission that will elect Hillary Clinton. That’s what voters do when their own party refuses to listen to them. They act recklessly, convinced that things couldn’t get much worse.

But of course, they can. (For more from the author of “Why Conservatism Is Cracking up in the Age of Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Conservatives Pivotal in the South, and Feeling Under Siege

/0 Comments/in , /by

Inside the Sunshine Coin Laundry near the Piggly Wiggly supermarket, Lagretta Ellington removed her family’s clothes from one of the large dryers and began to neatly fold them on a nearby table.

The air was moist and smelled of detergent. The floor was concrete. Her views of the presidential race were anything but. She was unsettled, and distrustful. The candidates just seemed like entertainers . . .

In the South, now the pivotal battlefield of the 2016 presidential campaign, faith and politics walk the aisle together. And while Christians have always dominated American politics – Bernie Sanders this week became the first non-Christian ever to win a presidential primary in U.S. history – conservative Christians feel under siege.

Marriage is being redefined, and they’re being forced to go along. A new health care law mandates free contraception, even if it violates their core beliefs. Even the greeting “Merry Christmas” feels under assault.

Their anxiety and anger help explain the rise of Republican outsider candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief”) and even billionaire Donald Trump (“If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me”), perhaps the unlikeliest of vessels for such support. (Read more from “Christian Conservatives Pivotal in the South, and Feeling Under Siege” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dr. Alveda King: Any True Conservatives Left?

/4 Comments/in , /by

As the presidential primaries are under way, Dr. Alveda King is concerned that “conservative” voters are more caught up with personalities than they are in supporting the U.S. Constitution based on godly principles.

King asserts voters are less concerned about candidates’ stances on issues than they are about appearances.

“We are dealing with a reality show mentality,” King told OneNewsNow. “Too many people are saying ‘I like,’ rather than ‘I think;’ thus voting with emotions rather than brains.”

When asked what she believes is the most important topic to be addressed at the conservative presidential debates, the former Representative of the Georgia State House categorically replied.

“[It’s] the failure to uphold the Constitution,” King stressed to OneNewsnow. (Read more from “Dr. Alveda King: Any True Conservatives Left?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.