Six Convicted Felons Are Running for the U.S. Congress in 2018

There is no law that prevents a convicted felon from running for the U.S. Congress. Six convicted felons are running during the 2018 midterm elections, two for the U.S. Senate and four for the U.S. House of Representatives. Four are Republicans and two are Democrats.

They are in alphabetical order:

  1. Democrat candidate David Alcorn who was convicted of stalking. Alcorn is one of nine candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District.
  2. Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who is running in the Republican primary the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. Then Sheriff Arpaio was convicted of misdemeanor criminal contempt of court in July 2017 for defying a court order requiring him to stop detaining people he suspected of being illegal aliens. President Donald Trump pardoned him one month later.
  3. Don Blankenship, the former head of the coal mining company Massey Energy who is running in the Republican primary to challenge Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Blankenship served one year in prison on a misdemeanor conviction for conspiring to evade safety laws after the death of 29 miners at his Upper Big Branch Mine in 2010.
  4. Congressman Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.) is running for re-election. Gianforte plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of assaulting a reporter in 2017.
  5. Former Rep. Michael Grimm, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.) Grimm is a former FBI agent who pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion in 2014.
  6. Bradley Edward (Chelsea) Manning who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013, of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly 750,000 classified, or unclassified but sensitive, military and diplomatic documents. Manning’s sentence was communted by former President Barack Obama in 2016. Manning is running in the Democratic primary in Maryland for the U.S. Senate.

Perhaps the two most interesting candidates are Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Democrat Bradley Edward (Chelsea) Manning.

Both have something in common. Both are convicted felons and both have been pardoned by a U.S. President. Control of the U.S. Senate is critical to furthering any president’s agenda. President Trump has taken strong positions on rebuilding the military, border security, immigration and growing the economy by reducing taxes and regulations.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is not and will not help further President Trump’s agenda of making America great, again.

The Family Research Council in an article titled “Chelsea Manning: The Voice of Treason” notes:

Chelsea Manning had a chance to serve his country — and betrayed it. Now he wants to serve in the U.S. Senate. The former Army private-turned-transgender-activist stunned everyone this week by announcing a run for elected office, one year after he was pardoned for treason. Welcome to the new Democratic Party.

For most people, the idea would be outrageous even if Manning weren’t sure which gender to identify with. This is, after all, a man who was convicted of war crimes against the very country he’s running to represent. “All Manning would have to do,” a Fox News commentator pointed out, “is swear another meaningless oath and promise to obey it this time to once again gain access to our national security secrets, which [he] could leak again if [he] wished. That should fill you with confidence.”

Read more.

In a Huffington Post column titled “Republicans Have 4 Convicted Criminals Running For Congress In 2018” Paul Blumenthal notes:

When Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff, announced his Senate candidacy on Tuesday, he became the fourth viable Republican 2018 congressional candidate who’s been convicted of a crime. And like two of the other GOP cons running for office, he has cited his criminal record as a partial justification for his candidacy.

Arpaio was convicted of misdemeanor criminal contempt of court in July 2017 for defying a court order requiring him to stop illegally detaining people he suspected of being undocumented immigrants based on their race. President Donald Trump pardoned him one month later.

The midterm elections will be notable is many different ways, the idea of convicted felons running is just one more anomaly.

This reminds us of the Capitol One commercial. What’s in your Congress?

Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy

The Founding Fathers designed a system that places heavy checks on the power of the majority. 

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”

Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.

Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.

Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.

California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.

Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.

But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying,

“Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter,

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said,

“That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule.

It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.

Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?

Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.

While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?


Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


Dumb & Dumber: A Hawaii government employee sends out false missile alert, a ‘progressive’ veterans group blames the POTUS

Sometimes movies are parodies of real life. It appears that the movie Dumb & Dumber is a parody of a progressive veterans group. According to Google:

Since it began tracking such responses seven years ago, nine states have consistently ranked among the top 10 most-Democratic each year. They are Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, California, Hawaii, Delaware and Illinois.

The Governor of Hawaii is David Ige, a Democrat. Hawaii’s congressional politics are typically dominated by Democrats. The state has elected just one Republican U.S. senator, Hiram Fong, who served from 1959 to 1977, and two GOP House members. The rest have been Democrats. Hawaii is currently represented in the Senate by Democrats Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz.

On January 13th something went very wrong in Hawaii. 

At 8:07 a.m. on Saturday, January 13, 2018, the Emergency Management authorities in Hawaii sent out an emergency alert advising all residents that there was a ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii, that they should seek immediate shelter, and that this was not a drill. This alert left some people crying and screaming. The false alert has drawn the attention of FEMA and a federal investigation has been launched.

On January 14th, 2017 the self identified “progressive” organization sent out the following in a fundraising email titled “Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill”:

By now you’ve heard the news: yesterday morning, people in Hawaii received an emergency alert on their phones that a ballistic missile attack was imminent.

Obviously, the good news is that it was a mistake. But the truth of the matter is the extraordinary international reaction to the error is a testament to the perception of how unsafe we are as a nation with Donald Trump as our Commander in Chief. [Emphasis added]

This is not the first time a Hawaiian government agency has sent out a false alert. On January 3rd, 2017 at 8:07 the Honolulu Department of Emergency Management inadvertently activated the emergency sirens while preparing for a scheduled test of the emergency notification system.

The email went on to state:

Thankfully Trump was at the golf course when this happened and it didn’t come across the screen on Fox and Friends during his “executive time.”

This president is dangerous. That’s why we are organizing veterans who have seen war in Korea to speak out. We can’t wait for you to hear from them.

Chip in $3 today…

QUESTION: Why is a progressive veterans group blaming President Trump for sending out the false missile alert in Hawaii?

Is it proper for any veterans organization to use this event, caused solely by a Hawaii government employee that frightened many thousands of citizens, families and visitors, to raise money and denigrate the Commander-in-Chief? needs to take a serious look at itself in the mirror.

President Trump is not unsafe, did not cause this error, does not have “executive time” on Fox & Friends and the state of Hawaii, run by the Democratic Party, is now taking action, in conjunction with the federal government, to insure this does not happen again.

RELATED ARTICLE: Troubling Information Coming From FCC Investigation of False Hawaii ‘Incoming Missile Alert’

Leftist Toilet Mouths Condemn Trump as They Corrupt Nation

President Trump denies having used a vulgar term last Thursday to describe dysfunctional Third World countries. Yet there’s no denying that the leftist media, believing he did, responded by repeatedly disgorging the term in a childish orgy of decadence. Of course, the media no doubt think they’re damaging Trump — but they’re actually damaging society.

Let’s be clear: Leftists certainly object to the substance of Trump’s comments, that we shouldn’t continually absorb poor, unskilled, often functionally illiterate and unassimilable people from Third World nations. But they also object to his alleged style, labeling as obscene the use of s***hole (toilet) to describe such places. So to show us how bad such language is, the Crude News Network (CNN), for example, used it at least 36 times on Thursday. It’s sort of like inveighing against animal abuse and then bludgeoning dozens of dogs to death on air to prove your point.


Let’s be clear about a few other matters:

  1. You probably wouldn’t lose money betting that all the leftists now complaining about the toilet term use vulgarity themselves off air.
  2. In reality, most media leftists actually have mouths resembling sewers.
  3. It’s the Left that, mainly via entertainment, has coarsened society, defining deviancy downwards and normalizing vulgarity. This is why the younger generations now use profanity, publicly, as a matter of course.
  4. This is very, very destructive to society.

Why it’s destructive I’ll explain momentarily. Note, however, that this article isn’t about immigration, which I take a hard line on and believe should be completely ended. Something else that should be ended, however, is our increasing tolerance for public crudity.

Let’s begin with what the Father of Our Nation and first president, George Washington, wrote about vulgarity in a 1776 order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

In point of fact, few of us had great-grandparents who wouldn’t have been at least somewhat appalled at today’s tawdry tongues. And whatever a few of them might have occasionally uttered in private, they certainly wouldn’t use bad language in polite company (does this even still exist?) or around children. Now note that every time we use profanity publicly — on the Internet, for example — we are using it in front of children.

This raises the matter of the blessed asterisk and its cloaking cousins. Many will ask what the point is, since kids have already heard every vulgar word we’re obscuring. Yet this is a bit like saying: If children know about serial killers, what’s the big deal about inundating them with snuff films?

We (should) use asterisks in print, bleep out words in broadcast and generally obscure the obscene because doing so sends an important message:

The obscured things are wrong.

Opening up the closet of the coarse, crude and carnal sends the message that such things are okay. Sure, kids have heard bad language. But the point is to not normalize and legitimize it through continual and cavalier adult use. The point is to instill in the young virtue, good moral habits, not the bad ones called vice. And habits are created via repetition — a fact that should make us think twice about on-air repetition of vulgarity.

Instinctively, many of us still sense vulgarity’s ugliness. This ugliness is best illustrated by putting it in the prettiest of mouths: Would you find a group of nine-year-olds cursing like a drunken sailor an uplifting scene? Would you think they were on a good moral path?

Well, as poet William Wordsworth put it, “The Child is father of the Man”; a youth’s well-learned dark lessons become adult transgressions. Yet some will still wonder why this matters, maintaining that vulgarities are “just words” (actually, they’re unjust words). For an in-depth exposition on this, I strongly urge you to read “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” a magazine piece I penned last year that I believe is the definitive short work on the subject (it’s hard to find online but is available here).

Put simply, though, an immoral society cannot yield a moral government. Echoing many great thinkers, British philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Founding Fathers often expressed the same principle in different words.) Now, do people who habitually disgorge vulgarity — not to mention indulge decadence in general — strike you as men of temperate minds? Or do you think such habits reflect fetters-forging passions?

Too many suppose we can compartmentalize our virtue and vice. Like believing we can continually pollute one side of a lake yet swim in pure waters on the other, we act as if impurity intensely indulged in certain areas won’t bleed over into areas we’d like to keep pristine. But just as former labor secretary Lynn Martin said in 1992 that “[y]ou can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president,” we can’t be one kind of people and have another kind of polity. Do you really think we can embrace profound vice in language, entertainment and sexuality but then enjoy that for which profound virtue is necessary: fiscal restraint, respect for rights, honesty in government affairs, dutiful law-enforcement agencies, a Constitution-limited judiciary, sound schooling and truth-oriented media? As our second president, John Adams, put it, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”

Thus is it distressing that even some conservative media outlets now lower standards, using terms such as a**, c**p, s***storm and WTF (with everyone knowing the acronym’s meaning). Perhaps they’re not mindful that it was yesterday’s leftists who normalized such vulgarity. Perhaps they don’t care. But it’s why I’ve long said that conservatives are the caboose to liberals’ engine of cultural decay. It’s why, ultimately, they lose political wars. For politics is downstream of culture, and conservatives never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose.

As for Trump, his alleged potty-mouth moment was reported by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a scoundrel with a history of lying about White House meetings, according to Daily Wire. But whatever the president said, he said in private. This is far different from Durbin, who introduced the story. It’s far different from ex-California Democratic Party chairman John Burton, who led a “F*** Donald Trump!” chant at California’s Democratic Party convention in Sacramento early last year. And it’s far different from CNN and the rest of the effluent-stream media, which, like an exhibitionist, just revel in the chance to flaunt publicly what excites them privately.

They are despicable. May they be the first to drown in the wave of tyranny they invite.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

EDITORS NOTE: In 2014 BlackAndRight published the below video titled “How Liberals Use Children.” It showed children using foul language to promote liberal causes. WARNING: Children using foul language.

VIDEO: Trump’s ‘Purging’ the Deep State — Do you Approve or Disapprove? Take the survey.

Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman representing the Republican Party of Sarasota County, Florida appeared on ABC Channel 7 to discuss President Trump and the “deep state.”

Ziegler notes:

The media is worried about President Trump “purging” the federal government. Excuse me, but If ANY employee of ANY federal agency is actively working to undermine the President, that employee should be FIRED!

The President doesn’t just have a right to do so, he has a DUTY to make sure his entire team – at every agency – is staffed by those who will execute on the President’s priorities.

Watch the debate:


Do you APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President? (Click on a response below to have your voice heard.)




PODCAST: Google’s Double Standard for Conservative, Liberal News Sites

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi joins us today to discuss why Google is presenting “fact checks” to some conservative news sites like The Federalist and The Daily Caller, but not to other sites that have gotten issues wrong, such as CNN.

Plus: we talk about whether Democrats are embarrassed about their tax reform “no” votes in light of all the bonuses and wage increases, and Meghan McCain’s fiery interview with Michael Wolff, author of “Fire and Fury.”

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Conservatives Are Being Destroyed by Facebook, Twitter and Google Without Even Realizing It.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


EDITORS NOTE: Photo: John Greim John Greim Photography /Newscom.

God Forbid the Further Oprahizing of America

The American Left’s Oprah-mania about her running for president in 2020 is truly absurd. What on earth qualifies Oprah to run our country? I do not consider myself White House material. But if Oprah qualifies, I am a far superior candidate.

Years ago when Oprah became a national phenomenon, I coined the phrase, the Oprah-lizaton of America. It seemed like Oprah seduced many Americans into placing feelings above facts and logic.

Fake news media and most politicians have become Oprah-rized, behaving as though feelings trump everything. For example. Rather than honestly dealing with the negative consequences of illegals invading our country, Leftists and politicians are most concerned with the emotional side of the issue. God forbid we hurt the feelings or harm the self-esteem of illegals who do not give a rat’s derriere about our country or assimilating.

So now, the American Left is giddy over the thought of Oprah becoming our first queen. We’ve seen this horror movie before titled, “Eight Years of Obama”. Fake news media and wimpy republicans would allow Oprah to behave as queen, free to overrule the Constitution; given full reign to cram extreme liberalism down our throats. Opposing or disagreeing with Oprah would be deemed racist and sexist.

In 2008, over 90% of my fellow black voters were hypnotized by Obama’s skin color. I tried to warn black family and friends that Obama was not black in terms of being one of us. Obama was first and foremost a liberal Trojan Horse disguised in black skin; totally focused on furthering the liberal agenda rather than dealing with issues plaguing black Americans

Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backwards during Obama’s reign. Yes, Trump has been economically “mo’ better” for us blacks than Obama

Oprah’s presidency would be a continuation of Obama’s with more touchy-feely mindless emotion driven stupid punish-America policies. Our ultra-Oprah-rized America would give away everything to everybody; confiscating the earnings of achievers to spread to deadbeats.

In 1976, I worked with Oprah at WJZ-TV in Baltimore. As a graphic designer in the art department, I provided graphics for our morning talk show, “People Are Talking” which Oprah co-hosted with Richard Sher.

Psychic Jeane Dixon was a guest on “People Are Talking”. After the show, Oprah, Ms Dixon, other staffers and I were gathered chatting. Ms Dixon took Oprah’s hand and enthusiastically predicted that Oprah would achieve huge success. I am not saying I believe psychics. I am simply reporting what happened.

Oprah’s rise to fame was truly remarkable; evidence of the good heart of the American people. From her early days of co-hosting “People Are Talking”, I thought Oprah’s gift was an ability to be herself on camera. In those days, blacks on TV seemed overly concerned with convincing white America that they were intelligent. Oprah was simply herself and viewers related to her, an average looking, overweight dark-skinned black woman. Blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. Therefore, it is obvious that white America made Oprah a billionaire.

And yet, on several occasions, Oprah has passionately helped her fellow America-hating Leftists’ sell their lie that America is a hell-hole for blacks.

While promoting her movie, “Selma”, Oprah despicably claimed that blacks are still suffering the same persecution today as they did in the 1950s. 

Clearly, selling movie tickets and furthering Leftists’ America-sucks narrative trumped the truth about how truly far we have come regarding race and being fair to the country that has practically worshiped her.

Oprah no more belongs in our Oval Office than Donald Duck. The idea is totally absurd. We all know how fake news media would treat Democrat presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey. Every word out of her mouth would be deemed the height of brilliance, wisdom, fairness and compassion. Fake news media would brand the Republican presidential nominee the secret head of the KKK, a white supremacist and a sexual predator.

Make no mistake about this folks. Along with changing America by flooding America with a tsunami of illegals, Leftists are obsessed with furthering their sexual revolution; making deviancy normal. Oprah would surely champion her fellow Leftists’ government mandated sexual transformation of America.

A lot of American voters would once again be hypnotized by Oprah’s skin-color and fake news media hype, ignoring Oprah’s instincts to punish-America. I pray that a majority of American voters would learn from their mistake of electing extreme Leftist Obama solely because of his skin-color.

RELATED VIDEO: Oprah for President? Obama 2.0?

VIDEO: White House Strategist Stephen Miller on CNN-Tapper Fiasco, Immigration, Chain Migration, The Wall

I recently attended a meeting of the Media Roundtable in Sarasota, FL. The group of over 40 attendees are former owners, executives, leaders, reporters and TV personalities in the news/media industry. The discussion came up about the First Amendment. All agreed that the First Amendment was critical to a Constitutional Republican form of government. The vast majority of those in attendance self identify as Democrats.

Recently White House strategist Stephen Miller appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper. The interview briefly made the headlines because of Tapper cutting off the interview by saying “I think I’ve wasted enough of my viewers’ time.” As a former radio talk show host I learned that it is best to allow a guest on my program the freedom to express themselves and let the audience decide how to interpret the interview.

QUESTION: Is CNN and Mr. Tapper interested in allowing freedom of speech?

You decide after watching a followup interview done with Mr. Miller by Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel:


TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Stephen Miller joins us tonight.

Stephen Miller, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So, CNN called around to news organizations and said you were escorted off the set by security. Presumably you are not a physical threat, you are not armed. My question is, but they thought you were a threat. Do you think if you have been, I don’t know, a member of MS-13 here illegally, that CNN would have had security pull you off the set?

MILLER: I assume if I was a member of MS-13 here illegally, they would be clamoring to get me into the voting booth. But I think that — I think that like many things CNN says, like this story has the most important virtue of all CNN stories as being not true.

CARLSON: Well, here’s what we know is true, and here’s what —

MILLER: An amazing true, but not —


CARLSON: — what was striking to me about the whole thing. So, there was a video apparently taken without your knowledge of you on the set after the segment ended during the commercial break, and someone apparently from CNN, I don’t know who else would have access to it, leaked that to other news organizations.

What do you make of that?

MILLER: Well, it’s just another example of CNN’s very low journalistic standards. But I was glad to have people hear what I said on camera and off camera, which that CNN has been extraordinarily biased, extraordinarily unfair to the president and is not giving their information — their viewers honest information.

CARLSON: So, you wanted to talk about immigration. And the DACA debate is obviously the focus of a lot of energy in the Congress right now. The priorities for the administration you have said are, ending chain migration, financing a border wall and ending the diversity lottery. Of those three, what would you say is the most important priority from your point of view?

MILLER: Well, look, we need them all because the reality is that anything you do on DACA is going to have some predictable consequences, right? You’re going to have an increase in new illegal immigration, so you need to have a wall. You need to close the enforcement loopholes.

And then you’re also going to have an increase in the overall number of people coming into the country and that’s what you have to deal with chain migration. You have to deal with the visa lottery. And these are crucial reforms to make the system work for Americans.

You know, Donald Trump has a very radical idea and that’s that when we make changes to our immigration laws, the group we should be most concerned about are everyday hardworking Americans, the citizens who make this country run, who obey the laws, follow the rules, pay their taxes, show up and vote — the people who are loyal to this country. And Donald Trump is saying our country should be loyal to them in return.

CARLSON: So, Democrats argue back that ending chain migration and ending the diversity lottery would prevent a lot of people — decent people from coming into this country. What’s their argument against financing the border wall?

MILLER: Well —

CARLSON: Why do you think they oppose that?

MILLER: Well, as you know, I mean, they all voted for a border barrier, a hard physical border barrier back in 2006, the Secure Fence Act. Joe Biden voted for it, Barack Obama voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for, et cetera.

So, that’s — that’s just a new position they apparently have that they are opposed to any form of border security.

CARLSON: What animated it? Why is that an absolute sticking point for Democrats? A bunch of them have said, including in leadership, we’re not supporting anything that includes financing a border wall? Why?


CARLSON: — anything to that?

MILLER: Look, if Democrats oppose a border wall, they’re just saying they want continued, unendingly illegal immigration.

But let me deal with other question, too. You talk about you guys say, well, you know, if you have chain migration, it could keep good people out. There are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them are good, hardworking, decent, honest, principled people. But the reality is there’s a limit to how many people any country can bring in. And we as a country have a right to say we want to bring people based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to be safe, productive citizens, and to uplift the nation as a whole.

You think about our current system of chain migration, Tucker. So, over the last 10 years, we’ve admitted about 10 million people through our chain migration system.

To understand how many people that is, you’re talking about every hour, that’s about the size of a high school auditorium. Every day, it’s the size of a large high school. Every week, a small city. Every month, a medium to average size city. And every year, a very large city, a city the size of Washington, D.C., or almost a San Francisco, every single year, just through chain migration.

What’s the effect of that on taxpayers? What’s the effect of that on wage earners? What’s the effect of that —

CARLSON: And that’s illegal.

MILLER: Right. That’s just folks coming in on green cards through chain migration.

CARLSON: So, what’s the — I always ask this question of proponents of immigration, including of illegal immigration. What is the ideal number of immigrants, people from other countries, moving here every year?

MILLER: Right. And oftentimes, they won’t have an answer to that question.

CARLSON: Well, what’s your answer?

MILLER: The — I mean, I have — I have my own views on it, but I think the important point is ending chain migration, as the president has called for, is necessary not just for economic security but for national security.

You saw the recent attempted terrorist attack in New York. The individual who came here — was brought to the chain migration system, right? They came through her nephew’s green card.


MILLER: And that’s just not a smart way for a country to run its immigration system.

CARLSON: So, what should be the criteria for entry in the United States?

MILLER: Well, you know, Donald Trump supported the RAISE Act. And it looked at things like, what’s your proficiency in the language? What economic skills do you have? Do have a background in sciences? Do you have a background in engineering? Do you have a background in law or writing?

It looked at things like your age. Obviously, you bring in immigrants who are in their 80s or 90s, that’s going to have a significant expense on society. So, you wanted folks primarily in their working years.

CARLSON: But what about — I mean, we interviewed someone last week and said, who will pick the strawberries? I mean, how many immigrants, low-wage, low skilled immigrants do we need a year for the ag sector?

MILLER: Well, as you know, only about 1 percent of the immigrant population of the country works in agriculture. So, it’s discussed a lot but it’s a very small portion of the overall labor force. The typical jobs that a lower skilled immigration worker might do might be construction work, it might be hospitality work, it might be restaurant work, or might be not working at all and just going onto the welfare system if there isn’t a job for that individual.

CARLSON: So, if there’s no clear economic rationale for an immigration system and it doesn’t sound like there is one, there’s no economists saying we need to bring in this number of low skilled immigrants, then why does the Democratic Party support our current system and want to liberalize the current system so vehemently? What motivates them?

MILLER: Well, you are asking the right question, but I think the context of this debate, the question that the president is putting forth for the American people is when we have an immigration system, whose needs are we fundamentally trying to serve? The needs of special interests? The needs of politicians, the needs of foreign countries and foreign nationals, the needs of our own country and our own workers?

And so, at the end of the day, our hope for a bipartisan deal is that you can have enough Democrats say that listening to the voters and the voice of the American people, we want a system that serves American workers first. And what Donald Trump has done that’s so exceptional is for the first time that I can remember, for the first time you can probably remember, we have a president of this country who when he talks but immigration, he talks about what is right for the everyday hardworking person.


CARLSON: We’re almost out of time, so I just want to get to one quick political question, which is: Democrats have said they are not going to come to any deal with these three components in it — border wall, reducing chain migration, ending diversity lottery. Where’s the wiggle room on the White House side?

MILLER: Look, Democrats ultimately have to make a choice. They care a lot about providing benefit to illegal immigrants. We’re saying to them, if you want to make a deal, then you have to both deliver benefits for American families and American taxpayers too. And if both sides are willing to agree with those terms, Tucker, then we can have a deal.

And most importantly, we can have an immigration system that 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now produces more assimilation, higher wages, more economic opportunity and better prospect for immigrants and U.S.-born alike.

CARLSON: Stephen Miller, thank you.

MILLER: Hey. Thank you.

Why Dissolving the Election Fraud Commission Is a True Loss for the Nation

This week, the White House announced the sudden, disappointing news that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was being dissolved.

Liberal advocacy groups, which for months have worked to obstruct the group’s efforts to examine the integrity and security of the ballot box, ecstatically declared victory. But their win is a loss for the nation, which remains blind to the true breadth and scope of fraud in American elections.

As if to emphasize that point, The Heritage Foundation has once again added a slew of new cases to its election fraud database.

Accounting for the new entries, the database now lists 1,107 verified instances of fraud, including 961 criminal convictions of proven fraudsters, 48 cases that ended in civil penalties, 76 cases that resulted in defendants entering diversion programs, and 22 that ended with either a judicial or official finding of fraud.

That’s quite a tally for a problem that supposedly doesn’t exist. But as alarming as that figure is, it’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Heritage’s database is not comprehensive, so for every case we identify and track through to conclusion, many more likely go undetected or hidden in court records that are not easily accessible.

That sad reality is a result of the lack of adequate safeguards in many states—policies such as voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements—that make it possible to detect fraud. Even when fraud is detected, many prosecutors opt not to pursue cases for the simple fact that their priorities lie elsewhere.

As long as these two facts are true, there’s little to deter fraudsters from undermining the core of American democracy. Simply put, they know our elections are vulnerable, and they are not above exploiting those weaknesses to advance their careers and causes.

Those weaknesses no doubt will persist now that liberal advocacy groups have pre-empted the election fraud commission’s efforts to investigate them and propose solutions.

Here are some of this week’s additions to the Heritage database.

Deszi Marquis Hayes

Deszi Marquis Hayes voted in the 2016 election—from jail. Hayes, a Florida resident, was serving a nine-month sentence following a felony traffic conviction. Nevertheless, he received and cast a mail-in ballot from the Indian River County Jail.

Florida state law does not permit convicted felons to vote, but his vote was accepted nonetheless because the process of removing him from the state’s voter rolls had not yet been completed.

Awais Jamil

Awais Jamil, a Pakistani immigrant residing in Ohio, voted in the 2016 presidential election despite not being a citizen. Jamil had initially indicated on Bureau of Motor Vehicle forms that he was not a citizen, but the state of Ohio nevertheless sent him a voter registration packet.

Jamil then falsely claimed citizenship in order to register. He pleaded guilty to a fourth-degree felony illegal-voting charge, and was sentenced to one year of probation, with an underlying 14-month prison sentence. He now faces possible deportation as a result of the felony conviction.

Brandon Dean

Brandon Dean was elected mayor of Brighton, Alabama, in 2016, but he was ordered to vacate the office after a judge determined that 46 fraudulent absentee votes had been cast for him in the election.

Of those ballots, 21 were not signed by the voter, while 22 were actually mailed to Dean’s address, rather voters’ homes. Two absentee ballots were cast by people who were actually present at City Hall on Election Day, and one person voted despite not living within Brighton city limits.

Deducting those votes dropped Dean’s tally below the threshold needed to avoid a mandatory runoff, which Brighton must now hold.

Ultimately, all three of these—and the 1,100-plus other instances of fraud in the Heritage database—speak to the need for states to adopt, and vigorously enforce, election-integrity measures designed to secure the ballot box against fraud.

One vital policy is the routine inspection of state voter rolls and the purging of inaccurate registrations. The National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “motor voter” law, requires states to maintain the accuracy of voter registration records—and with good reason.

Inaccuracies create avenues for fraud and abuse, and risk permitting ineligible voters and noncitizens to cast ballots.

Despite this, voter rolls are riddled with inaccuracies. A 2012 Pew study concluded that nationwide some 24 million voter registrations—nearly 1 in 8—were inaccurate, out-of-date, or duplicative. In 2017, the Public Interest Legal Foundation identified 248 counties in 24 states where the number of registered voters exceeds the number of adult residents.

The consequences of shoddy record keeping are real. The Public Interest Legal Foundation recently identified 5,556 noncitizens who had, since 2011, successfully registered to vote in the critical swing state of Virginia. Even more alarming, this same report identified 1,852 noncitizens who collectively cast 7,474 ballots in the state.

Another recent study, by the Government Accountability Institute, concluded with “high confidence” that as many as 45,000 duplicate votes were cast nationwide in last year’s presidential election. In an era of tight elections, even a handful—let alone thousands—of fraudulently cast ballots could alter the course of major races.

Given the importance of free and fair elections, it is eminently reasonable and commonsensical for states to devise procedures for identifying and purging records that are inaccurate or out-of-date.

Unfortunately, a case soon to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear that even this is a bridge too far for some on the left.

The case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, involves a challenge to Ohio’s procedure for removing ineligible voters, a process which requires years to complete. The state first sends notices to registered voters who have not voted in two years, seeking to confirm their residency. If voters do not return the confirmation, and fail to vote for four more years, Ohio removes them from the rolls.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Ohio’s process for cleaning up its voter rolls as a violation of the National Voter Registration Act. Two Meese Center scholars called the opinion “a sad example of statutory misinterpretation (including using a canon of construction that at least one Supreme Court justice has called ‘made up’).”

Ohio appealed, and the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Jan. 10.

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of all the states to take seriously their role in preserving the integrity of our electoral process.

Some on the left may wish to bury their heads in the sand, dismiss the evidence, and reflexively resist election-integrity measures, but Americans should not pay them any mind.

There are far too many cases of documented, proven fraud to ignore. Election fraud is a serious problem demanding serious solutions, and it is high time we tackle it.


Portrait of Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


The Dangerous Case of Bandy Lee: Examining the Mental Health of the Mental Health Examiners

The Democrats are desperate. They have been trying to derail, discredit, and destroy President Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president. One year after his stunning victory over Obama’s deeply flawed legacy candidate Hillary Clinton, the Desperate Democrats have renewed their efforts to destroy President Trump and derail his extraordinary presidential accomplishments.

False allegations of misogyny and inappropriate sexual behavior failed. False accusations of election improprieties failed. The false Russian collusion and falsified Russian dossier case is collapsing and has boomeranged to expose the Democrats’ own crimes. The Leftist Democrat party is increasingly desperate to remove President Trump from office.

They are feverishly trying to destroy President Trump because his booming economy is demolishing their hopes for 2018 midterm victories and the required House Democrat majority to impeach. Without a Democrat House majority the only option left is imposition of the 25th Amendment – removal for mental impairment. So, the Left is shamelessly shopping for a justifying diagnosis.

Bandy X. Lee

Enter Dr. Bandy X. Lee, the Yale trained psychiatrist “warning” America that the President is going to unravel. REALLY??????

Professional? Lee’s opinion has been politicized beyond professional recognition. Her singular purpose is to provide the necessary diagnosis for imposition of the 25th Amendment.

Lee is quoted as saying, “We feel that the rush of tweeting is an indication of his falling apart under stress. Trump is going to get worse and will become uncontainable with the pressures of the presidency.” In her partisan professional opinion, “We have an obligation to speak about Donald Trump’s mental health issues because many lives and our survival as a species may be at stake.”

Lee’s chief piece of “evidence” is TWEETING??? It is specifically by tweeting that President Trump bypasses the colluding media and speaks directly and plainly to the American people. It is laughable that tweeting is considered symptomatic. The only threat that tweeting poses is to the mainstream media echo chamber that has been exposed as a propaganda tool of the Left. If this were not so serious it would make a great comedy routine.

Bandy Lee is a chilling example of what happens when a Leftist psychiatrist defies industry norms and allows her fractally wrong political ideology to inform her “professional” opinions. It is madness to accept a political diagnosis as a medical diagnosis. Bandy Lee’s belligerent political dogma is not medicine, it is a staggering abuse of her position as a licensed psychiatrist for political purposes. Lee has totally discredited herself and Yale University.

A previous article, “The Fractal Wrongness of Leftist Ideology” exposes the dangerous tyranny of Leftist ideology that considers anyone who disagrees with their narrative as mentally unfit. It is the same end justifies the means rationalization used in Communist Russia to send political dissidents to the Gulag on mental health grounds to be “rehabilitated.”

Mental health “professionals” like Bandy Lee who have never examined the President are publicly “diagnosing” him in direct contravention of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Principle’s of Medical Ethics” section 7 – the Goldwater Rule:

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

The history of the Goldwater Rule is extremely important. In 1964 Fact Magazine published an article on presidential candidate Barry Goldwater titled, “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.” The magazine polled psychiatrists and asked if Barry Goldwater was mentally fit to serve. It was a thinly disguised political strategy to discredit Barry Goldwater on mental health grounds. Senator Goldwater sued the magazine and won. The court ruled in favor of Goldwater finding that the defendants knew they were publishing defamatory statements motivated by actual malice.

History is repeating itself in a parallel partisan political attempt to similarly discredit President Trump on mental health grounds. Malicious defamatory statements are being released by unethical partisan psychiatrists like Bandy Lee on behalf of the Orwellian National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts (NCCMHE) saying:

“We believe that he [Trump] is now further unraveling in ways that contribute to his belligerent nuclear threats… We urge that those around him, and our elected representatives in general, take urgent steps to restrain his behavior and head off the potential nuclear catastrophe that endangers not only Korea and the United States but all of humankind.”

So, who are the experts of the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts? The NCCMHE is a political organization of Leftists in the mental health community determined to remove President Trump from office by challenging his mental fitness. Sound familiar? It is the same unethical partisan politics disguised as a medical diagnosis that is expressly forbidden by the Goldwater Rule.

Mental fitness assessed by political enemies is not credible – it is disingenuous and extremely dangerous. It was the basis of the Russian Gulag method for re-education of wrong-thinking dissidents having “socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious, and whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

The tyrannical ends justify the means mentality of Bandy Lee and her organization are deceitfully using their professional status to unethically “diagnose” President Trump in a political effort to unseat him. It is unapologetically stated in the organization’s Mission Statement!



In a historically unprecedented fashion, we have come together as mental health experts to warn that Mr. Trump, in the office of the president, is a danger to national and international security.

Usually, we mental health professionals have an ethical rule against diagnosing public figures unless we have personally examined them and gained their consent. However, as health professionals, we are charged with protecting the health and well-being of our patients and the public, and there are superseding rules. When a person is a danger to others, we have a duty to report, a duty to warn, and a duty to protect potential victims, including the public. In an emergency, we do not have the choice not to treat someone as a patient.

A diagnosis is irrelevant when someone is dangerous. We need first to contain the person, to remove any access to weapons, and to perform an urgent evaluation. Mr. Trump has already shown numerous signs that he is dangerous. From our perspective, his personal characteristics, combined with the power of the office and his access to the nuclear arsenal, put the ultimate safety and survival of humanity at risk.

One of our mandates as mental health professionals is to improve public health through education: we have an obligation to bear witness when something is not normal. Our mission through the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts is to inform and educate all sectors, from the public to the governmental.

Pressure makes unstable people worse. Collectively, we warn that the worst is coming. Anyone as mentally unstable as this man simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency, and the public deserves protection.

Every sphere of American life, including the mental health field, was politicized under Obama’s Leftist ”hope and change” movement whose hope was to change America from a Constitutional Republic with a capitalist infrastructure into a socialist state. The Left has decided that any political opponent challenging their ideological worldview is unhinged and unfit for office. The Gulag of the Left should alarm any patriotic American who understands the dangers of politicizing oppositional speech to mean unhinged speech.

The Leftist attempt to install itself as the Orwellian Ministry of Truth must be vehemently opposed – including the outrageous political diagnoses of the unethical Bandy Lee and her posse at the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts.

RELATED VIDEO: Dershowitz – Dangerous for liberals to diagnose Trump.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-District 16) sends out unscientific, biased survey on drilling in Gulf of Mexico

On April 19th, 2011, one year after the Deepwater Horizon incident, CNN released a national poll on offshore drilling. CNN reported that their scientific poll found:

One year after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, support for offshore oil drilling has rebounded despite concerns that the federal government cannot prevent another massive oil spill, according to a new national poll.

[ … ]

Although support for increased drilling in U.S. waters is highest among Republicans, a majority of Democrats also favor it,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Fifty-six percent of Democrats favor more offshore drilling, compared to 70 percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans.” [Emphasis added]

At the start of March, 2017 U.S. Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke announced that 73 million acres in the Gulf would be open to drilling for five years starting in August. Up for reelection Republican Representative Vern Buchanan (FL – District 16) sent out the below in email on Sunday,  January 7, 2018.

Buchanan’s email survey is seriously flawed in four ways. First, the survey is unscientific. Second, respondents have no way of knowing who got the email and their level of knowledge on the topic of drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf Coast. Third, an individual on our staff answered the survey multiple times without be told that he had already voted. Fourth, the second possible answer to the question invokes the “precautionary principle.” Perhaps a better survey would have asked:

Do you support or oppose drilling for oil and natural gas off Florida’s Gulf Coast?

  1. SUPPORT…we need all the oil and natural gas we can produce.
  2. OPPOSE..we do not need all the oil and natural gas we can produce.

Conclusion: The results of the survey cannot be used as a basis to form public policy on offshore drilling.

Does Buchanan’s unscientific and biased survey change anything?

The answer is no!

In January, 2011 Fortune magazine published an article titled “A short history of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico” by Doris Burke. Burke in his article asked: Who’s gulf is it? The answer:

Drilling was so lucrative that governmental squabbles developed over who owned the rights. The fight was resolved when [Republican] President Eisenhower signed the Submerged Lands Act in 1953, giving states most rights to natural resources within three miles from their coastlines. The feds could then auction leases for gulf blocks outside the states’ jurisdiction. [Emphasis added]

Today more than 80% of the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico comes from deepwater wells located more than three miles off of Florida’s coast line.

The Submerged Lands Act was enacted in response to litigation that effectively transferred ownership of the first 3 miles of a state’s coastal submerged lands to the federal government. In the case United States v. California (1947), the United States successfully argued that the three nautical miles seaward of California belonged to the federal government, primarily finding that the federal government’s responsibility for the defense of the marginal seas and the conduction of foreign relations outweighed the interests of the individual states.

Former President Obama on December 20th, 2016 permanently banned oil and gas drilling in portions of the Arctic and Atlantic as a “poke” at then President elect Trump according to Politico. Dan Naatz of the Independent Petroleum Association of America said, “With exactly one month left in office, President Obama chose to succumb to environmental extremists demands to keep our nation’s affordable and abundant energy supplies away from those who need it the most by keeping them in the ground.”

Does it not make more sense and does it not potentially make it safer to drill closer to the Gulf of Mexico shorelines?

It appears that Rep. Buchanan is, like Obama, poking at President Trump and pandering to environmental extremists.

On his Facebook page Buchanan wrote, “Honored to have the endorsement of Oceans Champions.” But who is Ocean Champions? According to its website:

Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority.By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.

What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”

Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now is the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If the Florida delegation are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy.

That is good public policy. This is the moral thing to do.

EDITORS NOTE: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining 4% of electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

President Trump’s Unnoticed Great First Year Accomplishment

Conservatives and Republicans gave President Trump kudos for his remarkable list of accomplishments in his first year in office. 

One crucial Trump accomplishment appears to have gone unnoticed. Trump repeatedly spoke the truth about issues fake news media demanded that we either embrace its lie about the issue or stay silent. Single-handedly, Trump has opened the door for Americans to freely speak truth again.

Before Trump entered the political arena, fake news media controlled public speech with an iron-fist. Citizens and politicians knew they had better toe-the-politically-correct-line or suffer severe consequences.

When fake news media demanded that we ignore biology and pretend that Bruce Jenner is a woman, Americans played along with Bruce’s mental disorder for fear of public humiliation and economic crucifixion by fake news media.

NFL player Don Jones broke fake news media’s ban on speaking truth publicly. When Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend on national TV, Jones tweeted what tens of millions of Americans were thinking. “OMG, horrible.” Jones was immediately high-tech lynched by fake news media, sentenced to forced mind-altering therapy

When Trump announced that he was running for president, Trump said he would deal with the problem of criminal illegals invading our country. Illegals and the accompanying criminals are another issue fake news media forbids us to speak truthfully about. Trump, in essence, said screw fake news media’s rules about what truths we are allowed to state publicly.

Trump honestly addressing the problem of illegals invading our country sparked a fake news media firestorm against him. Fake news media launched a bogus story line that Trump is a racist who hates all Mexicans. In their usual fearful submission to fake news media, Conservatives and Republicans ran to microphones to condemn and distance themselves from what fake news media decreed to be Trump’s “racist” remarks.

However, a majority of American voters did not buy fake news media’s bogus Trump-is-racist narrative. Quite the opposite. We the People were elated by Trump’s unprecedented lack of fear of fake news media. Trump remained steadfast in speaking truth, exposing the negative impact of illegals invading our country with no desire to assimilate. Trump boldly disobeying fake news media’s ban on speaking truth inspires all Americans to begin speaking truth again.

Folks, we are at war; fake news media vs America. Fake news media believes America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. Its 24/7 laser-focused mission is to bring down America from her throne as the world super power. Fake news media also seeks to transform America away from her foundation of Christian values and principles. Fake news media relentlessly sells its lie that a majority of Americans share its disdain for our homeland.

That horrifying Sunday when Americans watched the entire NFL (players, coaches and management), in essence, taking a knee against our country, Americans were stunned with disbelief. How on earth could the NFL think a majority of Americans and football fans agreed with them disrespecting our flag, National Anthem, country, fallen-veteran-active military and brave men and women in blue? In short, the NFL believed fake news media’s bogus story-line that America and cops routinely abuse blacks and football fans would support the NFL protest. Polls confirm the NFL made a huge miscalculation

As I stated folks, we are at war; fake news media vs America.

Fake news media has suppressed our first amendment right of free speech for years. Anyone who dares speak truth which contradicts a fake news media lie is severely punished; branded stupid; crazy or guilty of hate speech.

While you were sleeping or taking your kids to soccer, fake news media began the process of criminalizing speaking truth; disagreeing with its socialist/progressive agenda.

Outrageously, fake news media seeks to criminalize scientists expressing skepticism regarding man made climate change. Fake news media actual says “climate change deniers” should be thrown into jail

Fake news media appears to love all things Islam while hating Christians. Obama’s DOJ threatened to jail anyone caught speaking badly about Islam. Meanwhile, Obama was unprecedented in his relentless presidential trashing of Christians

Fake news media’s sole purpose is to block truth while spreading lies and deception. By controlling speech, fake news media can use pretty words to paint a smiley face on evil, depravity and sin unabated. Trump courageously speaking truth has caused a serious crack in fake news media’s control-what-truths-Americans-are-allowed-to-publicly-express armor. Thank you Mr President.

How Trump Administration Will Fight Voter Fraud After Shutting Down Panel

After issuing an executive order late Wednesday closing his commission to investigate voter fraud, President Donald Trump now stresses the need for more voter identification and has tasked the Department of Homeland Security with ensuring the integrity of elections.

The White House so far is not saying that the president will call for a national voter ID system. But his tweets Thursday seemed to suggest so:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn’t have a decisive answer Thursday on whether the president favored a national voter ID system.

“We are still going to continue to review the best way forward,” Sanders said in a response to a question from The Daily Signal during the press briefing.

“Just because the election commission is no longer in existence, we are going to send the preliminary findings from the commission to the Department of Homeland Security and make determinations on the best way forward,” she said.

Asked why the Department of Homeland Security instead of the Justice Department, which traditionally investigates voting irregularities, is taking up the matter, Sanders told The Daily Signal: “That was the agency that was best determined by the administration, and we are moving forward and letting them take over the process.”

Vice President Mike Pence was chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was vice chairman. The president appointed the bipartisan commission, also known as the Voter Fraud Commission, in May.

Kobach, a Republican, has been a longtime advocate of voter ID, but will not advise the Department of Homeland Security going forward, a spokesman said.

“At the president’s direction, the department continues to work in support of state governments who are responsible for administering elections, with efforts focused on securing elections against those who seek to undermine the election system or its integrity,” Tyler Houlton, the department’s acting press secretary, told The Daily Signal in an email. “Mr. Kobach is not advising the department on this matter.”

The commission’s work was besieged from the outset by lawsuits and uncooperative state officials, according to the White House and some commission members.

“Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation and another Republican commission member, said of the panel’s folding in a written statement Wednesday.

“Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system,” Adams said.

Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer, continued:

Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics, and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the commission’s work. They may delight today in the dissolution of the commission, but before long they’ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support, and perseverance than they realize.

The White House commission was made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats. Among the Democrats was Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who sued the commission while he was a member, accusing it of not sharing information.

Despite dissolving the commission, Dunlap said, the Trump administration still will have to honor a federal court order to provide him with information.

“I didn’t want to go to court,” Dunlap told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “All I wanted, honest to God, was to participate and get an answer to all of my questions.”

Dunlap said he is concerned with the Department of Homeland Security’s role.

“How many driver’s license has Homeland Security issued?” he asked rhetorically. “None. How many elections has Homeland Security run? None.”

“I was alarmed when the Obama administration classified election administration as critical infrastructure, that gives the federal government so much leeway,” Dunlap said. “Part of the goal for some people has been a national voter ID law.”

The White House commission asked every top state election official for basic information on voting in his or her state, but at least 18 states and the District of Columbia refused to cooperate. Many of those states had particular problems with voter fraud in the past, as The Daily Signal has reported.

Numerous liberal groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Brennan Center for Justice, sued to stop the commission from doing its work. One group, American Oversight, helped represent Dunlap in his lawsuit against the administration.

Commission member Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said state officials blocked the panel from finding the truth.

“Unjustified refusal from some states to work with us and dozens of meritless lawsuits; those two things made it next to impossible for the commission to do its work,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Thursday. “They don’t want the American people to find the truth about [voter] fraud and errors and double voting.”

Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, a Republican who is chairwoman of the National Association of Secretaries of State, also was a commission member.

“We do not have a comment or anything further to add on the topic of the election commission,” Lawson spokeswoman Valerie Warycha said.

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Why is the Co-Chairman of the DNC endorsing a book that promotes domestic terrorism?

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) at 3:48 p.m. on January 3rd, 2018 tweeted “At @MoonPalaceBooks and I just found the book that strike [sic] fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump (right).” Rep. Ellison is also the Deputy-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was the second member of Congress to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic Party nominee for president. Ellison is also co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The book Rep. Ellison is holding is “ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” written by Mark Bray.

Soon after Ellison tweeted his purchase of the ANTIFA book Bray tweeted:

The Washington Post’s Carlos Lozada wrote the below review of the ANTIFA handbook:

“Insurgent activist movements need spokesmen, intellectuals and apologists, and for the moment Mark Bray is filling in as all three… The book’s most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists.” [Emphasis added]

QUESTION: Why would the Co-Chairman of the DNC purchase let alone endorse a book that calls for “stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists?”


To understand one must look at Rep. Ellison’s background and the current policies of the Democratic Party.

According to Discover the Networks:

Born in August 1963, Keith Maurice Ellison was raised as a Roman Catholic in Detroit, Michigan. At age 19, while attending Wayne State University, he converted to Islam because he perceived it to be a faith that “might inform social change [and] justice in society.” After graduating with a BA in economics in 1987, Ellison enrolled at the University of Minnesota Law School.

As a third-year law student in 1989-90, Ellison penned four columns for the Minnesota Daily under the name “Keith E. Hakim”:

(a) In a November 27, 1989 piece titled “Minister [Louis] Farrakhan Never Claimed to Be a ‘Malcolm X’,” Ellison laid out his views about racism:

“Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites. It cannot be intelligently argued that the Nation of Islam is doing this. In fact, blacks have no history of harming or subjecting whites as a class. On the other hand, whites have it written into their very Constitution that blacks shall be considered three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation of their white owners. Their Constitution also makes provisions for the return of runaway slaves. Their [U.S.] constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

[ … ]

In September 2017, Ellison spoke at a panel discussion about immigration reform and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an executive action by which former president Barack Obama had permitted most DREAM Act-eligible individuals to gain temporary legal status, work permits, access to certain publicly funded social services, and protection from deportation. “[A]s many as three million DACA recipients live with someone who is a citizen of the United States,” said Ellison. “Add that to the people who work with a DACA recipient. Add that to people who are the parents of a DACA recipient. Add that to people who are parents of American citizens. You are literally talking about over 100 million Americans who are in some way — way more than 100 million, maybe well over that — who are deeply connected to people who have immigrated to the United States, some with official papers, some with not.” Reasoning, from that premise, that Americans have a moral obligation to provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens, Ellison then likened modern-day illegals aliens living in the United States to Jews who lived in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and ’40s: “If you ask yourself, ‘What I would I do if I was a gentile in 1941 if my Jewish neighbors were under attack by the Nazis, would I give them sanctuary?’ You might be about to find what you’d do. Will you pass that moral test, or will you fail it?” [Emphasis added]

Ellison, since his conversion to Islam, association with the Democratic Party and as Deputy-Chair of the DNC, has focused himself on racism, social justice and most recently immigration.


The Democratic Party platform on Immigration Reform:

Photo from Immigration Reform.

Democrats are fighting for every immigrant who feels threatened by Donald Trump’s election. We will not stand by and watch families be torn apart — Democrats in Congress and in states and cities across the country are already standing up to Trump’s hatred and bigotry to defend their immigrant neighbors. 

Thanks to President Obama, hundreds of thousands of DREAMers have been able to receive a temporary status that allows them to study, work, pay taxes, and contribute to the communities they grew up in. His administration has made a tremendous difference by prioritizing immigration enforcement so that it is focused on those with criminal records and doesn’t arbitrarily separate families, and Democrats are fighting to protect that progress.

Democrats will continue to work toward comprehensive immigration reform that fixes our nation’s broken immigration system, improves border security, prioritizes enforcement so we are targeting criminals – not families, keeps families together, and strengthens our economy.

Democrats know the importance of our country’s history as a nation of immigrants. We honor our fundamental values by treating all people who come to the United States with dignity and respect, and we always seek to embrace — not to to attack — immigrants. [Emphasis added]


The DHS-FBI Intelligence Assessment: Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements notes:

(U) Key Judgments

(U//FOUO) Our examination of anarchist extremist violence in the United States and in Greece, Italy, and Mexico revealed several prominent features that may inform strategies to counter domestic terrorism:

» (U//FOUO) DHS and FBI assess the primary factor explaining the difference in targets between foreign and US anarchist extremists is foreign anarchist extremists’ focus on specific economic and governance issues relative to their geographic area, while US anarchist extremists tend to focus on symbols of capitalism. We assess the likely primary factor explaining foreign anarchist extremists’ greater willingness to use more violent tactics than their US counterparts is that these foreign anarchist extremist movements are often more organized—allowing for more complex attacks—and have a well-established tradition of lethal violence not currently seen in the United States.

[ … ]

(U) Social Justice

(U//FOUO) Social justice issues––specifically opposition to gentrification and opposition to perceived racism and fascism––were the second most common driver of violence for US anarchist extremists, as they accounted for 26 percent (7 of 27) of attacks. Social justice issues accounted for 12 percent of violent foreign anarchist extremist attacks, although these incidents occurred only in Greece and were all against perceived fascism. Although social justice issues can motivate anarchist extremists to violence, they are often a driver for violence if a social justice issue occurs within a location that also has an anarchist extremist presence.

(U//FOUO) Social justice issues often result in legal protest activities, and historically, in both the United States and abroad, anarchist extremists have been known to co-opt legal protests as a cover to commit violence against their targets. However, a review of data in this study indicated in the seven social-justice motivated violent incidents committed by US anarchist extremists, only one of those incidents exploited otherwise legal protest activity. The reasons for this finding are currently a reporting gap. [Emphasis added]


Democrats are “fighting” for “every immigrant “who feels threatened by Donald Trump’s election” and Trump’s “hatred and bigotry.” Keith Ellison likens modern-day illegal aliens to “Jews who lived in Nazi Germany.” Ellison is in perfect tune with the Democratic platform on immigration, which both see as a “social justice” issue.

This aligns with the DHS-FBI report finding that “social justice issues” are the second most common driver of violence for U.S. anarchists (such as ANTIFA). Attacking capitalism is the #1 focus of groups such as Occupy Wall Street, ANTIFA, Organizing for Action and the Democratic Party.

As the Co-Chair of the DNC Keith Ellison’s endorsement of the ANTIFA book is entirely predictable. While others are shocked, we are not.

RELATED ARTICLE: Antifa book endorsed by Keith Ellison promotes VIOLENCE against political opponents

Florida Lawyer caught making ‘suspicious campaign contributions’ to Democrats

Michael J. Fuller, Jr.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) uncovered an investigation conducted by the West Virginia Secretary of State into suspicious campaign contributions made by Michael J. Fuller, Jr., a partner in the Mississippi-based McHugh Fuller Law Group, and Steven Edwards of Plant City, Florida.  The McHugh Fuller Law Group website biography on Fuller reads:

Mike Fuller has extensive experience in nursing home, medical malpractice and criminal prosecutions and trials. He has worked with a top national law firm and the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office in Florida.

[ … ]

Mr. Fuller is licensed to practice law in Florida, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and West Virginia.

Specific subjects of the investigation were: identity theft, forgery/uttering, computer fraud and falsifying accounts and similar felonious violations of West Virginia law, according to official law enforcement files.  These files, including email, letters, minutes of official meetings and electronic recordings of witness statements, were obtained through the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act.  The recipients of the money, the campaigns of Supreme Court Justice Robin Jean Davis, former Democrat Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Letitia Chafin for Supreme Court, were not the targets of the investigation and are not accused of any violations of law.

Fuller also made a $2,700 contribution to the 2016 presidential campaign of Democrat Martin O’Malley. Fuller’s contribution to O’Malley Presidential Campaign was made 8 days before O’Malley’s announcement to run to become the Democratic nominee for President.

The report from West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, referring the matter to Kanawha CountyProsecutor Charles Miller, described a series of “unlawful ‘strawman’ campaign contributions made through a scheme orchestrated by Michael Fuller, Jr. and Steven Edwards. The facts and circumstances are contained in the report and supporting documentary evidence.” The evidence includes copies of suspicious checks and a confession from one of the straw donors who claimed that Mr. Fuller asked for the donations and would repay the donors – which is a conduit contribution and crime.

“The Secretary of State gathered evidence describing felonies and misdemeanors, so why aren’t there any files to show the prosecutor presented the evidence to a grand jury, as required by law?  Why did the prosecutor instead brief former Obama Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole, now in private practice, when his client was not implicated in the case? Why did the prosecutor alert Jim Cole when we submitted a FOIA request,” asked Roman Stauffer, Executive Director of WV CALA.

“Lawsuit abuse around the country costs honest businesses millions each year and makes it difficult to create economic opportunity for anyone except the trial lawyers.  Trial lawyers with business before the courts should not be able to continue to finance the elections of the very judges who preside over those courts.  Reform is just common sense and way past due.  That is why we filed the FOIA request and why we continue to demand transparency and accountability,” Stauffer concluded.


West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (WV CALA) is a non-profit citizen watchdog group committed to equal justice for all West Virginians. WV CALA has been fighting lawsuit abuse in the state for more than 10 years, and our organization now has more than 30,000 members located in every county throughout the state.


Buying Justice: Private Jets And Campaign Donations Jeopardize High Court’s Integrity – The Daily Caller

West Virginia campaign finance probe ends amid questions