I’m Guessing That the Days of the Clinton Crime Family Are Numbered

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Hillary Clinton email investigation is entering a critical phase. The FBI has already interviewed some of Mrs. Clinton’s key aides when she was secretary of state and reports have said they will soon be interviewing Mrs. Clinton herself. At this juncture, it’s not a question anymore of whether any crimes were committed, because it has been well reported that Mrs. Clinton’s reckless use of a private email server and her gross mishandling of classified information was criminal behavior. I believe that what the FBI is really honing in on now, or should be examining, is the revolving-door State Department access that Mrs. Clinton gave her top donors and closest friends.

When the FBI interviews Mrs. Clinton and her aides, they will be able to question her about both the substance of the emails and the use of the private email and server. With respect to the substance of the emails, there has been plenty of focus on the classified ones, but there are also several that pose very serious ethical challenges.

From granting special access to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and Clinton Foundation donors, to assisting her son-in-law’s business contacts, there are numerous examples demonstrating quid pro quo. Here is a look at some of the emails that my organization, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, have documented in this area:

• Hillary Clinton intervenes for son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky: On Aug. 22, 2012, Mrs. Clinton acted on a request from her son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, for the State Department to assist one of his business contacts that also had ties to a Clinton Foundation donor. This apparent special access to the State Department was given based upon relationships with Mrs. Clinton’s family members and Clinton Foundation donors.

• Billionaire George Soros’ access to the State Department: On May 12, 2012, Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton confidante and president of the Center for American Progress, emailed Mrs. Clinton to tell her that George Soros, billionaire activist and major Clinton Foundation donor, said he was “impressed” with the level of access he had to Mrs. Clinton at the State Department.

• Clinton Foundation and the Red Cross: Clinton Foundation donors getting preferential treatment wasn’t the only arena in which foundation and State Department business overlapped. A Jan. 19, 2010 email from Mrs. Clinton to chief of staff Cheryl Mills recommended that the State Department work with the Clinton Foundation and the Red Cross on an education initiative for Haiti. As grounds for her recommendation, she noted that the foundation and the Red Cross have “Unencumbered $.” Mrs. Clinton’s motives may have been pure, but she should have been conscious of the conflict of interest posed by actively pushing the department to work with the foundation.

• Hillary Clinton gives former chief campaign consultant special access: Mrs. Clinton’s political allies also enjoyed special access. Her longtime pollster and chief consultant on her 2008 presidential race, Mark Penn, emailed Mrs. Clinton on Feb. 22, 2010, demanding “why no one called” him to help get corporate sponsors for the Shanghai Expo, an event Mrs. Clinton was deeply involved in at the time. Mrs. Clinton thanked Mr. Penn and forwarded his email to an aide, Kris Balderston, who set up a call with Mr. Penn for the following day. Days later, Mr. Balderston reported back to Mrs. Clinton in an email listing major corporations, including Boeing, Citi and Blackstone, that had agreed to provide financial support for the Shanghai Expo.

These emails demonstrate a disturbing narrative with the way Mrs. Clinton handled State Department business. If someone wanted access to her, they needed to be a top donor to her campaigns or philanthropic efforts. This is not the kind of treatment offered to ordinary citizens.

I know FBI Director James Comey. He is a competent, ethical person, and I am confident he will do the right thing in this case. The challenge, though, is that he can only make a recommendation to the Department of Justice about whether or not to bring a case against Mrs. Clinton.

The decision to bring a case ultimately rests with the Justice Department. It’s a decision the department cannot and should not be able to make, especially after it was reported this week that Hillary Clinton received almost $75,000 in political contributions from Justice Department employees, the most given to any of the current presidential candidates by Justice staff.

Furthermore, I am not sure Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the fortitude to oppose President Obama, who has publicly said Mrs. Clinton’s behavior didn’t put our national security at risk. In fact, the Obama administration recently stated that Hillary is qualified to be president, with White House spokesman Eric Schultz saying Mrs. Clinton “comes to this race with more experience than any other non-vice president in recent campaign history.”

Secondly, in a Fox News interview earlier this year, she wasn’t forthcoming about her role in the decision to prosecute the case. When asked if she was the one who would ultimately decide whether to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Lynch answered, “It depends.” The fact that the one person who will ultimately make the decision about an indictment evades routine questioning clearly demonstrates that this administration has shown no ability to be impartial with this investigation, as they have looked the other way at every turn. For this reason, I am renewing my call for the appointment of a special counsel in this case.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not citizens who feel they are entitled to disregard them. That was the foundation upon which our country was built. In the coming weeks, we will find out if those principles hold true in this case. (For more from the author of “I’m Guessing That the Days of the Clinton Crime Family Are Numbered” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hey Conservatives, Stop Apologizing for the Failures of Liberalism

/1 Comment/in , /by

A few months ago, while attending a political event, I listened to a former GOP legislator begin her speech this way, “Republicans don’t hate women and Republicans aren’t racists…” Upon hearing this, I was appalled. Although I don’t believe this lawmaker has any malicious intent, her opening set the table for her speech and made it seem as if standing for conservative principles meant something other than what it actually means. As conservatives, we don’t have anything to apologize for. We didn’t do this.

The destructive politics of division, frequently employed by the far-left, are legitimized when we play their game and render apologies for policies we not only had nothing to do with, but policies which we stand in direct opposition to. It’s time to put the far-left back on its heels and go on the offense. We need to immediately start holding them to account for the destruction they have caused and stop offering illogical apologies.

For example, we are enmeshed in the worst recovery from a recession in modern American history. President Obama will be the first president in American history to never reach three percent GDP growth in ANY year of his presidency. To our liberal friends reading this I ask, “Why do you think this is, and what conservative policy do you wish to blame?” I suspect they will not have an answer because there is no answer. The Obama income tax hikes, investment taxes and Obamacare taxes are all liberal wish-list items and have unquestionably dampened our economic spirits. I don’t care which sell out member of the GOP voted for or against these taxes because this is in no way a conservative idea. We stand for vibrant economic liberty and the lowest tax rates possible to support the constitutional role of government, not an ever-expanding welfare state which empties the wallets of hard-working Americans and expands the government’s wallet. There is nothing conservative about this and liberals, not conservatives, should apologize for causing the dreadful economic conditions we are currently experiencing.

Regarding healthcare, what conservative principle was responsible for the exploding costs, cancelled plans, and reduced access to doctors and hospitals? Obamacare created a system where community rating and guaranteed issue (two liberal fantasies because they involve price controls and big government mandates) took an already broken system and smashed the remnants into the ground. Conservatives believe in the awesome power of markets and economic liberty to discipline the human greed impulse. Conservatives rely on individual choice, not government mandates, to keep costs down and quality up. None of this happened in the design and implementation of Obamacare, which garnered exactly zero Republican votes when it passed. The far-left did this to our healthcare system, not conservatives. And the far-left should own it.

Finally, true conservatives are passionate advocates for education liberty. We support choice for parents so that they can remove their children from failing schools and place them in schools which will prepare them for a prosperous future. The far-left absolutely refuses to relinquish an iota of control over their public school monopoly and doesn’t appear to care who suffers because of it. What’s conservative about that? Nothing. If liberals want an apology then they should demand it from other liberals. They did this to our kids, not us.

We have a responsibility to speak truth to power and right now much power rests in the halls of academia and in the mainstream media. It is these institutions that readily embrace the deceptive liberal division politics game and make sure conservatives apologize for their fabricated role in it. I’m done with that, and you should be too. Turn the tables. Start demanding apologies from liberals for the destruction left behind after seven-plus years of Barack Obama and let’s see how they respond. (For more from the author of “Hey Conservatives, Stop Apologizing for the Failures of Liberalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Massachusetts House Overwhelmingly Passes Bill to Abolish Biological Sex

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts jumped on the transgender bathroom bandwagon Wednesday when its House of Representatives voted 116-36 to move forward with a bill that legally replaces the concept of biological sex with that of gender identity.

The “Gender Identity Public Accommodations Bill,” or H.4343, seeks to further push for transgender “anti-discrimination” laws in three separate parts.

First, it would amend multiple areas of Massachusetts law to replace the word “sex,” with “gender identity.” Secondly, it would mandate that “[a]ny public accommodation…shall grant all persons admission to and the full enjoyment of such public accommodation or other entity consistent with the person’s gender identity,” while finally ordering the the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to amend rules and policies to comply with the redefinition of sex to gender identity.

“We are doing the work the founders of our nation intended for us to do,” said co-sponsor Byron Rushing of the bill prior to its passage. “This is a great day for us and we should be very proud.”

“This is a historic day for Massachusetts,” reads a statement from pro-transgender group Freedom Massachusetts. “The wave of legislative activity #TransBillMA has seen in the last two months is the culmination of a decade-long fight to fully protect transgender people from discrimination in the Bay State.”

Others, however, were not so convinced of the law’s merit.

“This legislation takes rights away from 99.9% of the population,” said Rep. James Lyons of Andover (R), who voted against the measure. “Every parent that I have spoken with including a parent of a transgender child understands that this bill eliminates long held expectation of privacy and protection for children.”

“This is a collision of rights. Rights in conflict,” continued Lyons in his emailed statement to Conservative Review. “I have yet to see how changing the law to remove what is currently on the books helps anyone.”

Final vote on passage was delayed by a nearly five-hour round of debate over at least 36 proposed amendments which some likened to a Senate filibuster. The amendments in question included, among several others, provisions to which would have excepted facilities primarily used by minors, such as public school bathrooms and locker rooms, one that would have required proof of medical transition for individuals to use facilities that do not coincide with their biological sex, and one which would have exempted multiple use facilities, “where there is an expectation of privacy” among occupants, from the bill.

Only one of the amendments, a technical rewrite of section 2 of the bill, was adopted.

When debate on the bill began in the early afternoon, Lyons gave an impassioned speech on the House floor against the bill to a response of thunderous applause from the gallery, arguing that it was unnecessary due to the fact that transgender individuals are already protected from discrimination under current law.

“Based on my review, this is a medical issue. How does allowing the use of the bathrooms and locker facilities solve a medical issue and furthermore how does this law achieve the goal of eliminating discrimination?” reiterated Lyons in his statement to CR. “It appears both United States Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court have provided guidance that transgender people are protected under existing statutes. MCAD is enforcing current laws. GLAAD states that transgender people are protected. So what is the issue? The issue is should we as legislators eliminate privacy rights and protection for our children.”

The bill, which has already passed in the Massachusetts Senate, now heads to Governor Charlie Baker’s desk, where it will likely receive his signature for final passage.

“We’ve certainly listened to a variety of points of view from many sides and have said, from the beginning, that we don’t want people to be discriminated against,” said the governor in an interview with the Boston Globe on Tuesday. “If the House bill were to pass in its current form, yeah, I would sign it.”

But while the Bay State has passed legislation in line with the recent cultural and legislative push to legally replace biological sex with experienced gender identity, other states are fighting back against it.

Currently, a total of 13 states across the country have banded together in filing a federal lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s recent 25-page letter that all but mandates transgender bathrooms in public schools nationwide.

“Our local schools are now in the crosshairs of the Obama administration, which maintains it will punish those schools who do not comply with its orders. These schools are facing the potential loss of school funding for simply following common sense policies that protect their students,” stated Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton at the announcement of the lawsuit last week.

Furthermore, in a statement released Tuesday, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) announced that his office would be sending a letter to school districts throughout the state instructing them not to comply with the federal bathroom mandate.

“The President’s threat of withholding federal funds is just a threat. By standing together we will demonstrate Texas will not be threatened or blackmailed by a policy that doesn’t make sense and puts our girls and women at risk.”

Following the announcement of the Administration’s proposed guidelines in May, Patrick accused the President of extortion due to the implied threats that public schools which do not comply could lose federal funding.

“He says he’s going to withhold funding if schools do not follow the policy,” Patrick said a few days after the Administration’s mandate was issued. “Well, in Texas, he can keep his 30 pieces of silver. We will not yield to blackmail from the president of the United States.”

“So Barack Obama, if schools don’t knuckle down to force girls showering with boys and force 8-year-old girls to have to endure boys coming into their bathroom — he’s taking money from the poorest of the poor. The president of the United States will be ending the free breakfast and free lunch program — that’s what he’s saying.”

A conference committee will convene in the coming weeks to reconcile the differences between the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Massachusetts bill. (For more from the author of “Massachusetts House Overwhelmingly Passes Bill to Abolish Biological Sex” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Income Hasn’t Fallen Like Federal Labor Statistics Show, Experts Argue

/0 Comments/in , /by

Data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows labor’s share of income continually falling. Although some pundits looked at these numbers and concluded the economy has shifted against workers, labor economist James Sherk says a deeper look at the data reveals this is not the case.

“Every dollar earned or spent ultimately goes to labor or capital,” Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in a recent report.

“For example, the money that drivers spend on gas goes toward paying the employees who drilled, refined, and transported that oil or the shareholders of the companies they work for. Economists call the proportion of income going to employees the ‘labor share of income.’”

Net income is what remains after expenses such as maintenance repairs and software updates. It reflects the resources available for workers or business owners to actually consume, Sherk says.

Sherk wrote that the increase in depreciation expenses over recent decades is partially due to the vast use of technology in the workplace. For example, computers wear out quickly and are in constant need of repair or replacement. This cost is something that simply didn’t exist before computers were introduced into the American office.

“This is just an incredibly important policy issue,” Scott Winship, the Walter B. Wriston fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said at a Heritage Foundation event in regard to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data.

Sherk explained at the Heritage event that the bureau has changed how it measures self-employment income. Until the 2000s, labor accounted for the majority of self-employment income. Later, the agency changed to equally splitting self-employment income between labor and capital, which Sherk said is not an accurate representation of self-employment income.

This revised measurement reduced labor’s share of income despite nothing actually changing in the economy.

“Adjusting for depreciation and self-employment [measurement changes] shows that workers take home the same proportion of net income today as they did in 1948,” Sherk wrote.

Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said Sherk’s and Winship’s research is “debunking a lot of things that are conventional wisdom” among some economics commentators.

“They help this conventional wisdom actually move towards the truth,” de Rugy said.

When studying depreciation directly, Sherk found that in the nonfarm business sector, depreciation rose from 7.8 percent in 1948 to 13.9 percent in 2014. Sherk looked solely at the nonfarm sector because it is “more clear cut,” he said Tuesday.

Winship emphasized the importance of changing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ standard in order to reshape the conventional wisdom that labor’s share of income is devastatingly low.

“Some people have an interest in showing that things look like they’re getting worse, or that they’re not getting better as rapidly as they actually are” to push a certain political agenda, Winship said.

“The bottom line that labor’s share of income hasn’t fallen, that worker pay has tracked worker productivity over time—those are crucial conclusions,” Winship said.

He added:

I think it’s important that the change [in the agency’s standard] does happen, and hopefully it comes about by enough of us pointing out what the basic facts are.

(For more from the author of “Income Hasn’t Fallen Like Federal Labor Statistics Show, Experts Argue” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Your Money Is Going to Planned Parenthood Whether You Like It or Not

/0 Comments/in , /by

Whether you’re a painter, pastor, lawyer, or laborer (pro-life or pro-abortion), you work for Planned Parenthood. A portion of every paycheck goes to the world’s leading abortion business through the federal and state taxes allocated by your elected representatives and the unelected bureaucrats they empower.

For the fiscal year ending in June 2015 (just before the Center for Medical Progress videos were released), over $550 million of your hard-earned tax dollars went to Planned Parenthood.

But the states are taking the lead to end this forced partnership with “Big Abortion” and redirecting those funds to providers that better serve women and families.

Since the authenticated Center for Medical Progress videos were released showing Planned Parenthood officials bartering over the prices of baby body parts, 15 states have taken action to end or limit its taxpayer subsidies.

Here are just a few examples of what state legislatures and governors have done:

New Hampshire canceled over $600,000 in annual state grants to Planned Parenthood.

Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from the states’ Medicaid programs “for cause,” citing its waste, abuse, and potential fraud and the evidence of violations of the law and ethics demonstrated in the Center for Medical Progress videos.

Wisconsin and Arizona have slashed the Medicaid reimbursement for certain drugs for entities like Planned Parenthood that receive them at artificially low rates under a federal government program, denying them windfall profits and making those funds available to more women and families.

Ohio, Florida, Utah, and Wisconsin have also eliminated Planned Parenthood from other federal and state grant programs administered by the state.

These actions have potentially eliminated tens of millions in annual taxpayer subsidies going to Planned Parenthood. This represents a small part of the hundreds of millions that it receives, but it is a solid start. And these efforts may at least cut into the $59 million in “excess revenue” the abortion outfit reported last year alone.

States have fought to defund the abortion industry before, but never has the effort to rid American taxpayers of their compelled support of Planned Parenthood been more purposeful and effective than the past several months.

Even Congress has heard the call to stop the flow of taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood. Just five years ago, an effort to defund Planned Parenthood garnered only 42 votes in the Senate. But moved by the evidence against Planned Parenthood and the fact that other providers are simply better public health options for women and families, in January, Congress actually placed a bill on the president’s desk slashing Planned Parenthood’s access to our tax dollars.

The bill wasn’t perfect, and it was of course vetoed by President Barack Obama, but the progress is real. A different president, one not beholden to an entity that alone has spent tens of millions of dollars to elect him and others who will defend their access to the public trough, would make the difference.

But just as the states are not waiting on Congress to pass laws limiting abortions after five months, when the unborn child can feel pain, they are also not content to wait on Congress to finally stop their citizens’ tax dollars from going to the abortion industry. Governors and state legislators have worked to redirect our tax dollars away from the abortion industry before, but in the last 10 months they have shown a new leadership that should encourage pro-lifers and any advocate of federalism.

No one ever said that eliminating taxpayer subsidies to the abortion market leader and a key political friend to Democratic candidates would be easy. Planned Parenthood has sued several states, and the ultimate success of some states in defunding it may rest on the election of a pro-life president who will support their authority to make their own decisions about their state Medicaid programs.

But the results of the last 10 months should give us hope that this is a fight we can win. We don’t have to keep sending our hard-earned tax dollars to support a billion dollar abortion business. And the leaders in that fight are outside the beltway. (For more from the author of “Your Money Is Going to Planned Parenthood Whether You Like It or Not” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Announces Travel Plans to Location Where Some Tried to Ban Him

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump has announced he will be traveling to the United Kingdom later this month in order to celebrate the grand reopening of his golf course, Turnberry, located in Ayrshire, Scotland.

According to The Washington Post, Trump will travel to the U.K. on the June 24, although he has yet to announce whether he will be meeting with foreign leaders.

Several U.K. politicians have previously gone on record condemning Trump and the tone of his campaign, with British Prime Minister David Cameron saying Trump is “stupid, divisive and wrong.”

Despite these harsh criticisms, Cameron said the U.K. would retain its “special relationship” with the U.S. even if Trump makes his way to the White House. Some might suggest this clarification was an attempt to walk back his previous statements.

In addition to Cameron, a handful of British lawmakers attempted to ban Trump’s entry into the country back in January, citing a law that outlaws hate speech.

Despite this, Trump has said he is very excited to visit Turnberry.

“Very exciting that one of the great resorts of the world, Turnberry, will be opening today after a massive $200 million investment,” Trump said in a press release issued by the resort.

“I own it and I am very proud of it. I look forward to attending the official opening of this great development on June 24,” he added.

Trump has not yet released any additional information regarding the trip, or whether he will be visiting London. The city’s newly elected mayor, Sadiq Khan, has invited Trump to the city so that he could “educate” the billionaire on Islam. (For more from the author of “Trump Announces Travel Plans to Location Where Some Tried to Ban Him” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murder-Suicide Stuns Students and Faculty at UCLA

/0 Comments/in , /by

Police have confirmed that a murder-suicide occurred when one man shot and killed another, then turned the gun on himself on the campus of UCLA Wednesday.

“It appears it is entirely contained,” said LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck during a press conference. “We believe there are no suspects outstanding and no continuing threat to the UCLA campus.”

Fox News reports the LAPD was on a citywide tactical alert following the shooting, which happened just after 10 a.m. The campus was placed on lockdown.

Beck said the shooting happened in a small office and both men were found dead at the scene. Students reported hearing loud noises and gun casings dropping, according to UCLA’s campus newspaper. The identities of the men have not yet been made public and their relationship to each other is thus far unknown.

A gun and what Beck said “could be” a suicide note were found at the scene.

With the realization that the shooter was dead and the campus was safe, the LAPD released the students from lockdown.

Students at nearby Fairburn Elementary School, Warner Elementary School and Emerson Community Charter Middle School had also been put on lockdown as a precautioniary measure due to police activity in the vicinity. Much like the UCLA students, they, too, were released from lockdown

The shooting occurred just two days before the final day of classes at the university. (For more from the author of “Murder-Suicide Stuns Students and Faculty at UCLA” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Touts Transgender Restrooms, Blasts ‘Harmful Practice of Conversion Therapy’

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an official White House statement, President Obama denounced the “harmful practice of conversion therapy,” a therapeutic method designed to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attraction.

“My administration is striving to better understand the needs of LGBT adults and to provide affordable, welcoming, and supportive housing to aging LGBT Americans,” the president writes in his Presidential Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month, a declaration that has become an annual tradition. “It is also why we oppose subjecting minors to the harmful practice of conversion therapy, and why we are continuing to promote equality and foster safe and supportive learning environments for all students.”

The latter is an apparent reference to his controversial federal guidance that all public schools and universities must allow members of one sex to use the restrooms, showers, and overnight accommodations (including dorm rooms) of the opposite biological sex or lose federal funding.

However, the president took the opportunity of his last pride month proclamation to reiterate his support for a federal ban on reparative therapy for minors, a position he shares with Hillary Clinton.

Their real agenda may have nothing to do with concern over the safety of LGBT youth, an expert tells LifeSiteNews. (Read more from “Obama Touts Transgender Restrooms, Blasts ‘Harmful Practice of Conversion Therapy'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Congressional panel investigating the fetal tissue research company StemExpress, which the Center for Medical Progress exposed in its groundbreaking undercover videos about fetal body parts trafficking, found that StemExpress and the abortion centers with which it contracted violated federal patient privacy and informed consent regulations.

In two letters to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives Chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn detailed the panel’s findings on StemExpress’s cozy relationships with abortion facilities. The panel found that StemExpress employees had access to confidential patient health information—which they had no medically necessary reason to see and the abortion centers had no reason to disclose—in order to streamline their workflow and thus maximize profits. According to the Panel, StemExpress was allowed to use this confidential information to be matched up with patients whose aborted babies matched their tissue demands.

The letters indicate that StemExpress employees were working alongside abortion workers in ways that appear to conflict with regulations related to research on human subjects and federal privacy law.

Blackburn wrote that federal regulations require specific procedures to be followed when research is being conducted on human subjects. Research on human subjects must be approved by a valid Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that the research is ethical and safe.

StemExpress didn’t follow these procedures when obtaining informed consent from abortion clinic patients, Blackburn wrote. Blackburn’s letter said it’s unclear whether patients consented to donating tissue from their aborted infants before or after the abortion procedures took place and the manner in which patient consent was obtained raises “serious concerns” about whether patients were coerced or unduly influenced into donating fetal tissue. (Read more from “House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The #NeverTrump Movement’s Independent Candidate Reportedly Revealed

/0 Comments/in , /by

The identity of the “impressive” independent presidential candidate to challenge presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump that conservative commentator Bill Kristol tweeted about Sunday night reportedly has been revealed.

Bloomberg Politics reports that two Republicans familiar with Kristol’s efforts say the person who will put his hat in the ring is constitutional attorney and National Review writer David French.

French is an Iraq War veteran and former senior counsel with both the American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defending Freedom, according to his biography on National Review’s site. He is a gradate of Harvard Law School and also the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore.

Clearly Kristol’s description of him as “impressive,” at least with regards to his credentials, is accurate. Whether that will translate into a credible run for the presidency is the question. While Trump never served in political office, he had the advantage of having nationwide name recognition.

French’s credibility with social conservatives would likely be strong, given his work with two organizations important to that group: the ACLJ and ADF. His wife, Nancy, is also a New York Times best-selling author of books, mostly dealing with Christian topics, and she collaborated on a book with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The National Review, for which French is a staff writer, dedicated an entire issue in January to conservative thinkers voicing their opposition to Trump’s candidacy.

Trump responded to Kristol’s Sunday tweet with some of his own, including this one:

(For more from the author of “The #NeverTrump Movement’s Independent Candidate Reportedly Revealed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.