How's that voter fraud investigation going?

Remember President Trump’s claim that there was massive voter fraud in the election? The controversy goes back to a Nov. 27 tweet in which then-President-elect Trump said, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” The claim resurfaced in January as Trump claimed that 3-5 million people had voted illegally and promised a “major investigation” into the fraud. 

That was about a week ago. How’s the investigation been going since then? About as well as O.J. Simpson’s search for the real killer.

CNN reports that the investigation seems to have faded away with little fanfare. Citing an official in the Trump Administration, the report says that the investigation is not dead, but is no longer a top priority.

A week ago, it seemed an Executive Order detailing the investigation was imminent, now the source says, “I think there will be something signed, but I don't think it will be now.”

Voter fraud of 3-5 million votes would represent about three percent of votes cast in the election. If there is evidence that fraud on such a massive scale occurred, it should be a high priority for the Justice Department. Such fraud, if it existed, would undermine the integrity of the entire election process.

In reality, state elections officials, many of them Republican, say that there is no evidence of fraud on the scale that Trump claimed. The author of Pew study on voter fraud cited by Trump, tweeted, “As I’ve noted before, voting integrity better [was] in this election than ever before. Zero evidence of fraud.”

The Trump Administration’s quiet abandonment of the voter fraud investigation fits his pattern of making outlandish claims and then quietly abandoning them. It is a pattern that we will probably see more of over the next four years.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump did not drop sanctions on Russia

Despite reports to the contrary, the Trump Administration has not eased sanctions on Russia. Initial reports indicated that President Trump’s Justice Department had reduced sanctions on the FSB, Russia’s security service that replaced the KGB, to allow American companies to sell software to the agency.

Subsequent analysis of the revision by several news agencies indicates that the sanctions on the FSB are still in place, but the change allows American companies to work with the organization to sell products inside Russia. According to the Wall Street Journal, the FSB is more than a security agency. The organization also licenses encryption technology for private businesses in Russia. The purpose of the revision in the Obama sanctions policy is designed to allow US companies to sell products like cellphones and tablets that contain encryption technology. These products must be licensed through the FSB to be imported into Russia.

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a strong supporter of sanctions on Russia, told reporters that the change was a “technical fix.” Others have characterized the revision as a “tweak” that benefits American exporters, but not the FSB.

It seems to have been the Russians who fed the false narrative that the change was a major shift in sanctions policy. “This shows that actual joint work on establishing an anti-terrorism coalition is about to begin,” Nikolai Kovalyov, former head of the FSB and current member of the Russian Duma, told Tass. “Without easing these sanctions it would have been impossible to take the next step. These practical actions indicate that US President Donald Trump has been consistent.”

“I haven't eased anything,” RT, the Russian propaganda source, quoted President Trump as saying in a later article.

Press secretary Sean Spicer, quoted in the same article, confirmed, “We are not easing sanctions.”

Snopes quickly clarified the details of the controversy citing Ankit Panda, editor of “The Diplomat,” who explained, “It's a limited $5,000 sanctions relief ceiling that allows the United States to pay the FSB for certain export licenses for American products into Russia. It's a technical form of relief that was planned under the Obama administration.”

Snopes also quoted Doug Jacobson, an attorney who specializes in international trade law, who noted that the sanctions were not intended to prevent US companies from selling to Russian businesses. “They are not the target of the restrictions -- it’s to penalize FSB, not U.S. companies,” Jacobson said. “This doesn’t allow sales to the FSB, that’s still prohibited. It removes this impediment that would restrict U.S. companies from transporting products to otherwise unsanctioned parties in Russia... This was no gift to Putin.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Survey showing most conservative states is good news for Republicans

Gallup has just released a new survey showing the most conservative and liberal states in the nation. Overall, the picture looks just as you’d expect with liberal states concentrated on the West Coast and in the Northeast while the South and upper Rocky Mountains are the most conservative areas.

Contrary to popular belief, neither liberals nor conservatives hold an absolute majority in any state, although conservatives are very close in Wyoming, the most conservative state in the country. Forty-nine percent of Wyomingites self-identify as conservative. This yields a 35-point advantage over the 14 percent of the Wyoming population considered to be liberal.

A number of other states have conservative populations in excess of 40 percent as well. In fact, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Idaho all have conservative populations of greater than 45 percent.

Vermont tops the list of most liberal states. With 40 percent liberal and only 26 percent conservative, liberals have a 14-point advantage.

Interestingly, far fewer voters identify as liberal in blue states than do conservatives in red states. Many deep blue states are characterized by a difference of only a few points. For example, in Massachusetts, the second most liberal state, liberals only lead conservatives by eight points. In the next two most liberal states, Connecticut and New York, the difference is four and two points respectively. Believe it or not, in deep blue, far left California, conservatives actually outnumber liberals 30-29 percent.

When the state totals are examined, the share of moderate voters remains relatively constant. Moderates make up about a third of the electorate in almost every state. With neither party at a majority anywhere, moderates are the decisive group in most elections.

Even though the poor showing for liberals in blue states may indicate an unwillingness of some liberals to accept the liberal label, the polling results indicate an opening for conservatives in many blue states. If the ideological groups are statistically equal in a state like California, Republicans can win this Democratic stronghold by making inroads to the moderates in the mushy middle of the political spectrum. Splitting the moderate vote could swing the state to the GOP.

Conversely, in the 19 states where Republicans make up more than 40 percent of the electorate, Democrats would need to win virtually all moderate votes to move any of these states to the blue column.

The problem for Republicans is that a Gallup poll from last year showing party identification indicated that almost all of the state’s moderates identified as Democrats.  California’s actual election results showed that, at 32 percent, the Trump vote in California was almost identical to Gallup’s estimates of conservatives and Republicans for the state. Donald Trump lost practically all moderate and independent voters for the state.

The trend is national as well. CNN exit polls show a breakdown of 26 percent liberal, 39 percent moderate and 35 percent conservative in the 2016 election. Trump lost the moderate vote 40-52 percent, but still won the election.

Moderates didn’t flock to Trump, whose share of the group was almost identical to Mitt Romney, but many did abandon Clinton. Trump’s victory was partly due to the eight percent of moderates, the largest ideological demographic, who voted for “someone else.”

Gallup’s survey also showed that the usual swing states all have about a 10-point conservative advantage. Colorado and New Hampshire, both with a 9-point conservative advantage, were the most liberal swing states.

The polling data indicates that winning blue states, as Donald Trump did, is a realistic goal for Republicans. A winning strategy would be to nominate conservative candidates who also have a strong appeal to moderate and independent voters.

Go here to find out how conservative your state is.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Video: Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Ultrasounds Unless You Want An Abortion

Lila Rose and Live Action have dumped another load of incriminating videos on Planned Parenthood. Last year, the pro-life group responsible for a series of undercover videos in which Planned Parenthood employees showed a fundamental lack of respect for human life. Now they have released another video calculated to embarrass the giant abortion provider with the words of its own workers.

The new video, “Abortion Corporation,” debunks Planned Parenthood’s claim that the group is about more than abortion. In the three-minute video, undercover women ask Planned Parenthood workers for a prenatal ultrasound. The video shows 14 conversations in 10 states. In every case, the Planned Parenthood workers say that they cannot provide prenatal ultrasounds.

A clinic worker in Corning, N.Y. tells a pregnant mother, “We tell you you’re pregnant and then we offer to do the abortion.”

The mother persists, “So, other than a pregnancy test, I heard you guys had ultrasounds? Would it be possible…”

The clinic worker cuts her off, “No, we only do ultrasounds if you are terminating.”

In St. Louis, a woman asks if she can get an ultrasound to determine if her baby is healthy. “No, nope, not something we offer,” is the curt reply from the Planned Parenthood worker.

A Council Bluffs, Iowa clinic worker says, “No, we don’t do any ultrasounds for prenatal care. We do them when we’re doing abortions, but not for any other reason.”

Several Planned Parenthood workers said that their ultrasounds only provide a confirmation of the pregnancy and how far along the pregnancy is. When a caller asks why, a Fayetteville, N.C. receptionist says, “That would be for our abortion services. That is the only thing that we do at our health centers.”

A Winston-Salem, N.C. worker confirms, “’Cause that [abortion] is the only service that we do. We don’t do any prenatal care or adoption here.”

One worker in Albuquerque, N.M. refers the woman to an OB/GYN who can give a “more detailed” ultrasound because “there is nothing we can do to help you here.”

Some viewers may wonder if the clinics in the video were cherry-picked? Maybe Live Action just included the clinics that refused to help the pregnant women who wanted to keep their babies. Live Action does admit that some clinics did not turn their investigators away. Of 68 clinics approached, three agreed to provide a prenatal ultrasound without an abortion.

Planned Parenthood claims on its website that “three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services” and that “80 percent of our patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Prenatal care is not listed as one of the group’s missions, but a search of the website does reveal that prenatal care is offered by some Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood receives more than $360 million annually from federal and state governments. Federal law prohibits federal funds from being used to provide abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is in danger.

Republicans made several attempts to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood under President Obama. Some states have made similar attempts as well. During the campaign, President Trump’s message on Planned Parenthood was mixed, but he ultimately favored defunding the group as well.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Including Iraq in immigration ban is slap in the face to ally

When it comes to the seven countries on President Trump’s list for a temporary immigration ban, one of these things is not like the others. Visitors from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia are prohibited from coming to the United States for at least 90 days. For Syrians, the ban is indefinite. While it is understandable why the president might feel it necessary to closely screen immigrants from the Middle East, Iraq doesn’t necessarily fit in with the other countries on the list.

As a country that is openly hostile to the United States, people coming from Iran should obviously bear close scrutiny. Iran has already been accused of cheating on the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. It has a long history of supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and since 1984 has been named by the State Department as a state sponsor of terror.

The two other countries currently designated as state sponsors of terror are also on Trump’s list. Syria received the designation in 1979 and Sudan in 1993. Sudan was once home to Osama bin Laden. Both countries have been torn by civil wars in recent years. The war in Sudan began in 2003 and was known for atrocities in the Darfur region. The Syrian civil war began in 2011 and has stoked a refugee crisis that led to terrorist attacks in Europe.

Yemen, like Syria and Sudan, is in the throes of a civil war. Iran-backed Houthi tribesmen are fighting both al-Qaeda and government forces supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Drone strikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen are frequent. It was in Yemen that President Trump launched the first drone attacks of his administration.

Somalia is probably best remembered by most Americans as the scene of the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu depicted in “Black Hawk Down.” Somalia is also home to pirates who terrorized Indian Ocean shipping in the early days of the Obama Administration. There are reportedly links between the pirates and al-Qaeda.

The sixth country, Libya, has also been a hotbed of terrorism since the fall of Muammar Gadhafi. Libya was the scene of the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Of the seven nations singled out by President Trump, one could be considered hostile to the United States and three are known sponsors of terrorism. Five could be considered failed states without strong central governments that could reliably help to vet refugees and other immigrants.

Iraq is different from the rest.

Admittedly, Iraq is in the midst of a war, but the nation does have a functioning democratic government. The country is friendly to the US and many Iraqis have fought and died alongside American soldiers as they battled al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed extremists. Since 2014, the Iraqi army has been waging a campaign against ISIS, again with US help.

Iraq is an American ally and to include it on a list of enemies and failed states is a slap in the face by the Trump Administration.

One of the Iraqi immigrants detained at John F. Kennedy airport in New York as the ban was implemented was Hameed Khalid Darweesh. Darweesh served as an interpreter with the US Army during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He later worked with American soldiers as a contract engineer in Iraq. Granted permission to resettle in the United States, Darweesh was just coming into the country when President Trump implemented his new policy.

It should be pointed out that there have not been any terrorist attacks -fatal or otherwise - in the United States or Europe by Iraqi. In fact, according to Politifact, there have been no fatal terror attacks in the US by anyone from the countries that make up Trump’s list. There has been one terror attack by Iranian-born US citizen and one attack by a Somali refugee. An additional attack was attempted by a man of Somali heritage who was born in Kenya. None of these attacks resulted in the deaths of victims.

There have been many terror attacks by immigrants from other Middle Eastern countries. The September 11 hijackers were predominantly from Saudi Arabia. So was Osama bin Laden. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Chechnya. The Times Square car bomber was from Pakistan. The terrorists who carried out the Orlando nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino shootings were born in the United States to parents from Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively. None of these nations are part of the immigration ban.

President Trump’s immigration ban seems poorly thought out and poorly executed. Keeping terrorists out the country is a worthy goal and a legitimate function of the federal government, but Trump’s approach seems amateurish and may cause more problems than it solves. Aside from the public relations nightmare, the policy’s worst problem is that it lumps an ally in with an enemy and a series of failed states while ignoring the source of most domestic terror attacks.

“This spits in the face of almost 16 years of cooperation with Muslim allies across the world," Kyle Dykstra, a veteran of the 82^nd Airborne Division who served in Afghanistan told the Chicago Tribune. "They can die for our security, but we can't extend that same security to them now.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Yemen suicide attack may have been intended for US warship

A Saudi frigate was attacked by Yemeni rebels in the Red Sea on Monday. Now Fox News is reporting that the attack, which left two Saudi sailors dead and three wounded, may have been intended for a US Navy warship.

The Saudi ship was originally believed to have been hit by a missile fired by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Based on a video of the attack, officials now believe that the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber in a small boat. This is similar to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 which was carried out in the Yemeni port of Aden and killed 17 US sailors.

Fox reports that on the video of Monday’s attack, a voice can be heard shouting in Arabic, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to the Jews.” The recording prompted US defense analysts to believe that the attack may have been carried out as a practice run for an attack on a US ship or that the Saudi ship may have been misidentified as an American ship.

American ships do inhabit the Red Sea waters near Yemen. Last October, the USS Mason and the USS Ponce were attacked by anti-ship missiles in the same area. The USNI News reported that the Mason fired three defensive SM-2 missiles and a single Evolved Seasparrow missile to destroy the attacking Houthi missiles.

It is also possible that Monday’s attack was meant for the Saudi ship. Saudi Arabia leads a coalition of Gulf states in an intervention in Yemen to support Yemen’s government in its civil war. Yemen’s government is fighting al-Qaeda as well as the Houthi tribesmen, who are backed by Iran.

If Iran uses its proxy forces to attack an American ship, it would be a dramatic escalation scarcely a week after President Trump’s inauguration. The suicide attack came just as Iran launched a medium-range missile test in violation of President Obama’s nuclear deal and a UN resolution.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Iran's missile test is challenge to Trump

New presidents are often tested by potential adversaries shortly after taking office. For the first George Bush, it was the Chinese crackdown on democracy protesters in June 1989. Bill Clinton had the escalation in Somalia and the Battle of Mogadishu. The second George Bush had to deal with the collision of a Navy airplane with a Chinese fighter and the subsequent internment of the Navy flight crew. President Obama faced the kidnapping of a freighter crew by Somali pirates. For President Trump, the test is coming barely a week into office with an Iranian missile test.

US defense officials confirmed Monday that Iran tested a missile, but declined to give details about the date, location or range of the test according to the Wall Street Journal. In a separate statement, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, “Iran conducted a medium-range ballistic missile test in recent days.” The Jerusalem Post cited an anonymous US official in stating that the missile traveled 630 miles.

Israel condemned the test and called for more sanctions on Iran. Intelligence Minister Israel Katz said in a statement on Army Radio that “there is no doubt that further sanctions on Iran are needed.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted that “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered” and said that he would raise the issue with President Trump at their meeting on February 15.

“The missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal,” said Iranian spokesman Javad Zarif in al Jazeera. Zarif also denied that the missile was an offensive weapon, saying it was “not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead.”

Iran was previously banned from conducting missile tests under a UN resolution, but the language was changed by the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal. The resolution now says that the Security Council “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” but does not specifically prohibit it.

Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement calling the test a violation of the UN resolution. “Since the nuclear deal was signed in 2015, Iran has violated international restrictions on ballistic missiles and arms exports while also exceeding limits on nuclear material set by the JCPOA,” Corker said in the statement.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was critical of President Obama’s deal with Iran, but stopped short of saying that he would withdraw from the deal, which was never ratified by the Senate. Trump pledged to renegotiate the nuclear deal if he was elected.

“There will be no renegotiation, and the (agreement) will not be reopened,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s head negotiator said in Newsweek earlier this month. “We and many analysts believe that the (agreement) is consolidated. The new U.S. administration will not be able to abandon it. Nuclear talks with America are over, and we have nothing else to discuss.”

How President Trump handles the missile test, a flagrant violation of United Nations policy, will set an important first impression for how other countries view his ability to handle a difficult crisis situation. If he decides to implement new sanctions, it will also test his ability to assemble an international coalition to give the sanctions a bigger bite. If Trump takes no action, it could encourage further violations by Iran as well as encouraging aggressive behavior by other countries.

Originally published on The Resurgent