Mississippi Senate Candidate Mike Espy Trailed by Ethical Questions

Mike Espy, the Democratic candidate in Mississippi’s Nov. 27 Senate runoff election, has been dogged by ethical questions over the course of his political career.

Espy, a former congressman who served as agricultural secretary during former President Bill Clinton’s first term, will face Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in the runoff election after neither candidate secured a majority of the vote in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

Espy has faced scrutiny over his lobbying work for the Ivory Coast under its then-president, Laurent Gbagbo, who is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Espy said in 2011 that he stopped lobbying for Gbagbo’s government less than a month after taking a three-month contract. Espy also claimed at the time to have received only $400,000 of the $750,000 contract and to have forgone the remaining $350,000.

But a report from Fox News on Nov. 15 appears to contradict that claim.

A signed Foreign Agents Registration Act Supplemental Statement that Espy filed with the Department of Justice in June 2011 shows that he worked for Gbagbo’s government for longer than two months and was paid the full $750,000.

Espy’s lobbying for Gbagbo’s government has previously faced accusations of ethical wrongdoing.

(Photo: HERB SWANSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Congressman Mike Espy (2nd-L) accepts his nomination for Secretary of Agriculture 24 December 1992 in Arkansas as U.S. President-elect Bill Clinton (L) listens. (Photo: HERB SWANSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Espy resigned from the Clinton administration in October 1994 while under investigation for allegedly receiving improper gifts.

Espy was indicted on 30 related felony charges in August 1997, but was acquitted on all charges in December 1998 after the jury concluded there wasn’t evidence of a quid-pro-quo or of Espy accepting the gifts with criminal intent.

Espy’s acquittal has been compared to the unsuccessful prosecutions of New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez and former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Although Espy escaped conviction, the Office of Independent Counsel’s (OIC) investigation “revealed a pervasive pattern of improper behavior by Secretary Espy and his top aide, and by persons and companies regulated by or with business before the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),” according to the OIC’s final report.

“The investigation disclosed that, among other offenses, companies with financially important matters pending before USDA gave Secretary Espy – either directly or via members of his family or his girlfriend – numerous gifts in an effort to garner his favor,” the OIC’s January 2001 report states.

Espy’s chief of staff at the USDA, Ronald H. Blackley, was sentenced in March 1998 to 27 months in prison for “lying about $22,000 he received from two Mississippi individuals who obtained large government farming subsidies,” The Washington Post reported at the time.

The Espy campaign did not return a request for comment.

COLUMN BY

PETER HASSON

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

RELATED ARTICLE: MSNBC Host Says Menendez Corruption Case ‘Doesn’t Look Close, It Looks Overwhelming’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DeSantis Cheers Brenda Snipes’ Resignation, Says Broward County ‘Dropped the Ball’

Republican Florida Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday to applaud the resignation of Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes and said there was “no way as governor that [he] was going to let her preside over another election.”

“Obviously we’re going to have to address some of the problems with the election administration in places like Broward and Palm Beach County,” DeSantis said.

dcnf-logo

“I think it’s good that Brenda Snipes has submitted her resignation.”

DeSantis claimed he would not have let Snipes continue under his administration and said she “dropped the ball” during the statewide recount.

“There was no way as governor that I was going to let her preside over another election down there after all the problems that they had,” he continued. “So we had 65 counties do a good job. We had two that dropped the ball. We want to make sure all 67 counties do these elections in a fair way.”

Snipes could have faced an “embarrassing suspension from office at the hands of either Gov. Rick Scott or his likely successor, Ron DeSantis,” according to Politico.

Host Ainsley Earhardt asked DeSantis what the next step in the process is and he said either he or outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Scott would appoint her replacement after she officially leaves office.

“It depends on when her resignation is effective. I heard it was going to be effective sometime in early January, about the time I’m being sworn in. So, yeah, then that will fall to me to appoint her replacement. If she has resigned immediately, then Gov. Scott would have a window to appoint it before he leaves office,” DeSantis said.

COLUMN BY

Nick Givas

Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @NGivasDC

RELATED ARTICLES:

The “Found Ballot” Fraud

Palm Beach County Techs Tell Tales Of “Total Incompetence” In Operating Voting Machines

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

President Trump’s Proclamation on Mass Migration

The whole idea of Democratic operatives’ well funded caravans is to overwhelm the U.S. asylum system and turn thousands of illegal aliens loose into our country in order to become “undocumented Democrats” and fraudulently vote in elections.

President Trump’s new rule on asylum fixes a dangerous loophole.

President Trump signed a presidential proclamation (below) that prevents migrants from claiming asylum unless they do so at an official border crossing. Despite pushback from the leftist organizations, like the ACLU, the order merely directs people to one of more than 300 ports of entry to legally present their asylum claims, which will be evaluated in a fair and orderly process. Heritage experts say this new rule will fix a loophole that has been used to overwhelm the immigration system, destabilize the border region, and make millions for human trafficking cartels.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Congress Can Do Now to Fix Immigration Enforcement

REPORT: Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections

Heritage’s latest report on how to fix immigration law and enforcement.

‘It’s Your Right to Go to the US’: What I Saw When I Visited the Migrant Caravan

Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States

IMMIGRATION Issued on: November 9, 2018

The United States expects the arrival at the border between the United States and Mexico (southern border) of a substantial number of aliens primarily from Central America who appear to have no lawful basis for admission into our country. They are traveling in large, organized groups through Mexico and reportedly intend to enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and to seek asylum, despite the fact that, based on past experience, a significant majority will not be eligible for or be granted that benefit. Many entered Mexico unlawfully — some with violence — and have rejected opportunities to apply for asylum and benefits in Mexico. The arrival of large numbers of aliens will contribute to the overloading of our immigration and asylum system and to the release of thousands of aliens into the interior of the United States. The continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders. I therefore must take immediate action to protect the national interest, and to maintain the effectiveness of the asylum system for legitimate asylum seekers who demonstrate that they have fled persecution and warrant the many special benefits associated with asylum.

In recent weeks, an average of approximately 2,000 inadmissible aliens have entered each day at our southern border. In Fiscal Year 2018 overall, 124,511 aliens were found inadmissible at ports of entry on the southern border, while 396,579 aliens were apprehended entering the United States unlawfully between such ports of entry. The great number of aliens who cross unlawfully into the United States through the southern border consumes tremendous resources as the Government seeks to surveil, apprehend, screen, process, and detain them.

Aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and are subject to expedited removal may avoid being promptly removed by demonstrating, during an initial screening process, a credible fear of persecution or torture. Approximately 2 decades ago, most aliens deemed inadmissible at a port of entry or apprehended after unlawfully entering the United States through the southern border were single adults who were promptly returned to Mexico, and very few asserted a fear of return. Since then, however, there has been a massive increase in fear-of-persecution or torture claims by aliens who enter the United States through the southern border. The vast majority of such aliens are found to satisfy the credible-fear threshold, although only a fraction of the claimants whose claims are adjudicated ultimately qualify for asylum or other protection. Aliens found to have a credible fear are often released into the interior of the United States, as a result of a lack of detention space and a variety of other legal and practical difficulties, pending adjudication of their claims in a full removal proceeding in immigration court. The immigration adjudication process often takes years to complete because of the growing volume of claims and because of the need to expedite proceedings for detained aliens. During that time, many released aliens fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with subsequent orders of removal, or are difficult to locate and remove.

Members of family units pose particular challenges. The Federal Government lacks sufficient facilities to house families together. Virtually all members of family units who enter the United States through the southern border, unlawfully or without proper documentation, and that are found to have a credible fear of persecution, are thus released into the United States. Against this backdrop of near-assurance of release, the number of such aliens traveling as family units who enter through the southern border and claim a credible fear of persecution has greatly increased. And large numbers of family units decide to make the dangerous and unlawful border crossing with their children.

The United States has a long and proud history of offering protection to aliens who are fleeing persecution and torture and who qualify under the standards articulated in our immigration laws, including through our asylum system and the Refugee Admissions Program. But our system is being overwhelmed by migration through our southern border. Crossing the border to avoid detection and then, if apprehended, claiming a fear of persecution is in too many instances an avenue to near-automatic release into the interior of the United States. Once released, such aliens are very difficult to remove. An additional influx of large groups of aliens arriving at once through the southern border would add tremendous strain to an already taxed system, especially if they avoid orderly processing by unlawfully crossing the southern border.

The entry of large numbers of aliens into the United States unlawfully between ports of entry on the southern border is contrary to the national interest, and our law has long recognized that aliens who seek to lawfully enter the United States must do so at ports of entry. Unlawful entry puts lives of both law enforcement and aliens at risk. By contrast, entry at ports of entry at the southern border allows for orderly processing, which enables the efficient deployment of law enforcement resources across our vast southern border.

Failing to take immediate action to stem the mass migration the United States is currently experiencing and anticipating would only encourage additional mass unlawful migration and further overwhelming of the system.

Other presidents have taken strong action to prevent mass migration. In Proclamation 4865 of September 29, 1981 (High Seas Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to an influx of Haitian nationals traveling to the United States by sea, President Reagan suspended the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas and ordered the Coast Guard to intercept such aliens before they reached United States shores and to return them to their point of origin. In Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to a dramatic increase in the unlawful mass migration of Haitian nationals to the United States, President Bush ordered additional measures to interdict such Haitian nationals and return them to their home country. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of those measures in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry. In anticipation of a large group of aliens arriving in the coming weeks, I am directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to commit additional resources to support our ports of entry at the southern border to assist in processing those aliens — and all others arriving at our ports of entry — as efficiently as possible.

But aliens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that became effective earlier today. Those aliens may, however, still seek other forms of protection from persecution or torture. In addition, this limited suspension will facilitate ongoing negotiations with Mexico and other countries regarding appropriate cooperative arrangements to prevent unlawful mass migration to the United States through the southern border. Thus, this proclamation is also necessary to manage and conduct the foreign affairs of the United States effectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), respectively) hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico is hereby suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire 90 days after the date of this proclamation or the date on which an agreement permits the United States to remove aliens to Mexico in compliance with the terms of section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A)), whichever is earlier.

Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply only to aliens who enter the United States after the date of this proclamation.

(b) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection, or to any lawful permanent resident of the United States.

(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall limit an alien entering the United States from being considered for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) or protection pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the authority of the implementing legislation regarding the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or limit the statutory processes afforded to unaccompanied alien children upon entering the United States under section 279 of title 6, United States Code, and section 1232 of title 8, United States Code.

(d) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension or limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.

Sec. 3. Interdiction. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Government of Mexico regarding appropriate steps — consistent with applicable law and the foreign policy, national security, and public-safety interests of the United States — to address the approach of large groups of aliens traveling through Mexico with the intent of entering the United States unlawfully, including efforts to deter, dissuade, and return such aliens before they physically enter United States territory through the southern border.

Sec. 4. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the failure to follow certain procedures, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

DONALD J. TRUMP

EDITOR NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Don Ross III on Unsplash.

Where to Shop this Christmas

With Black Friday next week and Cyber Monday soon after, it is clear Christmas shopping is about to be in full swing. Maybe you’ve received a few Christmas gift lists, maybe you’ve sent them out, or maybe you’re left to your own devices this year for your loved ones. Whatever your situation, Christmas shopping can easily send you scrambling all over town in search of those perfect gifts, so here are a handful of stores that we suggest doing your Christmas shopping at this year.

Ace Hardware
Is there a handy guy or gal in your life that would like some new tools? Ace Hardware, rightfully coined the helpful place, is your destination. There variety of tools and helpful service make it the perfect alternative for Home Depot and Lowe’s.

Anthropologie
Anthropologie is the gift destination this year for the trendsetter in your family. The store is packed full of trendy home decor and the latest fashion. Buying their gift from Anthropologie will transform you into the ”cool one” this Christmas.

Overstock.com
Overstock is the website to check out if the idea of visiting a store during Christmas time makes you nauseated. They have everything from furniture to jewelry. If you have a long list filled with variety and in need of convenience, Overstock is a great alternative to Amazon this year.

When you’re rushed, it’s easy to forget to check 2ndVote scores to make sure your dollar is aligning with your values. That’s why we’ve made the list and checked it twice so you don’t have to stress about where to go this season. Here is our complete Christmas List:


Ace Hardware – 4
Anthropologie – 3
Bass Pro Shops – 5
Bed Bath & Beyond – 3
Dillards – 3
Hobby Lobby – 5
J.Crew – 3
Kay Jewelers – 3
Overstock.com – 4
World Market – 3


Click here to find out what stores to avoid shopping at this Christmas!


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Judge’s Ruling Adds Thousands More Votes In Florida Recount

In a victory for the campaign hopes of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a federal judge has ordered all of Florida’s elections officials to give nearly 4,000 voters — or more maybe 7,000, no one is sure — whose ballots were rejected over mismatched signatures until Saturday to fix the problem and for their votes to count.

Judge Mark Walker ruled early today that apparently all of the state’s elections offices have wrongly, or unconstitutionally, applied the state law governing how voters can fix rejected signatures on absentee and provisional ballots. There were a known 3,700 ballots rejected in the Midterm election after canvassing boards determined that the signature on a mail-in or provisional ballot did not match the signature the state had on file for that voter.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson’s campaign sued last week to invalidate the signature rejection process, amid a series of lawsuits attempting to change Florida voting laws through the courts and push more votes into the final tallies.

Judge Walker issued a 34-page order granting a temporary injunction at the request of the Nelson campaign, and directed the state’s supervisors of elections to gives these voters until 5 p.m. Saturday to “cure” the problem.

The law had given voters had until the day before the election to fix the signature issue. So this ruling does change state law for this election, as it allows votes to be counted after the law said they cannot be.

If these are all Democrat votes, and most of them likely will be, they alone would not be enough to flip the two major elections. But they would get it closer.

In the Senate race, Republican Gov. Rick Scott is leading Nelson by 12,562 votes, or 0.15 percent. In the Governor’s race, Republican Ron DeSantis is up 0.41 percent, or 33,684 votes, on Democrat Andrew Gillum.

However, and this is a really big caveat, it isn’t really known the total number of ballots that were rejected or mismatched signatures. Only 45 of Florida’s 67 counties had provided totals to the court on mismatched signatures during Walker’s hearing on the lawsuit last week. So it will likely be higher, but how much higher, no one knows. Some have predicted it could be 7,000.

Scott’s campaign is appealing Walker’s order. But that does not seem likely to change anything at this point.

Further, Judge Walker is scheduled to hear more lawsuits, including a challenge by Nelson to the state’s procedures for counting overvotes and undervotes. The Nelson campaign is confident they will close the gap through the overvote and undervote process, and more so if they can change the process.

The Nelson campaign is also suing to extend today’s deadline for Florida’s elections supervisors to get their recount totals to Tallahassee.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Palm Beach County, Democrats Argue To Count Votes Cast By Non-Citizens

Republican Rick Scott Gains Votes in Florida Recount, Calls on Democrat Nelson To Concede

Rubio Exposes The Blatant Voter Fraud Democrats Committed In Florida

Florida Counties Abandon Recount As Numbers Favor Republicans

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Heather Mount on Unsplash.

Americans Should Be Grateful for a Poland That Prospers and Protects

We celebrated a significant milestone this Veterans Day: 100 years since the end of World War I.

But another noteworthy anniversary fell on that day. Nov. 11, 2018, also marked the centennial of a free Poland, one of America’s most important allies in Europe.

It’s been a rough journey, though. The road since that historic day in 1918 has been pockmarked with strife.

Being situated between Germany and Russia is the global equivalent of drawing the short straw. World War II officially began on Sept. 1, 1939, when Hitler’s army invaded Poland from the west. Only 17 days later, the Soviets rolled in from the east.

Thanks to the postwar Warsaw Pact, Poland wound up in the Soviet bloc of states, its people ruled by communists who did Moscow’s bidding.

But this state of affairs was not destined to last forever. The determined and courageous efforts of certain key leaders—from President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to Pope John Paul II (the first Polish pontiff) and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa—effected a remarkable transformation in the 1980s.

Together, they and the freedom-loving people of Poland rewrote history. Their country today is a NATO member and a loyal friend of the United States.

I was back in Poland just (some weeks) before its recent round of elections in October and met with Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. Once again, I was struck with what a vibrant democracy it is.

It also features an open and growing economy—the European Union’s sixth-largest, in fact, thanks in part to a strong manufacturing sector. Poland ranks 45th out of 180 countries in the latest Index of Economic Freedom. Sure, it has a couple of weak spots, but considering how long the country suffered under communist rule, that’s really a remarkable accomplishment.

Poland’s strong institutions, the index editors note, enabled it to become the only European country to record economic growth during the 2009 credit crisis.

More importantly for the United States, Poland is key to a safe Europe. It is a vital bulwark against Moscow’s geopolitical designs. As historian Lee Edwards has pointed out:

As the next-door neighbor of Ukraine and with uncertainty about Russia’s next aggressive move, Poland matters. Adjoining as it does the three Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—all prime targets of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperialist design—Poland matters. As the largest, most prosperous, and most entrepreneurial member of the old Warsaw Pact, Poland matters.

Poland certainly does matter, which is why Americans should be grateful that relations between our nations remains strong. Georgette Mosbacher, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, and Piotr Wilczek, Poland’s ambassador to the U.S., just penned a joint op-ed to praise what they called “a high point in bilateral relations.”

This was reinforced in September when President Donald Trump and President Andrzej Duda signed a “Declaration on Polish-American Strategic Partnership.” According to the two ambassadors, it “emphasizes the strong ties and common interests between our countries in the areas of security and defense, energy, trade, and investment, research and innovation.”

As Walesa once said, “I am happy that Poland is returning to the road of pluralism and democracy.”

Working together with our Polish allies, let’s make sure that, over the next 100 years, its star continues to rise.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED VIDEO: Thousands of nationalists march in Warsaw for Independence Day.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Kamila StepienLe Pictorium/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

Election Results Point to a Political Change Occurring Among Black Young Adults

Buried in the mounds of data fleshing out what happened in the midterm elections is an interesting take on blacks.

Nationwide data on black voting in this election cycle do not point to much change. Various polls over recent months seemed to indicate that blacks were starting to warm up to Republicans and President Donald Trump.

But blacks went 90 percent for Democrats and 8 percent for Republicans. Pretty much business as usual.

However, digging down, we find something interesting.

Blacks ages 18 to 29 voted 82 percent for Democrats and 14 percent for Republicans. That seems to point to change taking place among young blacks.

Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that in the 2014 midterms, 18- to 29-year-old blacks voted in concert with the overall average: 88 percent for Democrats and 11 percent for Republicans.

Either we have a fluke in this year’s midterms or some kind of change in political thinking is taking hold among young African-Americans.

I think there is good reason to believe the latter. Of course, where it goes depends on how Republicans choose to think about and handle the situation.

Adding to this curiosity is something else of interest. The inclination to vote Republican as a function of age is the complete reverse for blacks as it is for whites.

Younger blacks vote Republican at higher percentages than older blacks. Younger whites vote Republican at lower percentages than older whites.

Compared with the 14 percent of 18- to 29-year-old blacks who voted Republican in the midterms, 6.5 percent of blacks who are 45 or older voted Republican.

Compared with the 43 percent of 18- to 29-year-old whites who voted Republican, 58.5 percent of whites who are 45 or older voted Republican.

How might we understand this?

According to the Federal Reserve, as of 2016, median black household income was $35,400, and median black household net worth was $17,600. Contrast that with $61,200 median income and $171,000 median net worth for whites.

After all these years of government programs to help low-income Americans, African-Americans, on average, are not catching up.

Perhaps the message is sinking in to young blacks that what they need is more freedom and the kind of growing economy that goes with it.

They are seeing firsthand the results in the economic recovery that has taken place over the past two years. There were over 650,000 more blacks working last month than there were in October 2017. Compared with the average monthly numbers of 2016, there were over 1.3 million more blacks working.

According to reports that have been rolling out during this recovery, the boom has created a tight job market, which has created new opportunities for previously unemployable lower-end workers. This has meant new opportunities for young blacks.

Young white voters—who, on average, come from higher-income homes and have a higher chance of getting help in starting out from their parents—seem to be likelier to buy into the big-government and social justice mindset than their parents and grandparents.

Republicans should highlight for young blacks the critical importance of capitalism and a free economy for upward mobility. However, they also need to inform them that the same Federal Reserve report showing large gaps in income and wealth between blacks and whites also shows 61 percent of white households as having a married couple or romantic partners, compared with 37 percent of black households.

The message is that wealth is created through freedom and family.

Trump won in 2016 by flipping states that were blue to red by very thin margins.

Florida, for example, with 29 electoral votes, which Trump won by a margin of about 1 percentage point, will be critical in 2020. We see now the elections there for senator and governor at razor-thin margins.

Republicans should target African-Americans in Florida and other swing states with the message of upward mobility. It could make all the difference in 2020.

COPYRIGHT 2018 STAR PARKER

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Star Parker

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

EXCLUSIVE: Mich State Dept investigates college for potential campaign finance violations

  • The Michigan State Department launched an investigation into Schoolcraft College over possible campaign finance violations.
  • The investigation was prompted by an ethics complaint, filed by Michigan attorney Karen Woodside.

The Michigan State Department is investigating Schoolcraft College for potential campaign finance violations after school employees allegedly used public resources for political activism.

The Michigan Department of State confirmed to Campus Reform on Tuesday that its Bureau of Elections unit launched an investigation into  Schoolcraft College for potentially illegal activity. Fred Woodhams of the Michigan State Department told Campus Reform that the investigation will take a couple of months to complete.

The Michigan Department of State confirmed to Campus Reform on Tuesday that its Bureau of Elections unit launched an investigation into Schoolcraft College for potentially illegal activity.    

Michigan attorney Karen Woodside filed an ethics complaint against Schoolcraft College, as previously reported by Campus Reform. Woodside’s complaint alleged that some employees used school computers during office hours to campaign for a property tax hike on the Nov. 6 election ballot. The ballot initiative did pass and is set to give the school increased funding through 2029.

Employees urged residents to vote in support of the initiative, referring to the ballot question passing as “winning,” according to emails obtained by Campus Reform.

According to Michigan campaign finance law, “a public body or a person acting for a public body shall not use or authorize the use of funds, personnel, office space, computer hardware or software, property, stationery, postage, vehicles, equipment, supplies, or other public resources to make a contribution or expenditure” for local ballot questions.

An incident in which communications show “express advocacy” can be addressed by Michigan’s Secretary of State Elections Bureau, according to Watchdog.org.

Campus Reform reached out to Schoolcraft College, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mich college accused of using public resources to promote tax hike

Email to students gives voting ‘recommendations’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

A New Way of Tracking Trump’s Judicial Nominees

Addressing a convention of labor commissioners in 1889, prominent government statistician Carroll D. Wright reminded his audience that “figures will not lie,” but warned that “liars will figure.” He urged them to “prevent the liar from figuring”—that is, from “perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he is trying to establish.”

To that end, The Heritage Foundation has launched its Judicial Appointment Tracker, a tool to track judicial nominations and confirmations, not only currently but also compared to previous administrations.

The judges a president appoints may be his most important legacy. Judges serve long after the appointing president leaves office. They have the power to determine what our laws mean and to decide cases involving the most important issues of our time.

It was not supposed to be that way, because judges were never meant to be so powerful. America’s Founders assigned a modest role for judges within our system, leading Alexander Hamilton to call the judiciary the “weakest” and “least dangerous” branch.

The conflict over judicial appointments today is really a conflict over judicial power—whether to maintain, or abandon, the judicial role as defined by the Founders.

Evaluating and participating in the judicial appointment process requires good information. Not just random, carefully spun data points, but fair, accurate, and reliable statistics in proper context.

The Judicial Appointment Tracker provides this data for six elements of the judicial appointment process: vacancies, nominees, hearings, confirmations, cloture votes, and roll call votes. It provides the current data since President Donald Trump took office and comparable data for the previous five presidents.

The status of judicial appointments as of Nov. 13 in the second year of the last six administrations. (Photo: The Heritage Foundation)

Each of these categories can significantly affect what people know or understand about the process. For example, Trump’s 19 appointments in 2017 and President Bill Clinton’s 20 appointments in 1996 appear comparable until one realizes that vacancies averaged 127 in 2017, but only 61 in 1996.

The 65 judges confirmed so far this year surpasses the average of 56 appointed during previous presidents’ second year. But this year’s progress is even more significant in light of Democratic obstruction. Democrats forced the Senate to take a separate vote to end debate on 43 percent of judicial nominations, compared to fewer than 2 percent under previous presidents.

Some senators and activist groups, as well as media covering the appointment process, often paint a skewed picture when it comes to appointments, making false comparisons between apples and oranges, or even worse. The Judicial Appointment Tracker will provide an accurate picture, using similar time periods and, when necessary, percentages rather than raw totals to maintain the validity of comparisons over time.

The tracker will also be updated immediately whenever there is a new development in these categories, such as new vacancy figures from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court, hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or votes on the Senate floor.

Liars may figure, but this new resource will present accurate, reliable, and comparable data about the judicial appointment process so that the figures can speak for themselves.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Why Do We Have The Electoral College? Because More People Live in New York City Than in 40 of the 50 States.

The Democrat Party and its leaders want to do away with the Electoral College. The argument is that the President should be elected based upon the “popular vote.” Democrat Socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed:

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez gets a number of things wrong in her tweet.

  1. The Electoral College is not a “shadow of slavery’s power on America.”
  2. America is not a democratic republic, rather America is a Constitutional republic.
  3. To eliminate the Electoral College would require amending the U.S. Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3rd majority of both Houses of Congress and 2/3rds of the states voting for the amendment.

The elimination of the Electoral Collage has become the clarion call of the Democrat Party, repeatedly voiced by its leadership, including Hillary Clinton.  What is important to understand is that the Electoral College is, in fact, based upon the popular vote.

History of the Electoral College

According to the National Archives and Records Administration:

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. [Emphasis added]

How Are the Electoral College Votes Allocated?

The National Archives states:

Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated three electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College.

The allocations below are based on the 2010 Census. They are effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections.

Total Electoral Votes:  538;   Majority Needed to Elect:  270

Here is the current allocation of Electoral College votes:

State Number of Electoral Votes
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Florida 29
Georgia 16
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 20
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3

Source:   U.S. Census Bureau    Last Update:  12/10/2010

Therefore the Electoral College is based upon the census, the number of people per state!

This is why Democrats want to give illegal aliens the right to vote and keep them on the census.

If the Electoral College was eliminated, what would happen?

If the Electoral College was eliminated then the United States would no longer be a Constitutional Republic, it would become a democracy or even a monarchy. Diffen.com published the below chart comparing the differences between the Electoral College and popular vote:

Comparison chart

Electoral Vote versus Popular Vote comparison chart
Electoral Vote Popular Vote
Political Structure Representative republic Direct democracy
Progression of Vote Citizen votes for delegate or representative, generally in accordance with their allegiances/party affiliation. Delegates convene and vote. Winner of that vote is elected for the position in question. Citizens vote for their choice of official for the position being elected. Votes are counted. Majority of votes is elected to that position.
Bureaucracy Requires formation of some form of committee, college, or council to vote after they’ve been elected. May also have government oversight organizations. Requires no formation of such groups, nor the election of such groups. May also have government oversight organizations.
Establishment of Voting Districts Mandatory, regional delegates run for given district’s delegate locations via their party or individually. Not required.
Gerrymandering Present and created as a result of voting districts. Not created due to lack of need for voting districts.
Party Benefits Favors majority parties, as they can concentrate resources, change bureaucracy, establish and gerrymander voting districts. Favors no party size in particular, though greatly improves potential for minority parties e.g., a third political party in the U.S.
Modern History Does not allow higher populated areas (say, CA or NY) to take advantage of being able to always vote for the candidate, thereby underrepresenting the other rural areas of the nation. Harder to accomplish beyond geographically-close groups prior to modern transportation and communication. These hindrances are no longer in place for developed nations.

Bartleby.com notes that Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Doing away with the Electoral College will inextricably lead at best to a democracy and at worse to a monarchy. John Adams wrote,

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Eliminate’ Electoral College, It ‘Undermines’ Democracy

Florida Media Is Adjusting Recount Expectations Downward

Several major Florida media outlets are running stories today explaining that the likelihood of the contentious Florida election recount changing the results of Tuesday’s elections are very small. That is good news for Republicans, bad news for Democrats, on a couple of fronts.

The state’s largest paper, the Tampa Bay Times, reported:

“…a recount that reverses an initial margin of more than a few hundred votes would be unprecedented in the recent history of American elections.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan group FairVote, which advocates for electoral reforms that make it easier to vote, out of 4,687 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2016, just 26 went to a recount. Of those 26, just three recounts wound up changing the initial result of the race: The 2004 Washington governor’s race, the 2006 Vermont state auditor’s race and the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race. The average swing in those three elections after the recounts? About 311 votes.”

The state’s second largest newspaper, the Miami Herald, ran essentially the same story and statistics. Expect more to follow.

Remember, Republican Gov. Rick Scott has a 12,500-vote lead over Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis has a 34,000-vote lead over Democrat Andrew Gillum in the governor’s race after official tallies were in. While those are tiny leads in such a big state, they’re huge leads for a recount.

For a recount that does not find a major “error” or corrupted system (Broward County?) there is nothing remotely suggesting that this week’s recount will do more than change a few hundred votes. But even if it changes a few thousand votes, the results would still remain the same.

The difference between this time and 2000 in Florida — and the 2008 Minnesota race for U.S. Senator — is that the margins now are much larger and there are no more votes being added to the total. The uproar raised by Republicans and Republican lawyers to stop Broward and Palm Beach counties from continuing to “find” votes well past the legal deadline were successful in both the courts and the eyes of the public.

So unless some court wrangling and a liberal judge allows Broward to manufacture some more Democrat votes — yes, that sounds cynical but it’s pretty hard not to be — then these are the vote totals. The recount will just find anomalies.

That’s why Gillum was in church Sunday politicking away and demanding every vote be counted, because he knows without more votes added to the total, the recount won’t give him the election.

The fact that the media is running these stories this Monday morning is also an important sign. Their readership is heavily Democratic for obvious reasons, and this acts to adjust expectations as those reporters who actually understand Florida voting laws and history realize the chances of changing the outcome of the two big races are very tiny.

If the recount does maintain these results, the left will still fly into hysterics and rage and march and protest and generally throw a tantrum. But they’ve been doing that almost every day since Donald Trump was elected president anyway.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats demand removal of Illinois election judge after she reported fraud

Illegal Ballots Mixed in w/ Broward County Election Results

Yes, Florida Elections Have Had Their Moments, Like 200,000 Non-Citizens Possibly Voting In 2012

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

UPDATED: The Latest On The Florida Recount Furor

On election day, Democrat Nikki Fried lost in a very close race to Republican Matt Caldwell for the Florida Cabinet office of agriculture commissioner. But after Broward’s rounds of late — illegally late — vote tallies, she is now ahead by 5,326 votes,

So in a display of dizzying chutzpah, she has claimed victory and started working on a transition team — before the recount…in a race where she is ahead by six-one-hundredths of one percent (0.06). That’s a problem for a few reasons. Of course the closeness, but also the reality that the most recent tallies do not include the overseas votes, which are primarily military and those tend to skew heavily Republican.

Now the mischief in Broward may still cancel those out, but it’s worth noting that all things being equal at this point, the likelihood of her not losing votes in the recount including military ballots is thin.

11/10/18 — 5:55 p.m.

The official recount is underway, and we’ll see if the re-writing of Florida’s election laws after the disastrous 2000 presidential election has created the smoother process that was promised.

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner called for automatic machine recounts in races for U.S. Senate, governor and agriculture commissioner this afternoon after receiving unofficial vote counts.

This was mandatory. Statewide contests decided by less than a half a percentage point must go through a machine recount — everything is fed back through the machines. This is the case for the races between Gov. Rick Scott and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson; Congressman Ron DeSantis and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum; and Matt Caldwell and Nikki Fried.

If after this, the vote is less than one-quarter of one percentage point, then by law the vote must go to a manual recount, which opens the door for the incompetence and mischief of Broward and Pam Beach counties. It looks like the Scott-Nelson race will likely qualify for that.

EARLIER…

11/10/18 — 10:25 a.m.

The recount drama has now expanded to the the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS is investigating its handling of absentee ballots mailed through a sorting facility in Opa-locka — which is located in Miami-Dade County, just south of Broward County — to “verify that all ballots have been handled in accordance to USPS service standards.”

A group of liberal activists protested outside the federal building, claiming possible voter suppression and sharing photographs they claimed showed scores of uncounted ballots sitting inside the facility’s mail room, according to the Miami Herald.

“At this time, we have no information to suggest any ballots were not properly handled and provided to local election officials, per our established process,” said Debra J. Fetterly, a USPS spokesperson with the South Florida District.

“What we are demanding is some transparency,” said Caroline Thompson of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization. “Voters deserve to know if their ballots are sitting in a mailing facility.”

But apparently these were ballots that were postmarked after Election Day, and thus not legally eligible to be counted. Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, whose district includes Opa-locka facility, confirmed that postal officials told her the ballots left behind were postmarked after Nov. 6 — Election Day.

According to the Florida Division of Elections, absentee ballots must be received by the Supervisor of Elections office no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day. A 10-day extension is offered only for overseas voters, primarily members of the military.

11/09/18 — 8 p.m.

Gov. Rick Scott has won the first round in the process battle.

In Palm Beach County, a Circuit Court Judge granted the Scott team’s request for an injunction and ordered the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections to submit “overvoted” and “undervoted” absentee ballots to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board for an open and public review of each vote before they are counted.

In Broward County, a judge ordered Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes to allow immediate inspection of voter records after an emergency hearing prompted by Scott’s legal team. The Judge said the Supervisor must allow inspections by 7 p.m. Friday evening.

And another lawsuit has been filed by Rep. Matt Caldwell, the Republican candidate for commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, who had apparently won on election night but now is behind.

Caldwell’s lawsuit asks the court to determine if Snipes, the Broward County supervisor of elections, “illegally included ballots after polls closed” Nov. 6. His campaign also filed a public records request for all vote count communications and emails between Snipes, her team and anyone else regarding ballot counting.

And hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Broward County elections headquarters, calling for Snipes to be locked up. Snipes office called Lauderhill police to provide protection, although it was not clear such a step was necessary.

11/09/18 — 12:30 p.m. Original Story

Well, Broward and Palm Beach counties have screwed up another national election. It cannot be emphasized enough that these are the two most heavily Democratic counties in Florida, and before this election, they were known for incompetence and, particularly in Broward, for corruption.

So those of us who have lived in Florida a long time recognize this pattern of recount corruption. Nonetheless, this time we have a Governor who will come out firing and already has filed a lawsuit against Broward and directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate the county elections office. And it goes without saying, yet we will say, we have a President who is more than willing to enter the fray and fight back.

Neither of these leaders existed in the infamous 2000 Florida presidential recount, which absolutely would have eventually gone to Al Gore if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and said, “Enough!” Remember, Palm Beach was the “hanging chads” county and they would have continued to keep “finding” more Democrat votes.

With that context in mind, The Revolutionary Act will be keeping a running update of the recount shenanigans that will have national implications.

Current Tallies

Republican Gov. Rick Scott leads Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in the U.S. Senate race by 0.18 percent, about 15,000 votes — down from the 70,000 on election night.

Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis leads Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum by 0.44 percent, about 36,000 votes.

The Democratic voting “indiscretions” have already flipped one statewide Florida race to a Democrat. Nikki Fried now has a lead of 0.04 percent over Republican Matt Caldwell for the Cabinet post of agriculture commissioner. That’s 2,915 votes. But we all know it will only grow for the Democrat. Caldwell had won that race on election night.

Gov. Rick Scott

Scott has accused Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes and Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher of trying to steal the election — and not without merit.

Snipes has a long and well reported history of violating election laws, the last time being when she destroyed ballots too soon in the re-election of Debbie Wasserman-Schulze in 2016. Scott has ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate Snipes.

Scott has the authority to suspend Snipes and/or Bucher from office. To do so, he must cite evidence of malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty or incompetence. It seems there is prima facia evidence for incompetence. If he does that, he can then appoint an interim elections supervisor.

Scott has filed suit against Snipes, alleging noncompliance with Florida’s Public Records Act by not allowing the inspection of the ballots as required under law. “The allegations are part of what appears to be a broader array of inconsistencies in vote counting,” writes Julio Gonzalez at the Federalist Pages.

“It has been over 48 hours since the polls closed” and ballots are still being “found” in Broward and Palm Beach, Scott said. “The people of Florida deserve fairness and transparency” and Floridians should be very worried about “rampant fraud” in Tuesday’s elections.

Later in the evening, Scott announced the lawsuit: “I will not sit idly by while unethical liberals try to steal this election.”

Sen. Marco Rubio

The Senator not known as a bomb-thrower has gone on a tear on the recount fiasco, and its refreshing. This is a little like when Sen. Lindsey Graham went off during the Judge Kavanaugh hearings. Even mild-mannered Republicans have really begun to have enough of what Democrats are doing and the anger and frustration is rising.

Rubio tweeted out a series of pieces of evidence that essentially makes the case that Snipes held back votes in some reserve method to pull out in case of a recount. It’s pretty incendiary, but also pretty compelling.

Here’s the full tweet storm:

“Long but IMPORTANT THREAT ON ELECTIONS IN #FLORIDA.

#BayCounty was hit by a Cat 4 Hurricane just 4 weeks ago,yet managed to count votes & submit timely results.

Yet over 41 hours after polls closed #Broward elections office is still counting votes?  

#Broward supervisor:

  • says she doesn’t know how many ballots are left to be counted; &
  • Isn’t reporting hourly or regularly, but rather releasing thousands of additional votes, often in the overnight hours,that are chipping away at GOP leads

#Broward elections department has a history of violating the law: 

A court found they improperly handled votes by mail:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/08/13/judge-sides-with-florida-gop-in-absentee-ballot-dispute-with-broward-county-555553 …

Court found they destroyed ballots in 2016 in violation of state & federal law:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/05/14/florida-to-monitor-broward-election-chief-after-judge-finds-unlawful-ballot-destruction-in-wasserman-schultz-race-415832 …

Now democrat lawyers are descending on #Florida. They have been very clear they aren’t here to make sure every vote is counted. 

  •  They are here to change the results of election; &
  • #Broward is where they plan to do it. A U.S. Senate seat & a statewide cabinet officer are now potentially in the hands of an elections supervisor with a history of incompetence & of blatant violations of state & federal laws. 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article220841135.html

#Broward election supervisors ongoing violation of #Florida law requiring timely reporting isn’t just annoying incompetence. It has opened the door for lawyers to come here & try to steal a seat in the U.S. Senate & Florida”

President Trump

Shortly after Scott announced his lawsuit, the President took to Twitter, condemning what he called a “big corruption scandal” brewing in Broward County, adding, “Florida voted for Rick Scott!”

Other State Leaders

Florida’s Republican House Speaker-designate Jose R. Oliva released this statement:

” I fully support and commend the Governor for directing FDLE to investigate. The power of the vote is only as strong as the trust in the count. With each new ballot ‘found’ that trust erodes.”

This is a long way from being resolved. Recounted ballots can be sent to the Florida Department of Elections beginning today (Friday.)

But if history is any guide, Broward and Palm Beach will keep “counting” long after today and keep finding more Democrat votes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Broward Mystery Boxes Tossed Into Trucks After Missed Deadline; Gaetz Forcibly Removed While Filming

Dem-Leaning County in Florida Won’t Meet the Recount Deadline. Here’s What That Means For Voters.

BREAKING: Avis Employee Finds Provisional Ballot Box and Election Signs in Back of Returned Broward County Car (VIDEO)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Progressives Want to Burn Down Any Institution That Doesn’t Favor Them at the Moment

Sometimes progressives do a great job of becoming caricatures of themselves.

The progressive worldview is marked by a tendency to embrace Utopian dreams, and a general disregard for tried and true traditions and institutions.

Ted Kennedy captured this instinct in 1968 when he said, quoting George Bernard Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say, why; I dream things that never were and say, why not.”

But while laws and norms sometimes need to be changed, there is something to be said for recklessly overturning a system that has been at the heart of the strongest and freest country that’s ever existed.

This progressive instinct for change at any cost has gone off the rails.

Historically, progressives have sought to bring about a radical social transformation, and in order to achieve it, they have indulged a tendency to try to upend the constitutional system put in place by the Founding Fathers. But more pathetically, in recent days, they have sought to upend the Constitution for short-term political gain.

When President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, the left wanted to abolish the Electoral College.

When Trump nominated now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the left considered packing or even abolishing the Supreme Court.

Now that Kavanaugh is on the court and Democrats control the House, the left wants to get rid of the Senate, which remains in Republican hands.

Most of the criticism of these institutions is that they aren’t “democratic” enough. But, of course, they were not designed to be democratic. The Founders didn’t believe a purely democratic system would be the best preserver of our natural rights, or even a strong country.

In most of these cases, the left-wing narrative is that the system is “rigged” against them.

Progressives are coming up with increasingly absurd “evidence” to prove this—despite the fact that it seemed to work just fine as recently as 2008 when Democrats controlled every branch of the federal government.

They’ve embraced the same line of argument they used against the Electoral College, coming up with a Senate popular vote stat, which the left believes would favor Democrats.

Besides the absurdity of throwing the composition of the Senate to a mass popular vote, this idea upends the idea of representation to begin with.

Even The Washington Post threw water on this hot take, calling the Senate popular vote stat “bogus” for a host of reasons.

“The biggest problem with it is that not every state is up for reelection, leading to a skewed picture,” wrote the Post’s Aaron Blake. “If more Democratic seats are up for reelection, it stands to reason that Democrats will do well in the popular vote. And that’s exactly what happened in 2018: Democrats were defending 26 states, and Republicans just nine.”

On top of this, California, the most populous state in the union, didn’t even have a Republican senator up for election due to its peculiar primary system. Millions of votes that would have likely went to a Republican instead went to a Democrat.

Nevertheless, progressives insist that we shake the system to its core because it’s all so unfair to them.

Ezra Klein of Vox actually argued that taking a hatchet to these constitutional institutions will add legitimacy to the system.

“American politics is edging into an era of crisis,” Klein wrote. “A constitutional system built to calm the tensions of America’s founding era is distorting the political competition between parties, making the country both less democratic and less Democratic.”

To restore legitimacy now that Democrats have lost some elections, Klein suggests that progressives could cross the Rubicon and begin “pushing the system to a breaking point.”

Does that sound like a good way to promote legitimacy and stability to a republic?

Ultimately, Klein’s argument to upend American government based on its unfairness to progressives is thin gruel at best.

But it isn’t the thinnest of gruel.

The award for that distinction goes to Joy Behar, co-host of “The View,” who rolled incorrectly on the progressive roulette wheel of things to blame for electoral defeats.

Behar hilariously said on the show that the reason Republicans do well in Senate races is that they gerrymander districts to make them more favorable to the GOP.

This is complete nonsense given the fact that Senate races are statewide. There are no districts to redraw.

Whether it’s the nonfactual nonsense of Behar or the pseudo-sophisticated sophistry of Vox.com, temporary political frustrations are a poor reason to upend the American system of governance that has been a miraculous blessing for the American people for over two centuries.

These “reforms” should be seen for what they are: naked power grabs by people who have no respect for the Constitution.

They make it particularly hard to believe that they’re somehow trying to save the country from Trump breaking constitutional norms, when they are perfectly fine breaking any norm at all when it suits them.

Perhaps instead of trying to game the system created by the Founders, which they have so little understanding of and respect for, progressives can try to work within our constitutional system to convince Americans that their ideas are actually the best ideas.

Therein, of course, lies the problem.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

5 Ways House Democrats Plan to Put Heat on Trump

Meet the 8 New Members of the Senate

Podcast: Conservative Women’s Victories Ignored, and Left Turns on White Women


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: G. Ronald Lopez/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

6 Big Moments From Trump’s Epic Press Conference on Midterms

President Donald Trump put a positive light on the split results of Tuesday’s midterm election, which saw Democrats win back control of the House even as Republicans made gains in the Senate.

Here are six key moments from Trump’s 86-minute press conference Wednesday, which included some fiery exchanges with reporters.

  1. ‘No Love’ for Vanquished Republicans

The president framed the outcome, in which Republicans increased their Senate majority while losing their House majority, as a “tremendous success.”

Trump compared the results to those under his predecessor, President Barack Obama, who saw Democrats lose 63 House seats and six Senate seats during his first midterm election in 2010.

“I thought it was very close to complete victory,” he said.

“This vigorous campaigning stopped the ‘blue wave’ that they talked about,” Trump said later. “I don’t know if there ever was such a thing, but could have been. If we didn’t do the campaigning, … there could have been. History really will see what a good job we did in the final couple of weeks.”

Trump said House Republicans who lost failed to embrace him during their campaigns. He called out by name Reps. Mike Coffman of Colorado, Mia Love of Utah, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Peter Roskam of Illinois, Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, and John Faso of New York.

He also called out New Jersey’s Republican Senate candidate, Bob Hugin, who lost to Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez.

Of Coffman, Trump said, “Too bad, Mike.”

Regarding Utah’s Love, Trump said: “Mia Love gave me no love. And she lost. Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia.”

“Peter Roskam didn’t want the embrace. Erik Paulsen didn’t want the embrace,” Trump said. “I’m not sure I feel happy or sad. But I feel just fine about it.”

“In New Jersey, I think [Hugin] could’ve done well but didn’t turn out too good. Bob Hugin, I feel badly because I think that’s something that could’ve been won, a race that could’ve been won.”

“Those are some of the people that decided for their own reason not to embrace—whether it’s me or what we stand for,” Trump said.

  1. ‘Beautiful’ Deals With Pelosi

Trump said he supports House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., becoming House speaker again, even as many new House Democrats have pledged not to support her.

“If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes,” Trump said. “She has earned this great honor.”

The president said those who thought he was being sarcastic, in an earlier tweet, about Pelosi deserving the speakership were wrong and that he was sincere.

Trump predicted: “We can do a tremendous amount of great legislation together.”

He also predicted the possibility of a “beautiful, bipartisan type situation” between the White House and House Democrats, and “much less gridlock.”

“Now we have a much easier path because the Democrats will come to us with a plan for infrastructure, a plan for health care, a plan for whatever they’re looking at, and we’ll negotiate,” Trump said.

  1. ‘Solution’ to Abortion Compromise

Trump, who has had a strong pro-life record since becoming president, said the two parties could reach a compromise solution on abortion, which is perhaps the nation’s most polarizing issue.

“I won’t be able to explain that to you, because it is an issue that is a very divisive, polarizing issue,” Trump said.

“But there is a solution. I think I have that solution, and nobody else does. We are going to be working on that.”

  1. ‘Just Sit Down, Please’

CNN correspondent Jim Acosta asked Trump questions about the “caravan” of migrants headed to the U.S.-Mexico border and about the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

After a back and forth, Trump was ready to move on to the next question. When a White House aide went to take the microphone, Acosta clutched it.

This prompted Trump to tell Acosta: “CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.”

NBC’s Peter Alexander, getting the next question, defended Acosta.

Trump responded: “Well, I’m not a big fan of yours, either.”

Acosta stood up to speak again without a microphone, and Trump said, “Just sit down, please.”

The president added: “When you report fake news, as CNN does a lot, you are an enemy of the people.”

When April Ryan of American Urban Radio, also a CNN contributor, tried to ask a question without being recognized, Trump told her: “Sit down, I didn’t call on you.”

  1. Democrat Investigations Will Be Met With ‘Warlike’ Response

During the election campaign, House Democrats vowed to leap into exhaustive investigations of Trump’s tax returns, his businesses, the Russia matter, and other issues.

Some House Democrats have called for impeaching Trump.

Trump reminded Democrats in the Wednesday press conference that Republicans still hold the Senate.

“They can play that game, but we can play it better, because we have a thing called the United States Senate,” Trump said. “I could see it being extremely good for me politically, because I think I’m better at that game than they are, actually, but we’ll find out.”

Trump added: “If they do that, then it’s just, all it is is a warlike posture.”

  1. Letting Mueller’s Probe Continue

Trump said he won’t interfere in the Russia investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, vowing that he will “let it go on.”

“I could fire everybody right now, but I don’t want to stop it because politically I don’t like stopping it,” Trump said.

“It’s a disgrace. It should never have been started, because there is no crime.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

On the Street: Trump Rally Attendees Weigh in on Media Treatment of President

White House Suspends Access of CNN’s Acosta

Podcast: What Exit Polling Data Shows Voters Really Cared About

RELATED VIDEO: Trump press conference following midterm elections. Published on YouTube by CBC News.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Featured photo: Ken Cedeno/UPI/Newscom.

Florida Goes Red: Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott

The results are in for the State of Florida. Here are the results for the race for the Governorship and the U.S. Senate in the sunshine state.

Ballotpedia Governor Race:

Former U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R) defeated Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D) and four others in the general election on November 6, 2018, for Florida‘s governorship. Businessman Chris King (D) was Gillum’s running mate. State Rep. Jeanette Nuñez (R) was DeSantis’ running mate.

Governor – General Nov. 07, 2018 04:34 ET

Party Name Votes Vote %
GOP

DeSantis, Ron

4,046,020
49.75 %
Dem
Gillum, Andrew
3,986,596
49.02 %
RP
Richardson, Darcy
46,629
0.57 %
NPA
Gibson, Kyle
24,171
0.30 %
NPA
Stanley, Bruce
14,433
0.18 %
NPA
Foley, Ryan
14,401
0.18 %