Posts

Trump Condemns ‘Radical Islamic Terrorist’ Who Assassinated Russian Ambassador

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump called for the “universal condemnation” of the “radical Islamic terrorist” who assassinated Russia’s ambassador to Turkey on Monday.

“Today we offer our condolences to the family and loved ones of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov, who was assassinated by a radical Islamic terrorist,” Trump said in a short statement.

“The murder of an ambassador is a violation of all rules of civilized order and must be universally condemned,” the president-elect added.

The White House also issued a statement condemning the violence, but it refrained from connecting the shooting to radical Islam.

“This heinous attack on a member of the diplomatic corps is unacceptable, and we stand united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms,” the White House said.

Trump has long criticized President Obama for refraining from using the term “radical Islamic terrorism.”

A Turkish police officer fatally shot Karlov in front of an audience at a photo exhibit in Ankara. The assailant, identified as Mevlut Mert Altintas, was later killed in a shootout with police.

Altintas, a member of Ankara’s riot police squad, walked into the room during the middle of Karlov’s speech shouting “Allahu akbar,” according to an Associated Press photographer who witnessed the incident.

The terrorist then shot the diplomat dead in front of a room of frightened spectators, angrily denounced the bloodshed in Syria and reportedly shouted, “We are the descendants of those who supported the Prophet Muhammad, for jihad.”

He also shouted, “Don’t forget about Syria, don’t forget about Aleppo,” according to Reuters.

Footage of the assassination was captured and immediately shared around the world. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it considered the shooting to be a terrorist attack.

Three other people were wounded in the shooting, authorities said. (For more from the author of “Trump Condemns ‘Radical Islamic Terrorist’ Who Assassinated Russian Ambassador” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Donald Trump Is Catching Heat for Planning on Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is no controversy like the controversy that surrounds the city of Jerusalem, the most divided city on the earth and the most coveted city on the earth. The Bible predicted this more than 2,500 years ago, describing the day when Jerusalem would be a “a cup that brings dizziness to all the surrounding nations” (Zech. 12:2, NET), even declaring that one day, the whole world would be in uproar over Jerusalem.

Stop and think about it for a moment.

Why does the whole world get so exercised over Jerusalem? Is there any other city on the planet that evokes such intense emotions and polar views?

And why does every nation put its embassies in the city that the host country identifies as its capital, except for the city of Jerusalem, identified as Israel’s capital in 1950? Why do virtually all embassies remain in Tel Aviv?

There is something of spiritual significance to this ancient city that simply cannot be denied.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, “passed by overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate,” states that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

Then why didn’t presidents Bush or Obama move the embassy? As explained by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, “since the congressional act allows the President to implement a waiver at six-month intervals, that’s exactly what has happened every six months since 1995.”

Now that Donald Trump has insisted that he will, in fact, relocate our embassy — in accordance with the 1995 act — the controversy is hitting the fan. In the words of Sheikh Ekrema Sabri, imam of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, moving the embassy would be as good as a “declaration of war.”

Trump’s Pick for Ambassador to Israel

Consider the opposition to Trump’s appointee for Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, a strong supporter of Israel who speaks of our embassy’s imminent relocation. As he said openly and proudly after his nomination, “I intend to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region, and look forward to doing this from the US embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

According to a December 16 email from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, known as “America’s rabbi,” Friedman is a “brilliant choice for Ambassador to Israel. One of America’s most respected and accomplished attorneys, David is regarded in the highest esteem by the New York Jewish community as an exemplar of the American and Jewish virtues of education, erudition, philanthropy, and communal commitment.”

He continued, “David has vast exposure to, and knowledge of, the Jewish State and its history and enjoys the confidence and respect of Israel’s leaders. A man of humility and openness, he has a gift for listening, showing respect and deference to all whom he meets.”

In sharp contrast, as noted on the Elder of Ziyon website, last Friday’s New York Times “had four articles against Donald Trump’s choice to be the US ambassador to Israel.

“Yes — four articles in one day. Two ‘news’ articles, one editorial, and one op-ed.”

As Noah Pollack reported on The Washington Free Beacon, “The NYT Is Having a Meltdown Over Trump’s Israel Nominee.”

Pollack writes, “David Friedman is a prominent and successful attorney in New York who has spent 20 years representing Donald Trump, among other clients. He is also a proud Jew who holds unapologetic pro-Israel views that are heretical in Times-world, and he has also expressed acid disdain for the kind of Jewish anti-Israel activism regularly glorified in the pages of the Times.

“So he must be destroyed — and to destroy him he must be lied about. Which is what the Times did.”

Pollack does not specifically mention Friedman’s strong support for relocating our embassy, since there are other, controversial pro-Israel positions that Friedman supports, including the building of settlements in territories under Palestinian control and skepticism about a two-state solution. But you can be assured that a big part of the ruckus over Friedman’s appointment is his affirmation that the American embassy will be moved.

The Ruckus Over Moving the Embassy

That’s why a headline on the Independent discussing Friedman’s nomination focused on this issue alone, noting that, “Moving US embassy to Jerusalem would be ‘declaration of war’.”

And that’s why New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman stated to Chris Cuomo on CNN that “moving the American embassy — and this is an evergreen, everyone running for President tosses this out, no one actually does it — moving the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, in the absence of an agreed upon solution between Israelis and Palestinians, I would call that the ‘Full Employment for Iran Act.’”

Yes, according to Friedman, it would also alienate the Sunni Arab regimes, meaning that this move would provoke the Shiite Muslims in Iran and the Sunni Muslims in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Jerusalem, the city of controversy indeed!

Thomas Friedman then reiterated to Cuomo and co-host Alisyn Camerota: “This is such madness that it’s — it’s just — I can’t believe we’re talking about it.”

Yet Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s senior adviser, has reiterated that the incoming president really does plan to make this move, calling it a “big priority” for him. And how revealing that Thomas Friedman noted that “everyone running for President tosses this out” but “no one actually does it,” whereas Trump is threatening actually to do it. This is the very reason many people voted for him: They expect him to be a doer, not just a talker.

Should President Trump succeed in relocating our embassy to Jerusalem, I predict three things: 1) all hell will break loose against him (expect it in the most shrill tones), with constant, worldwide controversy over the move); 2) God will bless our president for doing it; and 3) God will bless America for doing it.

There’s just something about Jerusalem. Watch and see. (And to think that as recently as last month, an article in the Washington Post claimed that, “Anti-Semitism is no longer an undertone of Trump’s campaign. It’s the melody.” The irony is exquisite.) (For more from the author of “Why Donald Trump Is Catching Heat for Planning on Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump

/1 Comment/in , /by

The question is not “is anyone surprised?”

No one who has observed liberalism at work for decades could be surprised that after a campaign in which they routinely attacked Donald Trump for supposedly being unwilling to accept the election results, the scolders themselves do precisely that.

The stories pour forth. Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked. There have to be recounts in key states because it could change the results. Electors need to step up to the plate and overturn the voters. And on it goes. “It” being the attempt to delegitimize the Trump election and his presidency that will follow.

But why is this? Why this absolutely bizarre notion that, knowing the rules full well — rules for a presidential election in force since the founding of the country — there is this abrupt unwillingness by Clinton and company to accept defeat?

The answer surely can be tied to the longtime sense of moral superiority that has become a standard feature of modern liberalism. Let’s recall that instantly infamous statement of Clinton’s during the campaign. Note well the quote which appeared in the New York Times exactly as written below:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Catch that descriptive line added by the Times? This one, inserted in the middle of the quote, that says “she said to applause and laughter.” This event, again no accident, was a fundraiser held with the elites of Manhattan in Manhattan.
And right there is exactly the real reason this election was lost to Clinton and proved a disaster for her party. The hard fact is that many liberal elites really do look down their noses at their fellow citizens who reside between Manhattan and Beverly Hills. And in this election this translated into an assumption that of course Hillary Clinton was going to win. How could it be any other way?

Take a good look at this Politico story from October 20, written in the aftermath of the third and last debate between Clinton and Trump. The headline?

The final debate was Trump’s chance to stop the bleeding. 16 political watchers tell us whether he succeeded.

The story opens with a brief recounting of the debate, then says this:

It was all pretty much routine in a campaign marked more by put-downs than policy discussion—or at least it was until Trump broke with centuries of tradition and told the audience that he wasn’t sure whether he would accept the voting results on Election Day. It was an admission that shocked—but also one not likely to be uttered by a candidate who’s confident, or even halfway confident, of a win on November 8.Indeed, over the past week and a half, as more than 10 women have accused Trump of sexual assault, he has been sliding in the polls, and election forecasters were giving Clinton around an 85 percent of victory.

And that unconfident candidate was, of course — Donald Trump. Among the sentiments of these sixteen “political watchers” were the following:

‘Trump surrendered whatever shreds remained of his credibility. Unlike Donald Trump, I won’t keep you in suspense. He didn’t lose the election Wednesday night; he forfeited it. Bigly.” – Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest

But this will be remembered as one of the very few presidential elections in which the losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won. Trump’s 18-month performance in a self-written piece he should have called “Make America Hate Again” repelled far more Americans than it attracted. Yet even before the final curtain goes down, we are wondering—no we are shuddering to find out—what crazy, destructive things he and his adoring followers will say and do next. – Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent

“But the matter of his win or loss will matter less if he takes our democratic institutions out with him—and that was all that mattered at the debate. … One moment crystallized precisely what the 2016 election is about. When asked whether he would respect the election results, Trump shrugged. “I will look at it at the time,” he told moderator, Chris Wallace. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” No, not OK. Not at all. This isn’t the build-up to the season finale of a reality show. This is the basis of our representative democracy. Americans are not supposed to be waiting to hear Trump’s verdict on election night; he is supposed to be waiting to hear ours.” – Nicole Hemmer, assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, co-host of the Past Present podcast and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics

“This cake is baked. Any hope that Donald Trump could deliver a game-changing last-ditch final debate performance was dashed when he refused to accept the Election Day results. Everyone except for the most delusional Trump supporter knows that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. … But the truth is Trump lost this race the day he entered it, when he smeared Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals. He has never led in poll averages against Clinton, save for a brief convention bounce, because he never stopped being a candidate of white right-wing rage in a multicultural center-left nation.” – Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” and Politico Magazine contributing editor

“Trump is on track to be the biggest loser in a national campaign since Walter Mondale.” – Katie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PACKatie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PAC

One could go on here. And on and on.

But without question the smug sense of elitist moral superiority over those vulgar, common people who supported Trump was unmistakeable. Is it any wonder that, dumbfounded at having so grossly misjudged the election, the elites would do anything other than exactly what they so vehemently accused Trump of being willing to do? Which is to say, not accept the election results.

No. Of course not. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, it is a huge mistake to think that this flat-out refusal to accept the election results will simply fade once Trump is sworn in. This is going to be the modus operandi of the Left for the entire Trump term or terms. The subject will change — the underlying theme and tactics will not. Already former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is pitching the idea that rich, liberal entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Madonna and more do a counter-inauguration concert. Presumably to detract from the Trump inauguration and the traditional concerts and balls that have become staples of a modern inauguration.

It never occurs to any of these people that the reason Hillary Clinton is not going to be president of the United States isn’t because of Russian hackers or anything else. Simply put she lost because she — and many of her supporters — were too smug, too elitist, too arrogant and too condescending to voters.

And surprise, surprise those voters did not take kindly to it. (For more from the author of “Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Ways Congress Sought to Change or Scrap the Electoral College

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Monday, 538 presidential electors selected by voters on Nov. 8 will choose a president when the Electoral College votes in states across the country.

This year marks the fifth time in history the popular vote winner lost the presidency. The other elections were in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Though Donald Trump won 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232, it may not be over yet. Several activist groups are demanding electors reject their state’s voters and cast a vote for someone other than Trump.

More than 50 of the 232 Democratic electors, and one Republican elector, have even asked for a national security briefing on the potential Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails before casting a vote.

President Barack Obama opted against weighing in on what electors should do, but spoke during his Friday press conference more generally about the Electoral College. Obama said:

The Electoral College is a vestige of an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states. It used to be that the Senate was not elected directly, it was just decided by state legislatures. It’s the same type of thinking that gives Wyoming two senators with about half a million people and California with 32 million get the same two. There are some structures in our political system that disadvantage Democrats. But the truth of the matter is, if we have a strong message, if we are speaking to the issues the American people care about, typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.

Congress has considered 850 separate proposals to amend the Constitution to change the way a president is elected, said Christine Blackerby, co-curator of the “Amending America” exhibit at the National Archives Museum.

Here is a look at a few of those efforts.

12th Amendment

The first major proposed change to the Electoral College was the only successful reform, coming in response to a glitch exposed in the 1800 election.

Presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson and his vice presidential running mate Aaron Burr got the same number of Electoral College votes, 73 each. The problem was, in those days, the second place finisher in a presidential race was the vice president. The House of Representatives voted 35 times before finally electing Jefferson president.

Congress passed the amendment on Dec. 9, 1803, and it was ratified on June 15, 1804, putting the president and vice president on a ticket for electors to choose.

Lottery President

In 1846, a proposal was floated in Congress to replace the Electoral College with a lottery system.

Under this proposal, each state would have its own election. The winners of each of those elections would then be chosen by lot in Washington. Balls with names of candidates would be placed in a bowl, similar to lottery drawings seen today on TV. The first name drawn would be president, the second name drawn would be the vice president, Blackerby explained.

The proposal, House Joint Resolution 8, introduced on Jan. 13, 1846, never came to a vote.

Still, the “Amending America” exhibit allows visitors to see the most popular person from each state based on Google searches, then entered into a random drawing, to see who could be president today if this system had been enacted.

Executive Committees

Although the biggest complaint against the Electoral College is typically that it’s undemocratic, the exhibit lists two occasions that Congress considered taking matters entirely out of voters’ hands.

In 1808, a constitutional amendment was introduced in Congress to scrap the Electoral College and replace it with a special committee of retired U.S. senators to choose the next president.

Congress introduced a similar proposal in 1860, just before the Civil War broke out. In this case, Congress and the executive branch would appoint a three-person committee that would choose the president every four years.

Direct Popular Vote

Of the hundreds of proposed changes to electing a president, a popular vote was far and away the most common. Similar bills have been introduced in nearly every session of Congress, but in most cases they were never debated nor acted upon.

The most recent examples where a popular vote proposal nearly passed were in 1969 and 1975, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

After the 1968 presidential election, third-party candidate George Wallace won 46 electoral votes. This prompted enough concern about third parties that Rep. Emanuel Celler, D-N.Y., proposed a resolution abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular election, in which the winner would have to win at least 40 percent of the vote. The resolution passed the House by a 338-70 vote, but it was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate.

After the close 1976 election, Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., proposed a bill to amend the Constitution and switch to a direct popular vote. The bill failed by a close 51-48 vote

In other examples of action on the proposal to move to a popular vote, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the proposal in 1947, 1949, 1951, and 1969. The Senate subcommittee on constitutional amendments held hearings in 1948, 1953, 1955, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1967, and 1969. (For more from the author of “4 Ways Congress Sought to Change or Scrap the Electoral College” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What to Know About the Fiscal Hawk Trump Chose as Budget Director

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump chose one of the most outspoken fiscal conservatives in Congress, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, to be director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, is a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, the most conservative group in Congress. He has pushed to cut both domestic and defense spending since being elected to the House in 2010 as part of the tea party wave.

“It is a great honor to be appointed director of the Office of Management and Budget,” Mulvaney said in a statement. “The Trump administration will restore budgetary and fiscal sanity back in Washington after eight years of an out-of-control, tax-and-spend financial agenda, and will work with Congress to create policies that will be friendly to American workers and businesses.”

If the Senate confirms Mulvaney, 49, as budget director, he will help shepherd Trump’s agenda through Congress, including drafting the president’s first budget, guiding repeal of Obamacare, enacting tax reform, and potentially, passing a major infrastructure spending package.

“We are going to do great things for the American people with Mick Mulvaney leading the Office of Management and Budget,” Trump said in a statement. “Right now we are nearly $20 trillion in debt, but Mick is a very high-energy leader with deep convictions for how to responsibly manage our nation’s finances and save our country from drowning in red ink.”

Here are four things to know about Mulvaney.

1. Not Afraid to Fight the Establishment

In 2011, as the U.S. was on the brink of default, Mulvaney voted against raising the debt ceiling, insisting that its passage be paired with “Cut, Cap and Balance,” a measure that would have slashed spending and imposed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

He also helped lead an effort to defund Obamacare that resulted in a 16-day government shutdown in 2013.

At the start of his second term in 2013, Mulvaney declined to support the re-election of then-House Speaker John Boehner, abstaining from the vote in protest.

2. Founder of the Freedom Caucus

After he lost his campaign in 2014 to become chairman of the Republican Study Committee—the largest group of House Republicans—Mulvaney helped organize a splinter group, the Freedom Caucus, to push the chamber further to the right.

The Freedom Caucus attracted national attention in 2015 when it pushed Boehner into early retirement.

As budget director, Mulvaney will be a key figure in repealing federal regulations implemented by the Obama administration.

Recently, the Freedom Caucus released a list of 232 regulations that it wants Trump to repeal, including ones dealing with climate change, nutrition, immigration, labor, and energy.

3. Willingness to Work With Leadership, Democrats

Mulvaney has allied with Republican leaders and Democrats on some issues.

On defense issues, he has opposed the use of a separate war funding account known as overseas contingency operations, a budgetary maneuver used to avoid spending caps to fund military and anti-terror operations abroad, such as the military campaign against ISIS.

He’s called the account a “slush fund.” Trump, meanwhile, has promised to invest more in the military and escalate the fight against ISIS.

Mulvaney, who speaks Spanish, has also worked on immigration reform, and he said that he supports legal status for some of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

He’s friendly with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and was among three members who gave nominating speeches for Ryan in the House GOP leadership election last month.

During his run for Republican Study Committee chairman, Mulvaney told The Daily Signal how he balances his rabble-rousing instincts with dealmaking on issues he cares about.

“I don’t think it’s the role of the RSC chair to be a shill for leadership,” Mulvaney said. “This is not a leadership position. This is separate and apart from that. So I think it’s incumbent upon the chairman to walk that fine line between working with leadership sometimes and pushing back at them at others. And I think I’ve shown the ability to do that. You have to have that credibility. What’s the best way to move the larger conference to the right?”

4. Personal, Professional Background

Mulvaney serves on the Financial Services Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He first entered politics in 2006, when he was elected to the South Carolina House. Before that, he was a private-practice lawyer and businessman, working in his family’s home-building business, and helping run a regional restaurant chain.

Mulvaney has a degree in international economics from Georgetown University and a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He was born in Alexandria, Virginia, but grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, before moving to South Carolina.

His House office is decorated with South Carolina sports memorabilia. Mulvaney is Roman Catholic. He is married with three children, a set of triplets. (For more from the author of “What to Know About the Fiscal Hawk Trump Chose as Budget Director” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Most Important Cabinet Member You’re Not Paying Attention To

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President-elect Trump is nearly finished filling out his Cabinet. One of the remaining spots — and in my opinion, the most important — remains undecided. The position in question? The director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The individuals who serve in Trump’s Cabinet will get the opportunity to oversee the agency or department within their specialized domains, like, for example, the Department of Defense, or the Environmental Protection Agency. But unlike those positions, the director of OMB gets the opportunity to keep tabs on each individual government agency.

That’s because OMB is specifically tasked with allocating the federal budget to the various agencies, as well as monitoring agency performance and providing financial management. OMB is also required to, “coordinate and review all significant Federal regulations by executive agencies,” — no easy task for a government that loves to spend money and promulgate never-ending regulations.

Since OMB is also responsible for drafting and formatting the President’s budget, this also allows this office to be intimately involved in all the policy and spending priorities for the entire federal government.

Although the director of OMB is not treated with the same eminence as those who run the State Department or the Department of Defense, few Cabinet positions are as important as the individual in charge of the budget office for these very reasons.

Some of the individuals chosen to join Trump’s Cabinet are controversial. For example, Trump’s choice for the deputy secretary of state postition, John Bolton, has been met with consternation by many in the liberty movement, such as Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) for his stance on issues like bombing Iran and supporting the Iraq war.

Still, conservatives and small-government Republicans should be optimistic about the names currently being floated for director of OMB. The first name floated was former Senator Tom Coburn. Coburn was an astute study of the budget during his days in the Senate, and was referred to by CNN as “a former US Senator from Oklahoma, who turned his Senate career into a crusade against government spending.”

He was also the champion of eliminating government waste, even in programs considered sacrosanct, like the military; he was a long-time advocate of fixing the Pentagon’s broken budget by demanding an audit. But Coburn also made that his mission government-wide, and was well known for publishing detailed reports on government waste.

Another promising name, and small government warrior, that has been mentioned is Congressman Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C. (A, 94%). One of the more conservative members of Congress, he is a member of the Freedom Caucus.

This often means that Mulvaney stands on principle against his own party. For example, when Republican leaders proposed the Bipartisan Budget Act — a bill to hamstring spending restraints by $63 billion — it was Mulvaney that spearheaded opposition to the deal.

In addition, Mulvaney has long advocated for a balanced budget, lower taxes, and eliminating corporate cronyism, like the Export-Import bank.

Among some of the other promising names that have been mentioned is David Malpass, a strong conservative economist by training, and a former high-ranking Reagan and George H.W. Bush official. Malpass also shares the list of names with Eric Ueland, a long-time budget staffer on the Senate Budget Committee.

The current list of conservative individuals under consideration for this position deserves more attention than perhaps any time since President Truman took office. That’s because this OMB director will have a daunting challenge in controlling government spending and debt, more than ever before. Consider the article by the Committee for a Responsible Federal budget, titled, “Trump Will Face Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratio of Any New President Since Truman.”

By our estimates, the national debt will total about 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) when Trump takes office, compared to 103 percent when Truman took office at the end of World War II, 58 percent when Eisenhower took office, and 46 percent when Clinton took office.

And yet, it’s not even fair to compare the debt under Truman with that of Obama. The debt that materialized under Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman was almost solely related to the one-time expenses of fighting World War II. As you can see in the graph, once the war was over, the debts were quickly whittled away. That’s not the case today. Instead, our debts are becoming increasingly structural; the result of promised entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare.

So really, the task that confronts today’s budget head will be far more daunting than anything that faced Truman. Consider this; by 2021, Social Security and Medicare alone will consume half of every dollar the government brings in. Whereas Truman could allocate surplus dollars to paying down the debt instead of buying tanks, post WWII, the budget director under Trump must decide between taking on more debt and tackling the acrimonious challenge of entitlement reform.

Still, conservatives deserved a good list of names to run what may become the most important office in the White House, and Trump has made a wise selection so far. This is what conservatives fought for. This is where we can make the government small again, and scale back Obama’s absurd regulations. (For more from the author of “The Most Important Cabinet Member You’re Not Paying Attention To” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Electoral College Survey Shows Electors Will Stand by Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are some Republican members of the Electoral College who wish they were not voting for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday.

However, an Associated Press survey of more than 300 electors has found that Trump opponents’ dreams to use the Electoral College as the final place to block Trump’s ascent to the White House have little hope of becoming reality.

Although the electors admit to an unprecedented wave of pleas to change their votes, AP noted that electors cited everything from the law, to duty, to loyalty to cast their votes for Trump.

Trump won 306 electoral votes on election night, far above the 270 needed to win election Monday, when the electors will gather in their respective state capitals to vote.

For Trump to lose, at least 37 electors would need to forsake him. AP reported that only one Republican elector told AP he won’t vote for Trump.

Many are solidly behind the president-elect.

“Hell will freeze and we will be skating on the lava before I change,” said Republican Tom Lawless of Tennessee. “He won the state and I’ve pledged and gave my word that that’s what I would do. And I won’t break it.”

Republican elector Jim Skaggs of Kentucky said he will swallow his concerns and vote for Trump.

“His personality worries me,” Skaggs said. “He is not open-minded. I hope he is far better than I think he is.”

Misgivings aside, he said, “I fully intend to vote for Donald Trump. I think it’s a duty.”

Although being an elector is usually a very low-key role in America’s political process, electors told AP that has not been the case with Trump’s election.

“Let me give you the total as of right now: 48,324 emails about my role as an elector,” said Brian Westrate of Wisconsin. “I have a Twitter debate with a former porn star from California asking me to change my vote. It’s been fascinating.”

Although efforts to stop Trump have been organized, they have not been effective, said some electors.

“We got a stack of letters from idiots,” said Republican elector Edward Robson of Arizona.

Fellow Arizona GOP elector Carole Joyce said the deluge has been profound.

“They’ve caused me great distress on my computer, that’s for sure,” she said.

“I average anywhere from a thousand to 3,000 emails a day. And I’m getting inundated in my regular mailbox out front — anywhere from 17 to 35 letters a day coming from Washington state, Oregon, all around the country. Hand-written, some of them five or six pages long, quoting me the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, asking me again out of desperation not to vote for Donald Trump,” she said.

Joyce was philosophical about the fuss.

“… that’s their right,” she said. “I’ve had nothing threatening, I’m happy to say. The election is over. They need to move on.” (For more from the author of “Electoral College Survey Shows Electors Will Stand by Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dems Scramble to Prevent Their Own from Defecting to Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senate Democrats have been scrambling to prevent two of their members from taking a post in the Trump administration, trying to prevent any defection that could bolster Republicans’ control of the chamber.

They recently launched a “full court press” to retain Sens. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota, after each met with Republican President-elect Donald Trump, one senior Senate Democrat told Fox News.

Manchin now appears less likely to bolt — after saying he wants to remain in the Senate and being passed over for Energy secretary — which puts the focus squarely on Heitkamp.

The first-term lawmaker, who faces reelection in 2018 in a conservative state, still appears in the running for the Agriculture secretary post.

A Trump transition team source told Fox News the president-elect “really wants her” for the job. (Read more from “Dems Scramble to Prevent Their Own from Defecting to Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Tillerson, Trump Nominates ‘Greatest Ally Liberals Have’ in the Cabinet, Says Christian Conservative Leader

/0 Comments/in , /by

“The ExxonMobil executive may be the greatest ally liberals have in the Cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas,” Christian conservative leader Tony Perkins said of Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. He wrote on Monday before the nomination was officially made. He had been a strong Trump supporter during the election campaign.

Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, is “among the most accomplished business leaders and international deal makers in the world,” Trump said when nominating him. His career “is the embodiment of the American dream.”

The head of the Family Research Council noted in his Washington Update that Tillerson “not only led the charge to open the Boy Scouts to gay troop leaders but [his] company directly gives to Planned Parenthood.” Perkins continued:

FRC knows Tillerson all too well, having worked for years to put the brakes on his reckless agenda for a scouting organization that was already dealing with staggering numbers of sexual abuse cases. Unfortunately, the BSA, under Tillerson, ultimately caved to the pressure of the far-Left, irreparably splitting the Scouts and destroying a proud and honorable American tradition.

Tillerson served as president of the Boy Scouts from 2010 to 2011 and pushed for the acceptance of homosexual scouts and scoutmasters. However, when questioned by the Daily Caller, ExxonMobil said that it gave to Planned Parenthood through its employee matching gift and volunteer programs. The giving “does not reflect ExxonMobil’s philanthropic priorities or support for community causes.”

Support For the LBGT Agenda

Perkins also noted that while Tillerson led the ExxonMobile, its 2017 score on the homosexual lobby Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index “skyrocketed to 87 percent.” (It’s actually a score of 85 out of 100.) It had been only 40 last year.

The company had perfect scores in practices like providing medical and “soft” benefits to homosexual partners and “non-discrimination standards” for its contractors and vendors. It got good scores in prohibiting “discrimination” against homosexual and transgender people and “positively” engaging the “external LGBT community.”

However, the HRC criticized Trump for his four nominees with “troubling anti-LGBTQ records.” They are Rex Perry (Energy), Tom Price (Health and Human Services), Ben Carson (HUD) and Jeff Sessions (Attorney General). It strongly opposes vice president-elect Mike Pence.

Perkins noted that under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “the State Department lead the global parade for the slaughter of innocent unborn children and the intimidation of nations with natural views on marriage and sexuality.” He worried that Tillerson will continue their policies.

Whether Tillerson will press these issues as secretary of state is unknown, notes Religion News Service’s David Gibson. “He would be serving at the pleasure of a president who has vowed to enshrine the social conservative agenda in his policies,” Gibson writes. However, Perkins’ opposition may “augur an unexpectedly early end to the honeymoon with evangelical Christians — Perkins was one of Trump’s most vocal supporters on the religious right during the campaign.” (For more from the author of “In Tillerson, Trump Nominates ‘Greatest Ally Liberals Have’ in the Cabinet, Says Christian Conservative Leader” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.