Posts

Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton kicks off Monday evening, at 9 p.m. EST. It will last 90 minutes and take place at Hofstra University on Long Island. Over 100 million are expected to watch, close to Super Bowl level of viewership. This would make it the most-watched presidential debate in history, topping the 80 million who watched the lone presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Lester Holt, host of NBC’s Nightly News, is the moderator. According to New York voter registration records, he has been a Republican since 2003. He is also a Christian, but says as a journalist ” I jealously guard my personal opinion.” The topics are “America’s Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity” and “Securing America.” Holt will select the questions. It is a traditional debate format, with six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots.

None of the third party candidates achieved the 15 percent required in polls in order to participate. There are six weeks left until the election, and early ballots are already being mailed out in parts of the country.

Presidential debates tend to be more about who can deliver the best zingers, since by this stage the candidates have made their positions widely known. But the slug fests still influence voters. “You can’t really win an election in a debate, but you can lose one,” Brett O’Donnell, a communications consultant with long experience coaching GOP presidential candidates, told The Washington Post.

Both Candidates Will Tone it Down

Trump is expected to continue his style as an entertainer, which works to his advantage since people find it appealing. He has plenty of experience doing live TV as the reality show host of The Apprentice. However, it could also work to his disadvantage. Trump has deliberately become more scripted giving speeches lately, using a teleprompter in order to circumvent his tendency to make reckless statements, but he won’t have that aid at the debate. Expect Clinton to take a few jabs at Trump specifically designed to entice him to say something careless.

Voters like Trump because he is an outsider inexperienced in politics, so he has the advantage of lower expectations. Clinton is widely considered the front runner, currently leading in most polls, so has more to lose with a poor performance.

Lacking energy lately from her health problems, Clinton will be trying to play it low-key and safe. Standing, doing battle for an intense 90 minutes with barely a break may prove difficult for her, and will look even worse if she has a coughing fit. In contrast, expect Trump to show off his mastery of one-liner counter punches, which he effectively used during the GOP primary debates to devastate his opponents.

Vulnerabilities

Clinton is vulnerable on the issue of her moral character and the chaos around the world from ISIS and terrorism. Trump told Fox News on Monday, “I can talk about her deleting emails after she gets a subpoena from Congress and lots of other things. I can talk about her record, which is a disaster. I can talk about all she’s done to help ISIS become the terror that they’ve become, and I will be doing that.” Clinton will have difficulty separating herself from the spread of ISIS, due to her position as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013 under President Obama.

Trump can also attack her for being part of the establishment and continuing to follow in Obama’s footsteps, taking the country further in the wrong direction. Clinton has lost her temper in public a few times recently when faced with criticism, so expect Trump to deliberately try to upset her.

Trump is vulnerable on his political inexperience, lacking years of developing public policy proposals. And, of course, there’s his mouth. The bombastic billionaire needs to look presidential and demonstrate that he has the temperament and maturity to hold the highest position in the country. Additionally, he has repeatedly been inconsistent with his previous statements on issues, and with fact-checkers closely analyzing his every word, he cannot risk many mistakes. A strategy Clinton has taken lately is using Trump’s own words against him.

The Experts Weigh in

Alex Conant, Marco Rubio’s spokesman during the primary, summarized in an interview with NPR what he expects to happen: “If Donald Trump can stand on the debate stage for two hours and not lose his temper and come across as a reasonable person, he’ll have a good night. If Hillary Clinton can stand on the debate stage and convince people that she’s not a liar, she’ll have a great night. But clearly, the former is easier than the latter.”

Joel Pollak of Breitbart warns of one disadvantage Trump faces, “[T]here is one larger reason that Clinton will win the first debate: the media will tell everyone she has won, regardless.”

Regardless of the media spin, Trump appears the favorite to prevail in the first debate. Unless he makes one or more large, glaring mistake, his charismatic, clever, energetic style should outmaneuver Clinton’s low-energy, defensive posturing.

The second debate will take place on October 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and will be co-moderated by Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC. It will be a town hall meeting format, with half the questions coming from the audience of undecided voters. The third and final debate will be held October 19 at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. (For more from the author of “Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Whether Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump uses Monday night’s presidential debate to talk about the extramarital affairs of former President Bill Clinton remains uncertain in the days leading up to the Monday night debate.

However, the millions of viewers watching will be reminded of them, even if Trump never says a word.

Gennifer Flowers, with whom Bill Clinton had an affair he admitted to under oath, on Saturday tweeted that she will be accepting an invitation Trump issued her earlier in the day to have a front-row seat when Trump debates Democratic presidential nominee and former first lady Hillary Clinton.

“Hi Donald. You know I’m in your corner and will definitely be at the debate!,” read a tweet from what appears to be Flowers’s account.

The tweet came in the wake of a comment from Judy Stell, Flowers’s assistant, who told Buzzfeed that Flowers would attend.

“Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate,” she said.

Clinton, in fact, had started the ball rolling by inviting billionaire Mark Cuban to have a front-row seat for the debate. Cuban has relentlessly needled Trump throughout the general election campaign and derided Trump’s business success with a series of caustic interviews.

Cuban announced Thursday he has accepted the invitation.

Trump, a premier political counter-puncher trained in the art of one-upmanship by decades spent in the New York City corporate wars, responded on Saturday by mentioning Flowers.

In an October interview, Flowers spoke candidly about the past.

“You know, people criticize me for talking about her because I had an affair with her husband. And I don’t blame them for that,” she said.

But Hillary Clinton “never accepted her responsibility at being an enabler. She’s been an enabler that has encouraged him to go out and do whatever he does with women,” Flowers said.

“Women’s rights, ha”, she added. (For more from the author of “Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The press in 1980 did their best to scupper Ronald Reagan. They said he was an “extremist” and that he would “would divide America along racial, religious, and regional lines”. They said Reagan was a “dangerous cowboy” with his finger on the nuclear button. They seethed, raged, insinuated.

The Republican establishment joined in the calumnies. The strain on party brotherhood was so bad that after the primaries, one-time Republican candidate John Anderson split from the party and ran as a NeverReagan.

It was thus unfashionable to admit liking Reagan, and so not a few kept their mouths shut.

Presidential polls might have reflected this Reagan shyness. In the month before the election, polls had Carter up an average 44% to Reagan’s 40%. Anderson hovered around 9%, which left about 7% of voters unaccounted for. Were some of these 7% shy Reagan voters?

The final averages right before the election gave Reagan the edge, 47% to Carter’s 44% and Anderson’s 8%. That left only 1% unaccounted for.

The final tallies gave Reagan 51% of the popular vote, Carter 41%, and Anderson 7%, with the remaining 1% spread over novelty candidates.

There is a huge discrepancy here. Polls showed Reagan with 4% less support than he actually had, and Carter with 3% more and Anderson 1% more. These errors could have been caused by Reagan supporters unwilling to tell pollsters their true preference, but they also could have been because of built-in biases of the polls themselves. These biases should not surprise given that many polls are conducted or commissioned by mainstream media outlets, whose sins and biases do not need recounting.

Shy Trump Voters?

At this writing most polls show Hillary nearly tied with Trump, yet there is a suspicion that, like in 1980, some voters are shy about admitting that they like Trump. If this is so, the polls exaggerate Hillary’s true support.

Is anybody who is for Trump coy? If so, how many secret supporters are there? Or are the polls biased?

It’s easy to imagine scenarios where a pollster queries a citizen who is reluctant to say he’s voting for Trump. The college professor or student called on campus, an employee polled at any company in San Francisco or Los Angeles, a canvasser knocking at the door at a certain address in Chappaqua, New York when the lady of the house is in residence, and so on.

Hillary said half of Trump’s supporters are a “basket of deplorable.” Many on the left agree with these harsh words; deviation from leftist ideology is not countenanced.

So rather than trigger a social justice warrior by announcing their Trump preference, some surely keep their mouths shut.

On the other hand, as the election nears and, for instance, the NeverTrump camp realize how horrible the alternative is, and adding in the common knowledge that Americans like a winner, liking Trump grows easier. The polls, as in 1980, are tightening. Even so, there is still a sense polls under-count Trump’s true base.

Shy Brexit Voters

Disentangling voter shyness from poll biases is not easy. Modern polls over emotionally contentious questions suggest shyness is not negligible. Journalist Michael Tracey reminds us that six weeks before the Brexit vote, which the media and majority of the establishment hysterically disfavored, “Remain” led by 4% with “Undecideds” at 14%. But the final tally was 52% for “Leave,” a huge discrepancy and 8-point swing.

In the Brexit case, poll bias is not a likely explanation because Brexit polls were not sampled in the complex way presidential polls are. The results of the Brexit polls were also simple, in the sense that the numbers released were close to the actual numbers received in the polling process. By these comments I mean that the numbers released to the public in presidential polls are not in their raw form; they have been manipulated by various statistical models (this article explains how).

Scientific Polls? Nah

Now, despite what you might have heard, there is no such thing as a “scientific poll.” Or, rather, all polls are equally scientific. But not all polls are equally good. That public poll numbers are actually the result of statistical models means there is plenty of opportunity for bias and error to creep in.

This is well illustrated by no less than the New York Times, which recently gave four polling groups the same raw data. If polling were a rigid science, the answers should have been the same. But they weren’t. Results ran from Hillary +3 to Trump +1, a 4-point swing, a discrepancy more than large enough to change the outcome of the election (especially considering details about the Electoral College which needn’t detain us here).

There is also the possibility that some biases are intentional, as in so-called push polls, or because the samples are finagled in a preferred direction. Unscrupulous pollsters know that simply showing a candidate is ahead causes some people to favor that candidate (Americans like a winner). And if that candidate is shown to be well ahead of her true support, others will be discouraged from voting (why bother?). But surely the mainstream media would never lie to us, right?

Whatever the polls show, there is no certain way to say anything about their performance until after the election. See you on the other side. (For more from the author of “Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What Mark Levin Thinks of Ted Cruz Endorsing Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Friday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin commented on the big news of the day, Senator Ted Cruz’s endorsement of Donald Trump.

Levin read Cruz’s statement on the air along with the statement in response released by the Trump campaign.

Listen:

Levin offered a few comments, noting that he himself is voting for Donald Trump because he is the only candidate who can defeat the Democrat.

“I have no illusions about Donald Trump,” Levin said. “In many respects he’s a liberal, but he has some conservative positions. Some important conservative positions.”

Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, “she was Obama before Obama was Obama,” Levin remarked. “The only way to stop her, is with [Donald Trump].” (For more from the author of “Here’s What Mark Levin Thinks of Ted Cruz Endorsing Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Ted Cruz Will Vote for Donald Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sen. Ted Cruz announced Friday that he intends to vote for Republican candidate for president Donald Trump.

“This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history,” Cruz wrote in a post to Facebook. “Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.”

“After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.”

Cruz cited two reasons for this decision. One, that last year he promised to support the Republican nominee, “and I intend to keep my word.” Two, “Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable—that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.”

Sen. Cruz then laid out several specific areas of policy that “inform” his decision. He lists the Supreme Court, repealing Obamacare, the Obama/Clinton war on coal, immigration, national security, and internet freedom among the policy issues that make Mr. Trump a preferable choice for the presidency.

On the Supreme Court, Cruz said that he secured an “explicit commitment” from Donald Trump “to nominate only from that list” of justices the Trump campaign has released.

Read Cruz’s full statement below:

(For more from the author of “Here’s Why Ted Cruz Will Vote for Donald Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaking in Pittsburgh Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered remarks focused on law and order amidst the violent riots that have swept Charlotte, N.C..

“Many Americans are watching the unrest in Charlotte unfolding right before their eyes,” Trump said at Shale Insight, a convention of natural gas industry officials. “Our country looks bad to the world, especially when we are supposed to be the world’s leader.”

Trump said that violence and rioting has no place in our communities:

“We honor and recognize the right of all Americans to peacefully assemble, protest, and demonstrate. But there is no right to engage in violent disruption or to threaten the public safety and peace of others.”

He pledged to bring such violence and crime to a “very rapid end” should he be elected president:

“The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law abiding African-American residents who live in these communities where the crime is so rampant. It’s their jobs, housing market, schools, and economic conditions that will suffer. And the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.”

“Crime and violence is an attack on the poor and will never be excepted in a Trump administration, never ever,” said Trump.

Ultimately, Donald Trump called for “more law enforcement, more community engagement, more effective policing,” citing former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s controversial crime-fighting efforts as a good example. (For more from the author of “Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

As Trump Offers Cleveland New Hope, Pastors Pray to Protect Him From ‘Satanic Attack’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Evangelical Christians of multiple races mixed their faith in God with their faith that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump can heal the nation on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Trump appeared at the Midwest Vision and Values Pastors Leadership Conference in Cleveland.

“I want to thank the African-American community because, I don’t know if you’ve been watching, but the poll numbers are going like a rocket ship,” Trump said. “I fully understand the African-American community has suffered from discrimination.”

Trump said America’s cities must be rebuilt.

“It breaks my heart to see any American left behind or to see a city like Cleveland that has had so many struggles, and that there are many wrongs that still must be made right,” the GOP nominee said.

After Trump spoke to the assembled crowd, Pastor Darrell Scott, a co-host of the event, spoke to Trump.

Scott said a “nationally known” pastor, whom he did not identify, had warned Trump “that if you choose to run for president, there’s going to be a concentrated Satanic attack against you.”

“He said there’s going to be a demon, principalities and powers, that are going to war against you on a level that you’ve never seen before, and I’m watching it every day,” Scott said, referring to the opposition Trump’s candidacy has spawned.

Scott’s wife, Belinda, then led the group in prayer as they gathered around Trump.

“Now God, I ask that you would touch this man, Donald J. Trump. Give him the anointing to lead this nation,” she prayed.

The meeting was open to clergy or all faiths and political ideologies.

“I think it’s good he’s open to hearing from clergy,” said Pastor Mike Wingerd of Emmanuel Assembly of God. “I’m very glad he’s concerned about religious freedom.”

Scott, who led the session, had spoken for Trump at the Republican National Convention.

“America is a melting pot, a country of diversity. We stand poised to make history, by standing together as Americans, as one. We are here as Americans regardless of race, creed or color. We are here as those who hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he said.

“The truth is the Democratic Party has failed us,” Scott said. “At home, our debt has grown, we are spiritually empty and we are more divided now than we have ever been before. Abroad, we are neither respected, we’re not feared by our adversaries, and our friends cannot count on us either. This is their legacy, and we need to make a sharp turn. We need to put into practice the great ideas and principles that our country was founded on, and which, after God, are the source of strength that has made this nation great.” (For more from the author of “As Trump Offers Cleveland New Hope, Pastors Pray to Protect Him From ‘Satanic Attack'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The mainstream media has been breathlessly running headlines like this one from The Chicago Times, “Trump signed improper charity check supporting Florida attorney general,” alleging that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bribed Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (another Republican) in order to avoid prosecution. For three years now, zealous reporters have tried to find a smoking gun revealing impropriety in Trump’s campaign donation.

Now The New York Times says there’s almost certainly no smoking gun to find.

A Matter of Days

The US Supreme Court recently held in the landmark public corruption case, McDonnell v. U.S., that bribery requires that the person giving the donation get something for it. According to the Federal Code (18 U.S. Code § 201), not only must something of value have been offered to a public official, but it must be shown to have influenced that public official’s behavior for the contributor’s benefit.

The train of events began when several attorneys general filed complaints against Trump a few years ago, claiming that he fraudulently marketed Trump University’s real estate and wealth-building seminars. On September 13, 2013, a Florida newspaper published the story that Bondi’s office was investigating Trump and might join the other attorneys general in a suit.

Four days after that, Bondi’s PAC received $25,000 from Trump. (Several months later, Trump threw a $3,000 a plate fundraiser for her at Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and she’s become a prominent supporter.)

Complaints were filed with local authorities and the FBI’s public corruption unit alleging bribery to stop Bondi’s office from investigating him too. But after Bondi’s office released 8,000 documents in response to a public records request, even The New York Times admitted that the check had been written and signed four days before the story broke in the media that Bondi’s office was considering investigating Trump University.

Additionally, the Times reports about Trump’s donations in Florida that “he has contributed at least $375,000 to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own.” Bondi said she personally solicited the donation from Trump, who had already contributed $500 to her campaign in July.

The Times isn’t giving Trump a clean bill of health, however. The press had reported in 2010 that “the attorneys general of Florida and Texas had gotten complaints from Trump University students. “His contribution, therefore, could have been a pre-emptive investment to discourage Ms. Bondi from joining the New York case.”

No Evidence of Bribery

In the article , the Times said it could find no evidence in the released records that Bondi herself even was aware of the initial review being done by her office. This was not unusual. Most of the complaints came to her predecessor, who said he had not known about them, the Times reported, as did his two top deputies and others in the consumer protection division.

In fact, the chief of the consumer protection section wrote in an internal email in 2011 that the office was holding off on any investigation of Trump University. When Mark Hamilton, a lawyer in the consumer protection division, heard about the media outcry in 2013, he advised the office that any lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General against Trump University would apply to Floridians, so there was no need for the Florida AG to duplicate the work.

Now, Trump did make a mistake in writing the check from his charitable organization, not his personal account, which he blamed on a staff clerical error, and reimbursed his charity with $25,000 in personal funds. He also paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS over the mistake.

Mac Stipanovich, who the Times describes as “a longtime Florida Republican strategist and lobbyist who disdains Mr. Trump and has never worked with Ms. Bondi,” observed, “The optics are terrible even though there is not a shred of evidence that Pam Bondi solicited a bribe or that Donald Trump provided one.”

Although the Times has (mostly) cleared Trump, most of the rest of the mainstream news outlets are still claiming he behaved improperly and they are exaggerating the seriousness of the check confusion. Fortunately for Trump, the top newspaper in the country, which is left-leaning, has told a different story. (For more from the author of “BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Makes YUUUGE Pro-Life Commitment

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Bryan Fischer. Voters who have wondered where Donald Trump stands on the abortion issue need wonder no longer.

Trump today made perhaps the most pronounced pro-life move a presidential nominee has ever made by declaring a specific pro-life platform for his presidency and putting a prominent and unapologetic pro-life leader in charge of his pro-life coalition . . .

Here are [some of] the specific things he pledges to do if elected president:

Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide.

(Read more from “Trump Makes YUUUGE Pro-Life Commitment” HERE)

_____________________________________

Donald Trump Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

By Steven Ertelt. Donald Trump today has issued a call to make permanent the Hyde Amendment that bans almost all federal taxpayer funding of abortions and is credited with saving the lives of over 1 million Americans from abortion. Trump-‘s call comes as Hillary Clinton is campaigning in reversing Hyde and forcing Americans to fund free abortions for women with their tax dollars.

Every year, Congress is forced to fight the battle to protect Americans from being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars. Democrats annually fight the pro-life budget provision and hope they can eventually reverse it should they take control of both the White House and Congress.

That has led to pro-life groups calling to the adoption of a permanent law putting Hyde in place long-term and making it more difficult for pro-abortion forces to reverse. Today, Trump announced his support for such a law.

The call for banning taxpayer funding of abortions comes in a new letter from Trump. Trump commits to a new policy: “Making the Hyde Amendment permanent law to protect taxpayers from having to pay for abortions.” (Read more from “Donald Trump Calls for Permanently Banning Taxpayer Funding of Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards

/2 Comments/in , /by

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump ruffled a few feathers, including those of former congresswoman and shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords, when he pointed out what he perceived to be rival Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy on Second Amendment issues.

Giffords, who was a Democratic U.S. representative from Arizona when a would-be assassin shot her in the head, took exception to the rhetoric Trump used during a speech in Miami this week.

After insisting Clinton wants to dismantle the constitutional right to bear arms, Trump suggested the former first lady’s security guards should get rid of their guns first.

“They should disarm,” he told a crowd of supporters. “Right? I think they should disarm immediately. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns … let’s see what happens to her.”

He went on to assert the result would be “very dangerous.”

Trump made a similar point the same day on Twitter.

Along with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, Giffords put public pressure on the brash billionaire to apologize.

In a statement following Friday’s speech, the couple described Trump as “dangerously unfit” to serve as president, citing his comments about Clinton’s bodyguards as the latest evidence.

The joint statement noted Trump’s previous acknowledgement that he regrets some of his more incendiary rhetoric, expressing a desire he will “immediately renounce these comments, apologize to Hillary Clinton, and acknowledge that once again he has gone dangerously too far.”

Other public figures joined the couple in their dismay over the statement.

Giffords and Kelly, along with other Trump critics, implied the statements could prompt an unstable supporter to attempt violence against Clinton.

“They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed,” the statement concluded.

In the online debate that ensued over Trump’s campaign remarks, numerous comments expressed a much different interpretation.

The Giffords-Kelly statement was not the only official denouncement of its kind. In a statement from campaign manager Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign not only criticized Trump’s comments but alleged the GOP nominee “has a pattern of inciting people to violence.” (For more from the author of “Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.