Organization for Mass-Murder Endorses Hillary and Bernie

/0 Comments/in , /by

While the liberal media write about white nationalists supporting Donald J. Trump, the Communist Party (CPUSA) has been broadcasting its support for the national Democratic Party and both of its candidates. But for some reason, our media have failed to take notice.

Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President, the CPUSA—which was then funded by Moscow—has been organizing what it calls an “all-people’s front” against the “extreme right,” and it usually depends on the Democratic Party as its preferred electoral vehicle. John Bachtell, national chair of the Communist Party USA, explains, “This battle has been waged over 35 years through election cycles, in the legislative arena, and in the battle to sway public opinion.”

The CPUSA endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and his reelection in 2012. This year, party members are involved in the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but are prepared to support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she is the eventual nominee.

While Trump is rightly questioned about support for his campaign from such figures as David Duke, the former KKK leader, the open and admitted involvement of communists in the Democratic Party gets completely ignored by the press.

The CPUSA is based on Marxist doctrine, which calls for the abolition of private property and the overthrow of global capitalism. What is called “Cultural Marxism” seeks to eliminate traditional adherence to Judeo-Christian values and silence those in favor of traditional families and those who recognize male and female differences.

The CPUSA is associated with the International Meeting Of Communist And Workers’ Parties, which represents the international communist movement and includes the Communist Party of Russia. In its contribution to the 2014 meeting, the CPUSA combined elements of traditional Marxism with the cultural version, urging action on behalf of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) communities, support for a “democratized and demilitarized U.S. foreign policy,” and protection of the environment “through a massive movement against our domination by the fossil fuel industry…”

In foreign affairs, the CPUSA has also called for the abolition of NATO.

In the current election campaign, the CPUSA is firmly on the side of the Democrats. In a story about the “Super Tuesday” presidential primaries, the party newspaper, the People’s World, announced that while the GOP was pushing “powerlessness,” both Democratic candidates were promoting “empowerment” for the people. This is Marxist jargon for integrating Marxist demands into Democratic Party policies.

Although the liberal media tend to highlight differences between Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, the communists say there is more that unites than divides them.

The Communists dislike Trump because of his “authoritarian” tendencies and criticism of immigrants. However, while the communists claim that Trump “glorifies militarism abroad,” they have not explicitly condemned his foreign policy views, which tend to be on the isolationist side. Trump has been critical of NATO, which began as an anti-Soviet alliance, and is supportive of Russian foreign policy interests in Europe and the Middle East.

More recently, communist writer Larry Rubin expressed the Communist Party view that Sanders and Clinton have to do more to keep workers from defecting to Trump.

Ultimately, Rubin argued that in order to ensure a victory over the Republicans in November, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign should “be ready to inherit the grassroots organizational models and far reaching proposals that have attracted so many working people and millennials to Bernie Sanders’ political revolution,” and that the Sanders campaign should “be ready to unite with the Clinton effort.”

In this way, Marxists of various persuasions could take more important roles in the Clinton for president campaign.

In an interview, “Why America Is Warming To Socialism,” national CPUSA chair John Bachtell mentioned the Sanders appeal and emphasized that “democracy would be at the center” of the growth of socialism in the U.S.

In a separate article, Bachtell warned against Sanders following a third party option in November, and urged communists to continue working through the Democratic Party. While Mrs. Clinton is perceived as “more hawkish on foreign policy,” he said, she “is no neo-con.” The term “neo-con” is often used to disparage advocates of U.S. global engagement and military intervention. “She supports diplomatic efforts like the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba,” Bachtell said about Clinton.

Even on domestic issues, Clinton is acceptable to the Marxists because she “is susceptible to pressure from below” from Marxist agitators and their organizations, he said.

He went on to suggest that CPUSA members are currently working inside the Democratic Party by supporting Sanders. The Sanders program, he said, “addresses the needs of the country and is closest to our own. My guess is most of our members support the Sanders campaign.”

Going beyond the Sanders campaign, however, he said the Democratic Party as a whole includes “a substantial current of self-described democratic socialists” and other activists who “exert influence and hold leadership positions at various levels. They still see the Democratic Party as the most viable means to advance their agendas within the party system at this moment.”

As suggested by its endorsements of Obama in 2008 and 2012, the CPUSA has been very pleased with the Obama administration. The communists believe that Obama, who was influenced at an early age by CPUSA figure Frank Marshall Davis, has transformed America into a socialist state through Obamacare and other initiatives, and has changed U.S. foreign policy by establishing relations with anti-American regimes in Cuba and Iran.

Earlier this year, in response to Obama’s State of the Union address, the People’s World praised the first black president for projecting “a bold vision for a more socially and economically just nation while appealing to the hopes of the American people.” The paper said, “President Obama recounted historic achievements of the administration and advanced the challenges with full knowledge of the powerful forces arrayed in opposition.” Those achievements were said to include “creation of millions of new jobs, normalization of relations with Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal and Obamacare and extension of health care to 18 million people.”

Looking ahead, the communists are counting on a “radical restructuring of the economy as advocated by Sen. Bernie Sanders,” and “a new peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy” that includes “elimination of weapons of mass destruction,” the closing of U.S. military bases, and “radically downsizing the US military.”

Such a plan, of course, would invite more Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East, and encourage Chinese Communist expansion in Asia and the Pacific.

We eagerly anticipate U.S. media personalities questioning Sanders and Clinton about the support they are receiving from the CPUSA. Of course, any journalist who dares to raise the issue runs the risk of being perceived as a McCarthyite. (For more from the author of “Organization for Mass-Murder Endorses Hillary and Bernie” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week President Obama got into a spat with Senator Rand Paul over tax treaties, but you likely paid little attention to the details surrounding the bickering.

Obama has taken issue with Senator Paul “blocking” eight tax treaties from receiving ratification in their current form. Now, you might expect this to be a story about the tax treaties’ role in easing excessive taxation (or double taxation), while promoting cooperation in tax compliance among nations. But the tax treaties are actually being used as a tool for nations to share the private financial data on individuals with bank accounts overseas. This is all done without regard for privacy protections, a warrant or any allegations of wrong-doing.

Sharing data without privacy protections is also a notable departure from past practice. For example, former treaties between the U.S. and Switzerland allowed these countries to share sensitive data on bank customers – but only if a crime, like tax fraud, was being committed. The key here is that data could only be shared if there was probable cause – essentially, a Fourth Amendment style protection for private data. However, the tax treaties now in question lack that same protection, and allow any and all information to be shared between governments, no questions asked.

Therefore, Senator Paul has requested an amendment to the treaties to provide additional privacy protections – among them, that there at least be probable cause of wrongdoing before individual financial data is shared between governments.

Yet, this request is unacceptable to the Obama administration, and the reason is far more nefarious than meets the eye. The tax treaties are merely part of a deeper web of data gathering to enforce a law I dubbed “the most dangerous law you’ve never heard of”- or, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

To understand the treaties, you must realize how they fuel an even worse law: FATCA.

What is FATCA?

FATCA is a law that requires every foreign bank in the world to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the financial data on every bank account or asset owned by an American citizen living abroad.

Any foreign bank that fails to comply with this request is penalized. The penalty subjects the bank to a 30 percent withholding tax, or in other words, the U.S. government seizes 30 percent of any transaction that belongs to that foreign bank. Since the U.S. economy is the largest and most interconnected in the world, foreign banks have little choice but to go along with this U.S. law.

FATCA is a law that effectively treats Americans living overseas with the presumption of guilt, since an individual’s private financial data is turned over to the government without any privacy protections.

The law was passed under the guise of catching tax cheats. Unfortunately, it has done little to catch rich Americans trying to hide their loot. Instead, it has punished over seven million Americans working abroad, many of whom have been outright banned from banking with foreign banks, who no longer want to work with U.S. citizens due to the high compliance costs and oversight complications that stem from FATCA. As a result, thousands of Americans have forfeited their U.S. citizenship to avoid the obstacles they now face trying to do simple banking overseas.

Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)

The key to FATCA is an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). First, it must be understood that foreign banks don’t have to comply with FATCA. After all, FATCA is a U.S. law that is not recognized by foreign banks. The Obama administration’s solution is to implement IGAs, which are similar to a treaty. These IGAs allow for an agreement between the U.S. and foreign nation in which the foreign nation will, essentially, comply with FATCA as if it were its own law – and will agree to coordinate and exchange financial information on private individuals in accordance with FATCA.

Since these agreements imitate treaties, IGAs allow foreign nations to override their domestic laws to comply with U.S. requests. Or in more ominous instances, countries are lured into complying with FATCA by U.S. offers to exchange data from U.S. banks. That’s right: the U.S. government has agreed to spy on YOU (the U.S. customer) in exchange for the foreign banks willingness to spy on American citizens abroad – the old, “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine,” operation.

Generally, any agreement that resembles a treaty is constitutionally required to receive the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The definition of a treaty is “a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.” But somehow, President Obama calls it by another name and these IGAs bypass the law of the land as “agreements,” rather than as formally ratified treaties.

This entire scheme is like a game of Jenga – remove the wrong block and the entire structure comes falling down. FATCA, the IGAs, and the tax treaties currently pending in the Senate are all an intricate part of this structure.

Former Senate aide and FATCA expert Jim Jatras explains how those tax treaties impact the IGA. In Accounting Today, he writes:

Because the IGAs designate tax treaty mechanisms for FATCA information “exchange,” Paul’s holdup of the bilateral treaties also impedes indiscriminate FATCA reporting. Conversely, if the treaties were amended to allow information transfer only under the probable cause standard, the higher constitutional standard would govern. That, not double tax relief, is why Treasury is so desperate to approve these treaties without amendment.

In other words, FATCA requires an IGA. The IGA is what allows other nations to cooperate with FATCA’s requirements. Still, it is the tax treaties that act as the final authority in permitting the IGAs to collect information; the IGAs lean on the tax treaties as their implicit right to do so.

Furthermore, Jatras concludes that the tax treaties would provide a “backdoor legal authority to issue regulations in the U.S.” to force domestic banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and mutual funds to provide financial information on resident customers to send to foreign governments in order to fulfill the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” reciprocity agreements.

Get that? FATCA needs IGAs, IGAs need tax treaties. Phew.

Therefore, in this confusing, twisted scheme of enforcing the big data gathering machine that is FATCA, these tax treaties play an important role. That is why there is far more to this sleepy issue than just taxes.

There are two senators currently challenging this crazy law and these insane treaties: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT). The narrative from the White House and Senate leadership is that these two senators are “blocking” these treaties from moving. But, in reality, Paul and Lee aren’t blocking these treaties at all. Instead, they are just objecting to the Senate ratifying them by “unanimous consent.” The Senate leadership has the authority to bring these tax treaties to the floor for full consideration – debate, amendments, and votes. That is what Senators Paul and Lee are asking for.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Democratic counterparts simply want to give unanimous consent to these tax treaties. Unanimous consent means that the process takes all of about 10 seconds; there is no time to review the treaties, there is no time for debate, and not a second of time to offer amendments. They simply want them to be expedited through the Senate without transparency.

At the end of the day, this is a discussion about bad treaties used to implement a terrible law. I applaud Senators Paul and Lee for standing on principle, and trying to insert language into the treaties that provide constitutional protections to all Americans. But perhaps more important is Paul and Lee’s challenge to the establishment. As sitting U.S. Senators, they have the right to ask for debate and amendments to these treaties. They should not be pilloried and smeared for asking for it.

These treaties are dangerous to our personal liberties. Senator Paul and Senator Lee deserve the transparency and debate they’ve requested. We should all stand with Rand and Mike in fighting these terrible treaties. (For more from the author of “The Real Story Behind Rand Paul’s Challenge to Obama’s Insane Treaties” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Drops ‘Rape’ Bombshell on Bill Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump may have out-Trumped his own reputation for politically incorrect, tough talk when he called out former President Bill Clinton Wednesday night during an hour-long interview with Sean Hannity. . .

The Hannity interview came on the heels of a weekend New York Times story on Trump’s treatment of women titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private.”

According to the Times, “more than 50 interviews were conducted over the course of six weeks, … [with] dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence.”

[Hannity then asked Trump,] “I looked at the New York Times. Are they going to interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they going to interview Paula Jones? Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?”

[Hannity continued,] “In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will.” [Trump then interrupted,] “And rape.” (Read more from “Trump Drops ‘Rape’ Bombshell on Bill Clinton” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why This Man Is the Last of the Senate Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

During my time in Washington, I have seen well intentioned people arrive on the Hill ready to challenge the Establishment. Yet, too often I witness those same individuals lured into a system that promises power and prestige.

Conservatives know this all too well. A quick scroll through the Conservative Review score card shows that a majority of “conservative” politicians are hardly distinguishable from their Democratic counterparts.

Perhaps there is no better example of this than the recent Senate vote on the energy and water spending bill. It is a bill that funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or USACE), the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy. I know, this sounds really boring. My intent is not to bore you with what seems to be a hippie’s bawdy dream (no pun intended); instead, liberty-minded voters must understand why this bill is so important to the conservative movement.

(Here’s a short clip on the bill’s chief sponsor, RINO Lisa Murkowski:)

First, it’s important to remember that the energy and water bill is a Republican bill. Yet, it out-liberal’d the liberals and it increased the size of (bad) government.

In total, the bill increased the size of government by $355 million. Most shocking, this is $261 million more than Obama requested! Let me repeat: The liberal, environmentalist loving bill provides nearly $300 million more than Obama wanted to spend.

In addition, the bill increased funding for the Corps, a big government regulator, engaged in economically and environmentally “dubious” projects, most of which are wasteful. Furthermore, the Corps enforces a dangerous, liberal regulation known as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Conservatives have long championed proposals to defund this regulation; yet, none of the funds in this bill were blocked from enforcing it.

WOTUS is a regulation is part of the Clean Water Act, passed in the 1970s. At the time, the bill mandated that agencies were to regulate “waters” on any property. There was just one problem: Congress never adequately defined the term “waters.” Instead, rogue agencies have been left to define it themselves.

Needless to say, its’ been a disaster. The regulation has been used to imprison Americans, destroy lands and seize homes. Republicans correctly offered amendments to reduce Corps funds from being used to enforce this regulation. The amendment failed, but not because of liberals. Instead, it failed because of Mitch McConnell. Republican leader Mitch McConnell used his powers to crush his own party.

An amendment of this nature would normally only require a simple majority to pass. Instead, McConnell used Senate rules to require the amendment to pass at 60 votes. Had the amendment proceeded under normal circumstances, the vote tally of 56 in favor; 42 against, would have been enough for it to pass!

Ready for the most devastating news? This bill actually rejected a proposal by Obama to reduce Corps spending by $1.4 billion. That’s right – the Corps is an agency that promotes a liberal, environmentalist agenda; it stands alone on the pedestal of government inefficiency and lawlessness, so much so that even Obama wants to defund the damn thing.

The Republicans thought otherwise.

But there’s more. The bill also provides new money to “green energy” projects, including energy loans that have been used as a personal piggy bank for Obama’s buddies. Do you remember the “green energy” loans to Solyndra, Abound Solar, Beacon Power or Ener1? They all received DOE loans and are now bankrupt.

Republicans at least cut funding for climate change research, right? Wrong. Republicans actually increased funding for climate change research by $40 million.

In the end, this Republican bill spends more money on liberal priorities, and provides funding for regulations that are devastating the American people and conservative states.

So, here is why it matters that we pay close attention:

The Last of the Senate Conservatives.

This bill passed the Senate with overwhelming support, 90 in favor and eight against. Each of the eight Senators who opposed the bill were Republicans including members you would expect like Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

Sadly, that’s the narrative that will fill press releases and voting records. But it’s not the entire story. See in the Senate, a bill never receives just one vote as you might believe. Rather, a bill must go through a web of votes in order for that final, pass or fail, vote to take place. The one vote that matters most, perhaps, is a vote called the “cloture” vote.

A cloture vote is basically an inquiry from all Senators as to whether they are prepared to move forward on a bill – it’s a vote in favor of ending debate on the bill and proceeding to a final vote.

However, a cloture vote requires 60 votes to pass, which means it often takes every Republican and a handful of Democrats in order for the bill to move forward.

The failure to receive the required 60 votes simply stalls the bill. This is crucial, because a 60 vote threshold is the most powerful vote for conservative members. Do the math, and it becomes clear that a simple majority, as is needed on final passage, never needs conservative votes – either to pass or deny a bill. Yet, a cloture vote provides much greater weight.

This gamesmanship is twisted into a convenient narrative. Conservative members can let the Republican establishment pass their liberal bills and act innocent by pointing to the weaker and less relevant vote for final passage. They do this by knowing an affirmative vote on cloture is moving them into a position where their vote becomes mathematically irrelevant.

During my time on Capitol Hill I routinely heard conservative members argue that a vote on cloture was a vote to end debate, even as they emphasized that it was not an affirmative vote for the bill. It should be noted, however, that for conservative members the cloture vote is the most important vote they cast – and they know it.

On a more principled argument, lets assume for a moment a cloture vote didn’t carry as much clout. It still begs the question: why would a conservative member ever agree to cease a continued debate on a bill that increases spending, especially for new climate change funding and environmental regulations?

Should we not perpetuate the debate on these conservative issues? Should the debate not continue indefinitely on the unsustainability of a growing government? Since when do conservatives surrender the debate to bigger government, more regulations and climate change funding?

Here is the Bombshell: Nearly every single conservative senator voted to end debate on this bill; nearly every single conservative member gave a hat tip for this to proceed to a final vote – a vote those members know would end in the bill passing the Senate.

There is one important exception: Senator Mike Lee.

Senator Mike Lee is the only truly conservative member to vote against cloture. He did so not once, but three time – or each time Republican Mitch McConnell tried to force a cloture vote on this liberal garbage.

He is the only conservative member who refused to end debate on these important issues. He is the only conservative member who refused to accept that this bill was ready to pass the Senate.

The energy and water bill may be boring. But it reflects the true nature of the Republican Party. It reflects the façade that we face in a party that prides itself on small government. To think that standing with Obama would have reduced spending to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by $1.4 billion, or standing against Mitch McConnell may have pushed us one step closer to defunding the worst, if not most anti-liberty, regulation that is WOTUS.

This bill is symbolic of what the Republican Party has become. More so, it truly reflects the one and final champion we have in the senate. He is the last of the conservative members, and his name is Senator Mike Lee. (For more from the author of “Why This Man Is the Last of the Senate Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Whoopi Goldberg Gives the One Reason She Doesn’t Want Trump to Be President

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Monday’s edition of The View on ABC, the co-hosts talked about an article in The New York Times in which presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump was accused of making inappropriate comments as well as unwanted advances toward women.

One panelist asked whether Trump is guilty of sexual harassment, saying he often accuses Bill Clinton — the husband of his likely Democratic opponent in the general election — of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior.

Joy Behar said, “You know what? They’re going to bring up Bill Clinton. … Bill Clinton is a dog also. What does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?”

Giving her opinion on the idea of Trump becoming president, co-host, Whoopi Goldberg said, “I don’t want a racist as president, sorry. I don’t want somebody who embraces — you know, I don’t mind — you know I have said this before, I would have been fine had he not brought in Muslims the way he did, Mexicans the way he did. And not said to the countless, you know, supremacists that seem to be backing him, ‘Hey, that’s not what I’m running on.’ Had he done that, I would not have an issue with him. But that’s not who I want representing the country.”

Following the posting of the article to Facebook by Breitbart, people were quick to respond to Goldberg’s comments.

One person posted: “How is it racist to point out a fact about the situation with Mexicans crossing the border illegally? Facts don’t have feelings Whoopi. Put all your feels to the side and think logically. And learn what the word racist means if you’re going to be a race baiter.”

Another post read: “Tell me again how securing the border against ILLEGAL immigration is racist…Whoopi is way more racist than Trump is !!!”

Finally, a user posted: “For these liberals/ dems, why in the 39 years Donald Trump has been in the public eye did no one call him a racist? Only now that he’s running for president, as a republican, does the left, the biased media, the sheep, etc say he’s racist. Tell me why? Also what makes him a racist?” (For more from the author of “Whoopi Goldberg Gives the One Reason She Doesn’t Want Trump to Be President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wow. Just Wow. Watch the Senate GOP Video That Launched a Thousand WTFs

/0 Comments/in , /by

So, it seems the Republicans in the Senate have decided to launch a new PR campaign. Which makes total sense, since the only thing lower than Congress’ approval rating is the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

But is this the best way to get people to start liking Senate Republicans?

Initial reaction: Jeez, what a bunch of dorks.

Second reaction: Wait a minute. Ok. So we have Mitch McConnell (F, 42%) and his Senate lackeys bragging about all the great “accomplishments” they’ve achieved this year. That’s ok, maybe, but here’s a question.

Which one of these “accomplishments” advanced small-government conservatism?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Oh, right. None of them. (For more from the author of “Wow. Just Wow. Watch the Senate GOP Video That Launched a Thousand WTFs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Battle Of “Uns” Between Clinton and Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Unpredictable” versus “unqualified” could be the choice between what are likely to be the two most unfavorable presidential candidates in American history.

As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are within a tiptoe step of becoming their respective party’s nominees, abstract outlines of the themes of the general election are beginning to take shape.

Clinton, in recent interviews, has hammered Trump for being a “loose cannon” and “provocative.” Trump has delighted in repeating remarks from Clinton’s current primary rival Bernie Sanders, arguing that Clinton’s “judgment is clearly lacking.” And both candidates are taking an increasing focus on terrorism and national security as it relates to both of these character qualities.

“I am the only person that says we will not be led down the tubes by an incompetent person like Hillary Clinton,” Trump said as a New Jersey fundraiser with Chris Christie on Thursday evening. “You look at what she has done. Her deal with Libya. Just take a look at Libya. It is a catastrophe.”

(Note: In a little noticed story published earlier this week, it was revealed that the former chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Benghazi said in January that “nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.” Meaning, he felt that military could not have done anything differently to save American lives in Benghazi the night of the attacks. Of course, the decision to place Americans assets there in the first place remains within Clinton’s area of responsibility as Secretary of State.)

Clinton, for her part, previewed her initial lines of attack in a rare interview on Thursday with CNN, seeking to mark Trump’s hot talk as a barrier to making the nation safer.

The former Secretary of State unveiled her barrage of attacks in one answer to CNN’s Chris Cuomo that began by calling Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, “provocative and wrongheaded” that led to him “being used essentially as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

Clinton also criticized Trump’s “unpredictable, dangerous rhetoric” and repeatedly stated his comments would have a negative effect on national security.

“Having watched presidents” she said, “having seen the incredibly difficult work that they do and the decisions that they have to make—the thinking that goes in sitting in the situation room, do we go after Bin Laden or not? I was part of that. Was it a clear, easy choice? Of course not. did it have to be carefully parsed and analyzed and then we gave our opinions and up to the president to decide.”

But Trump is certain to do all he can to turn Clinton’s experience in the Obama Administration into a negative. That’s why he’s not shying away from the “unqualified” label for her, first publicly raised by Sanders against Clinton.

It’s usually the very first thing Trump and his advisors bring up when it comes to Clinton.

On cue, Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller responded to Clinton’s interview in a dueling appearance on CNN thusly, “We obviously agree with Bernie Sanders that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president.”

“The Democratic party is on the verge of nominating the most pro-war, pro-wall street lawmaker in the modern history of the Democratic party,” he said. “That’s amazing. Think about it. You have a candidate in Hillary running on a pro-war platform about what she did in Libya, doing in Syria, about the toppling of the Egyptian regime and the military took back control, who’s running on a pro-wall street, pro-war agenda. That’s not the right fit.” (For more from the author of “A Battle Of “Uns” Between Clinton and Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

ISIS Executes 25 Iraqi ‘Spies’ by Lowering Them Into Nitric Acid Until Their ‘Organs Dissolve’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Islamic State (Isis) has executed 25 alleged spies by lowering them into a huge tub of nitric acid, until their ‘organs dissolved’, Iocal news source Iraqi News has claimed. The report could not be independently verified.

The alleged spies were captured in the IS (Daesh) stronghold of Mosul, in northern Iraq, accused of working for the Iraqi government’s security forces.

Mosul is the largest city in Iraq still under IS control, but is facing increasing pressure from the north, south and east by the Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga forces and US-led Western air strikes. A number of shocking and brutal killings have taken place at the hands of IS as they try to assert their domination over the the city, which Barack Obama had predicted would fall be the end of this year.

According to witnesses of the killings, the 25 alleged ‘spies’ were tied together with a huge rope and lowered in a basin containing the highly corrosive acid. Nitric acid is generally used for manufacturing ammonium nitrate that can be used to make fertiliser and explosives but it can also be used for photoengraving, etching steel, and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. (Read more from “ISIS Executes 25 Iraqi ‘Spies’ by Lowering Them Into Nitric Acid Until Their ‘Organs Dissolve'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Stunner! Obama Names Transgender to Faith Post

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama has appointed a transgender man to a prominent faith advisory position, sparking a flood of outrage from conservatives.

His recent announcement named Barbara Satin to be a member of the president’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, a choice commentator Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost scorched as a “mentally sick transgender man” . . .

Obama had described Satin, along with others on a list of appointees, as “fine public servants [who] bring a depth of experience and tremendous dedication to their important roles. I look forward to working with them.”

Obama’s statement said Satin was the assistant faith work director for the National LGBTQ Task Force.

“She is an active member of the United Church of Christ and served on the denomination’s executive council as its first openly transgender member. Ms. Satin recently worked on the development of Spirit on Lake, a LGBTQ senior housing project in Minneapolis. She served on the board of directors for OutFront Minnesota from 2001 to 2008 and has served as chair of GLBT Generations since 1999. She has also served on the board of directors of PFund Foundation, a regional LGBTQ community foundation advancing social justice in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin, since 2013,” Obama’s statement said. (Read more from “Stunner! Obama Names Transgender to Faith Post” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Franklin Graham on What Christians Must Do Before They Vote

/0 Comments/in , /by

Evangelist Franklin Graham is urging Christians to vote this election year, even if “it’s for the lesser of two evils.”

Graham spoke to a crowd on the steps of the capitol in Lincoln, Nebraska. It was the 24th stop, nearly the halfway mark of his 50-capitol Decision America Tour.

“I have no hope for the Democrat Party…I have no hope for the Republican Party,” Graham told the more than 3,000 people at the event, the Lincoln Journal Star reported. “The only hope for our nation today is Almighty God. The most important thing we can do as Christians is pray. It is our only hope.”

Graham says believers should vote for candidates who at least consider their concerns. He says bringing God back into politics is an absolute necessity.

Between 1,000 and 8,000 people have met Graham at each stop on the tour, whose purpose is to encourage Christians to pray and stand up for their faith. (Read more from “Franklin Graham on What Christians Must Do Before They Vote” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.