Trump Needs a Contract With Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump’s impressive list of potential Supreme Court nominees was a very smart move at a pivotal time. It came amid news of the Little Sisters’ ongoing battle not to be compelled by Caesar to fund abortion drugs, and amid Barack Obama’s bathroom edict thrust upon every school in America—as our President of Fundamental Transformation stoically promises to slay the world’s new great scourge: “transphobia.” Our fearless commander-in-chief knows he cannot wage this just war alone. The crusade must be carried forth by left-wing nature-redefiners poised throughout the courts. A President Hillary Clinton would duly pick up the torch, inserting still more morally insane judicial activists to advance the cultural revolution. Trump’s list came the week following his meeting with Paul Ryan, which surely was an impetus.

So, kudos to Team Trump. But the judges list needs to be merely the start. I here suggest that The Donald go further. I recommend that he and his team create a literal Contract with Conservatives, taking a page from Newt Gingrich’s brilliant Contract with America in 1994. Then, Newt pledged a list of popular common-sense conservative initiatives that he vowed a Republican Congress would vote on during Bill Clinton’s presidency. My thinking of Newt right now is partly precipitated by suggestions—including by The Donald’s top male cheerleader, Sean Hannity—that the former House speaker join Trump as a running mate. Newt might want to talk with Trump about the potency of the contract concept. The idea should resonate with Trump, being a businessman whose business is contracts, and as the namesake of the Art of the Deal.

What would this contract include? It needs to underscore 10 or 12 defining issues by which conservatives need reassurance before doing the unpalatable if not unthinkable in pulling the lever for Donald Trump.

Topping the list must be the guarantee to nominate only conservative judges, which is the paramount concern to conservatives holding their nose to vote less for Donald Trump than against Hillary Clinton. I talk to these conservatives constantly. For many, the only reason they will vote for Trump is to try to save America from unchecked activists inventing Constitutional rights and redefining the country and culture from the bench.

Really, liberals, you have helped enable Donald Trump with eight awful years of Barack Obama and the prospect of eight more with Hillary Clinton. Barack’s bathroom edict, endorsed by longtime abortion-fanatic and newfound “LGBTQ” warrior-queen Hillary Clinton, merely serves to advance Trump’s presidential prospects. My word to Obama and gang: You people are not only ideologically ridiculous but politically oblivious. Barack’s public bathroom obsession repulses the electorate about as much as Donald Trump’s public behavior does. Obama’s toilet fiat is so politically idiotic that it makes me wonder if the current Democratic president is secretly working with The Donald to defeat Madame Hillary. Nice job, liberals. You don’t like the Trump monster you’ve helped build, but every day you enliven it more.

One “NeverTrump” conservative emailed me yesterday saying he might now vote for The Donald. What changed his mind? The left’s bathroom follies combined with Trump’s list of conservative judges.

I digress. My point is that point one of a Trump Contract with Conservatives needs to be about restoring sanity to a nation-culture gone mad by restoring rationally thinking human beings to the federal courts.

Beyond judges, we could easily come up with a dozen other issues for a Trump Contract with Conservatives, ranging from a direct pledge to repeal Obamacare to promises to cut federal income taxes (Trump is already reneging on this one), to defund Planned Parenthood, to eliminate the Department of Education and Common Core, to abolish the IRS, to increase military funding. Trump must also somehow vow not to aid and abet the left’s fanatical efforts to redefine human nature, from marriage to gender. This is key, because Donald Trump, despite all the hype about him being politically incorrect, has long been a cultural liberal of New York values, whose only “political incorrectness” is actually mere brashness and rudeness and crudeness. The New York cultural liberal needs to promise to resist the bathroom battlers and left’s lieutenants of gender madness. His comments on the North Carolina situation a few weeks ago were not reassuring.

The Contract with Conservatives might even go so far as to include actual names of people that a President Trump would place in crucial posts from the Department of Defense and State Department to the National Security Council and Treasury. That hasn’t been done before, but neither has (in my recollection) a pre-presidential list of potential Supreme Court nominees. It would be unprecedented, but The Donald himself is unprecedented.

Team Trump should start now behind the scenes quietly working with leading conservatives to devise a list to announce at the Cleveland convention. Tap Newt Gingrich. Newt does know conservatism, which is vital to a Republican presidential nominee who can’t spell conservatism. The value of releasing such a list in Cleveland would be immense. It would also give The Donald coherent talking points to corral him, rather than him bloviating with his usual litany of platitudes from a podium.

Key caveat: Would a President Donald Trump abide by this contract? That’s not certain. Trump is a man of (at best) new principles and (at worst) no principles. He boasts of how he can change on a dime. His ability to flip-flop could be unsurpassed in the annals of presidential history. Nonetheless, he is a businessman and deal-maker who has some devotion to the weight of contracts. Maybe a contract, done with great fanfare, could hold him accountable to a degree (it’s better than nothing).

To be sure, such a Contract with Conservatives will not mollify all conservatives. Many of us remain convinced that Donald Trump is fundamentally unfit and unsuited for the most significant office in the world — temperamentally, emotionally, intellectually, ideologically, even morally. I have seen enough over the past year. Watching Donald Trump’s astonishing antics and policy ignorance has told me everything I need to know. He has exhibited enormous character instability and psychological flaws. His childish behavior on the campaign trail does not merit the votes of serious adults. Whatever coaching he gets now on how to behave, and in devising whatever deals to better pretend to look conservative, none of it should convince us he’s something he’s not. Nonetheless, if Trump is looking for a way to appeal to a larger swath of conservatives who dread the radical left’s (i.e., today’s Democratic Party) further transformation of America into a cultural hellhole where nuns and bakers and photographers and florists and marriage clerks and wedding caterers and churches and companies and schools are forced, sued, fined, closed, threatened, picketed, boycotted, jailed, debased, demonized, dehumanized, and destroyed often simply for asking for conscience exemptions in a country that has a 220-year-old First Amendment enshrining religious freedom, then Trump should seek ways to attract them. To be sure, I still find it highly unlikely to impossible that Donald Trump can win in November. A man of such overwhelmingly historical negatives with vast segments of voters really doesn’t stand much of a chance, even as polls tighten and even as Barack Obama does his surest to have adult men share restrooms with our daughters. I am sympathetic to George Will’s plea that conservatives should work to defeat Donald Trump rather than help him because of the enormous brand damage he could cause to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. However, if Trump is looking for a way to try to reassure conservative voters in his bid to stop another post-modern Democrat from further torching our civil liberties, a Contract with Conservatives might be a good option. For the good of my country and culture, I would like some guarantee from Trump of some semblance of conservatism and resistance to the left-wing juggernaut should he seize the Oval Office for the next four years.

Now is the time, when The Donald needs conservatives because his goal is to win, win, win (i.e., when the goal is himself), for conservatives to try to hold him accountable to their movement that he’s hijacking for his own purposes. (For more from the author of “Trump Needs a Contract With Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pacific Union Threat to Sovereignty in 12-Nation Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Article 27 of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact could be the beginnings of a Pacific Union — a governing body for implementing the trade agreement styled after the European Commission.

Entitled, “Administrative and Institutional Provisions,” it establishes the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission that will have the power to promulgate rules pursuant to the agreement, implement those rules, and interpret those rules.

That is, legislative, executive, and judicial powers all wrapped into one unaccountable, multinational commission — with no separation of powers whatsoever.

Think that’s insane?

The commission will be implementing the largest trade agreement in world history regulating about 40 percent of the global economy.

When it comes to amending the agreement or allowing other countries such as China to opt into the agreement, it is not very clear whether that will require votes of Congress.

As noted by Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning in a statement last November, “While the U.S. Trade Representative provided a chapter summary on its final provisions that it would take votes of Congress to amend the agreement and to allow other countries to dock into the agreement, the text of the agreement is not nearly so explicit, leaving significant concerns about how the trade agreement will function and whether U.S. representative democracy will be meaningful in its wake.”

Manning added, “A chapter summary is not the agreement itself. The danger of a runaway commission is too great for this to be ignored.”

President Barack Obama has not yet signed the TPP, even though Congress approved consideration of it under Trade Act of 2015. The law requires that Obama notify Congress at least 90 days prior to signing it, which he has indicated he will.

Meaning, Obama could be signing the agreement any day now.

After Obama signs the agreement, then he has 60 days to provide Congress with a list of required changes to U.S. law to implement the agreement. And, then Congress must consider the agreement on and up or down basis.

But the fact that it has not been signed yet, this late into Obama’s last year of office, could mean that Obama does not want the 60-day window to begin until we’re well into September — meaning Congress would not get to vote on the trade agreement until after the election.

The largest trade deal in world history may end up being approved by a lame duck Congress, composed of defeated and retiring members who are no longer accountable to voters.

In the meantime, both presumptive nominees of the major political parties, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, say they’re against TPP. Opposition to big trade deals that outsource Americans jobs and fail to address currency manipulation overseas has been a major theme in this election campaign.

A poll by Pat Caddell commissioned by Americans for Limited Government found that after being told what was in the agreement, Republicans opposed it 66 percent to 15 percent, Democrats oppose it 44 percent to 30 percent and Independents oppose it 52 percent to 19 percent.

In a cynical sense, then, it makes sense that Obama would seek to insulate members of Congress from the political fallout of an unpopular trade deal by scheduling the vote after the election.

But Obama also must consider the political consequences of signing the TPP on the eve of the election. If both candidates remain opposed, what is the political basis for proceeding? Especially a trade agreement that will create an unelected, transnational commission regulating the world economy without any votes in Congress.

Democrats including Clinton might pay a heavy price in November if Obama tries to sneak TPP across the finish line in a lame duck session of Congress — all to the benefit of Trump. Something to consider as we inch closer to the election. (For more from the author of “Pacific Union Threat to Sovereignty in 12-Nation Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Threat From Russian and Chinese Warplanes Mounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

Chinese and Russian warplanes have been increasingly aggressive intercepting U.S. military aircraft and patrolling near America’s West Coast, prompting the Air Force’s top combat officer to label their provocations one of his top worries.

Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, who leads Air Combat Command, said in an interview with USA TODAY that meeting the challenge from the Russian and Chinese to flights in international airspace is essential but dangerous . . .

Both countries are intent on expanding their spheres of influence — Russia in eastern Europe and the Pacific with China focusing much of its effort over the disputed South China Sea.

“Their intent is to get us not to be there,” Carlisle said. “So that the influence in those international spaces is controlled only by them. My belief is that we cannot allow that to happen. We have to continue to operate legally in international airspace and international waterways. We have to continue to call them out when they are being aggressive and unsafe.”

The stakes are high. Aggressive intercepts of U.S. patrol planes run the risk of mid-air collisions that would escalate tensions among nuclear powers. (Read more from “Threat From Russian and Chinese Warplanes Mounts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Policy Leader Seeks to Block Obama’s School Bathroom Directive

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Republican mobilization against the White House’s transgender bathroom directive has started. A bill introduced by Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., would block the Obama administration’s guidance pushing public schools to allow students to use the restrooms of their choice.

The bill, Messer told The Daily Signal, would return control of the issue to the state and municipal level while also prohibiting the administration from cutting off taxpayer funds to public schools that disregard the directive.

The Obama administration, Messer said, is “bullying local schools.”

Although Messer is a junior member of Indiana’s GOP delegation to the House, he is the fifth-ranking Republican in House leadership as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. His bill, introduced Wednesday, represents the highest profile and only legislative rebuke of the administration on the transgender policy issue to date.

“I think parents across America are looking for a congressional response,” Messer said, “and so far our response hasn’t been strong enough.”

Earlier in the week, 73 House Republicans, including Messer, wrote an open letter to the administration demanding answers.

The guidelines, announced May 13 by the departments of Justice and Education, instruct local public schools to extend Title IX protections, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, to transgender students.

And though the directive doesn’t carry the force of law, it contains an implicit threat: Comply or lose federal funding.

That’s “the modus operandi of this administration,” Messer, 47, said, adding that the directive “will change the equation for schools across the country.”

As a standalone piece of legislation, Messer’s bill faces an uphill battle out of the House, and another obstacle in a veto by President Barack Obama.

But, the Indiana Republican told The Daily Signal, he plans to attach the bill to a piece of must-pass legislation such as an appropriations package.

In a Wednesday interview with Buzzfeed, Obama described his directive as “part of our obligation as a society to make sure everybody is treated fairly and our kids are all loved and protected.”

Messer, first elected in 2012, criticized that premise as unfounded, arguing that Obama was overstepping his own bounds.

“I think it’s ironic that the president says he brought forward this regulation to combat bullying,” Messer said, “when the truth is that this action is the administration bullying local schools.” (For more from the author of “House Policy Leader Seeks to Block Obama’s School Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What McConnell’s Surrender on Women’s Draft Shows About GOP Leadership

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has apparently given up on another battle front: Stopping America’s young women from being forced into military combat.

That isn’t exactly what he said this week when asked his views on whether women should be made to register for the draft, but it’s the logical outcome of his position. The question arose because the National Defense Authorization Act, likely to come to the Senate floor next week, contains language to draft women.

Here is what McConnell said, according to the New York Times:

First of all, I don’t anticipate going back to the draft. The professional voluntary Army has been very successful. We’re talking here about registration for Selective Service, should we ever go back to a draft. And given where we are today, with women in the military performing virtually all kinds of functions, I personally think it would be appropriate for them to register just like men do.

That is a very good example of a politician trying to have it both ways—kind of a “I’m for something because it won’t happen but if it does happen I support it.”

Welcome to what leadership looks like in Washington in the year 2016.

In reality, the debate over the draft is an outcome of a larger debate we never had—whether America’s daughters should be forced into military combat.

As McConnell himself admitted, it’s because all roles in the military, including combat, are now open to women that it only seems fair to force women to be part of any future draft.

The debate over whether women in combat is good for them, for the military, or for society at large never occurred because that would have meant taking on the Obama administration. And as anyone who has followed past political skirmishes between GOP congressional leadership and the Obama White House might predict, this was another hill the GOP just wasn’t willing to charge.

Late last year, the Obama administration handed down another “we know better than anyone else, including experts” mandate declaring all military combat positions must be open to women.

This was done despite studies conducted by branches of our own military that raised serious red flags about the performance of co-ed units. And oh, the American people had had no say, either.

Yet it was done with little to no objection by Republicans in Congress.

This is what happens when social experiments, political agendas, and being scared of your own shadow becomes more important than standing up and doing what is best for the country.

The mission of our armed forces must be the standard for determining who plays what roles in them.

And evidence evaluating the effectiveness of putting women in direct combat should not be ignored. A study conducted over 9 months in 2013 by the Marine Corps’ Gender Integration Force evaluated 134 ground combat tasks. The results? All-male units outperformed co-ed units in 69 percent of the tasks. Female training course completion rates lagged well behind men and the injury rate among women was much higher.

These realities drive up casualties and costs and they reduce our military’s effectiveness. That is not only a threat to women and men wearing our country’s uniform, but also a threat to all of us they are sworn to protect.

Congress should prohibit any measure that would force women to register for the draft and be forced into combat roles. You can’t be for one and not be for the other and lawmakers such as McConnell shouldn’t pretend otherwise. If you’re for women being drafted, you’re for women in combat. (For more from the author of “What McConnell’s Surrender on Women’s Draft Shows About GOP Leadership” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michelle Obama and FDA Announce Major Food Labeling Changes

/0 Comments/in , /by

First lady Michelle Obama joined with the Food and Drug Administration in announcing the first major change to food labeling requirements in over 20 years on Friday.

The significant changes include increasing the print size, requiring food producers to include “added sugar,” and adjusting the “serving size” listed “to better align with the amount consumers actually eat.”

The new labels will also include both “per serving” and “per package” calorie and nutrition information.

Further, companies are no longer required to place the amount of vitamin C or vitamin A, because deficiencies in either are very rare among Americans. However, vitamin D and potassium have been added to the nutrients that must be shown.

Michelle Obama and the FDA first rolled out the then proposed changes in 2014 as part of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign, aimed at addressing health issues such as obesity and heart disease.

“Our guiding principle here is very simple: that you as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf, and be able to tell whether it’s good for your family,” Obama said at that time. “So this is a big deal, and it’s going to make a big difference for families all across this country.”

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in announcing the changes on Friday, “The updated label makes improvements to this valuable resource so consumers can make more informed food choices — one of the most important steps a person can take to reduce the risk of heart disease and obesity.”

“Manufacturers will have until July 26, 2018 to comply with the final requirements, and manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales will have an additional year to make the changes,” the FDA stated in its release. (For more from the author of “Michelle Obama and FDA Announce Major Food Labeling Changes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Judge Slams Justice Department for ‘Unethical Conduct’ on Illegal Aliens

/0 Comments/in , /by

Refusing to accept the federal government’s excuse that defying one of his judicial orders was a mistake, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen has barred several Justice Department lawyers from his courtroom and ordered others to take classes in ethics.

“The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material,” the Brownsville, Texas-based judge wrote Thursday. “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

In February 2015, Hanen issued an order to block the Obama administration from giving out 100,000 extended work permits as a result of a lawsuit by 26 states against Obama’s executive order allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.

However, the administration went ahead and issued them anyhow. As a result, Hanen expressed his disappointment with the Justice Department on Thursday.

“Clearly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department,” Hanen wrote in a 28-page order.

Hanen’s order said the Justice Department “admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.”

He said the explanation he was given was that the lawyers “lost focus” or that the “fact(s) receded in memory or awareness,” which caused them to “effectively … misdirect” the court.

The Justice Department, he wrote, “purports to represent all Americans — not just those who are in favor of whatever actions the Department is seeking to prosecute or defend. The end result never justifies misconduct.”

As a result, Hanen ordered that, for the next five years, any attorney from the Department of Justice who wants to argue in either state or federal court in any state involved in the immigration case must take an annual three-hour ethics course.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was ordered to give Hanen a “comprehensive plan” within 60 days that would “prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”

Hanen also demanded a list of all illegal immigrants given extended work permits, and said he may release that list to the authorities of the states where those illegal immigrants live, depending on the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the case, which is expected in June. (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Slams Justice Department for ‘Unethical Conduct’ on Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Mysterious Roar and Light in the Sky Wake Mexican City

/0 Comments/in , /by

Residents in a Mexican city woke in fright before dawn on Saturday to bright light in the sky and then a thunderous noise, fearing a nearby volcano had suddenly erupted.

But officials said Popocatepetl volcano had not stirred and no earthquake had registered.

Instead, the phenomena witnessed by the inhabitants of Puebla de Zaragoza, a city of three million people 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Mexico City, was “most likely a meteor,” the local Astronomic Society tweeted.

The rock from space probably burned up in the atmosphere and no impact was detected, it explained.

“It was horrible, we thought it was the volcano, but it wasn’t,” said one resident, Emma Chavez. (Read more from “Mysterious Roar and Light in the Sky Wake Mexican City” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Barack Obama, the titular head of the LGBT movement, has added to the firestorm of confusion, misunderstanding, and fury surrounding the transgender bathroom debate by threatening schools with loss of federal funding unless they allow students to join the sex-segregated restroom, locker room, and sports teams of their chosen gender, without regard to biological reality.

His action comes after weeks of protests against the state of North Carolina for its so-called anti-LGBT bathroom bill.

As someone who underwent surgery from male to female and lived as a female for eight years before returning to living as a man, I know firsthand what it’s like to be a transgender person—and how misguided it is to think one can change gender through hormones and surgery.

And I know that theNorth Carolina bill and others like it are not anti-LGBT.

“L” is for lesbian. The bill is not anti-lesbian because lesbians have no desire to enter a stinky men’s restroom. Lesbians will use the women’s room without a second thought. So the law is not anti-L.

“G” is for gay. Gay men have no interest in using women’s bathrooms. So the law is not anti-G.

“B” is for bi-sexual. The “B” in the LGBT have never been confused about their gender. Theirs is also a sexual preference only that doesn’t affect choice of restroom or locker room.

“T” is for transgender. The “T” identifies a person who has undergone hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery, and legally changes the gender marker on his or her birth certificate.

The North Carolina law is not anti-T because the law clearly states that the appropriate restroom is the one that corresponds to the gender stated on the birth certificate. Therefore, a transgender person with a birth certificate that reads “female” uses the female restroom, even if the gender noted at birth was male.

So, you see, the law is not anti-LGBT. What then is all the uproar about?

What has arisen is a new breed emerging among young people that falls outside the purview of the LGBT: the gender nonconformists.

Gender nonconformists, who constitute a miniscule fraction of society, want to be allowed to designate gender on a fluid basis, based on their feelings at the moment.

I call this group “gender defiant” because they protest against the definition of fixed gender identities of male and female. The gender defiant individuals are not like traditional transgender or transsexual persons who struggle with gender dysphoria and want hormone therapy, hormone blockers, and eventually, reassignment surgery. The gender defiant group doesn’t want to conform, comply, or identify with traditional gender norms of male and female. They want to have gender fluidity, flowing freely from one gender to another, by the hour or day, as they feel like it.

Under the cover of the LGBT, the anti-gender faction and its supporters are using the North Carolina bathroom bill to light a fuse to blow up factual gender definitions.

Obama is championing the insanity of eliminating the traditional definition of gender. He does not grasp the biological fact that genders are not fluid, but fixed: male and female.

Using the power of his position to influence the elimination of gender, overruling science, genetics, and biblical beliefs, is Obama’s display of political power.

One fact will remain, no matter how deep in the tank Obama goes for the gender nonconformists, genetics and God’s design of male and female, no matter how repugnant that is to some, cannot be changed. Biological gender remains fixed no matter how many cross-gender hormones are taken or cosmetic surgeries are performed. No law can change the genetic and biblical truth of God’s design. Using financial blackmail to achieve the elimination of gender will become Obama’s ugly legacy. (For more from the author of “A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Bill Clinton’s 26 Trips on the Lolita Express Child Rape Jet Matter

/0 Comments/in , /by

We don’t know what Bill Clinton did or didn’t do in company with Jeffrey Epstein. But we certainly know what Epstein did and, almost as outrageously, what he got away with doing.

Some of the most shocking allegations against Epstein surfaced only after the conclusion of an FBI probe, in civil suits brought by his victims: for example, the claim that three 12-year-old French girls were delivered to him as a birthday present. But the feds did identify roughly 40 young women, most of them underage at the time, who described being lured to Epstein’s Palm Beach home on the pretense of giving a “massage” for money, then pressured into various sex acts, as well as the “Balkan sex slave” Epstein allegedly boasted of purchasing from her family when she was just 14. More recently, a big cash payment from Mail on Sunday coaxed one of Epstein’s main accusers out of anonymity to describe what she claims were her years as a teenage sex toy. This victim, Virginia Roberts, produced a photo of herself with Prince Andrew in 2001 and reported that Epstein paid her $15,000 to meet the prince. Then 17 years old, she claims that she was abused by Epstein and “loaned” to his friends from the age of 15.

Sex crimes of the kind Roberts alleges took place typically carry a term of 10 to 20 years in federal prison. Yet when all was said and done, Epstein served his scant year-plus-one-month in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail and was granted a 16-hour-per-day free pass to leave the premises for work . . .

It doesn’t help that the Democratic establishment seems to have played a role in getting Epstein a pass on child rape, that Bill Clinton already had rape accusations in his past or that the Clintons had become notorious for their willingness to do favors for criminals in exchange for money . . .

Social conservatives often get a bad rap. But there really is no limit to how low standards can fall when any trace of a moral code vanishes out the window. What did Bill Clinton actually do? Who knows. More importantly these days, who cares. (Read more from “Why Bill Clinton’s 26 Trips on the Lolita Express Child Rape Jet Matter” HERE)

Listen to the following radio commentary – starting at about 2 minutes – regarding Epstein and his apparent blackmail of US politicians:

For more on the Epstein sex scandals and the billionaire’s likely successful efforts to extort politicians, click HERE.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.