New Poll Shows Miller Within Single Digits Of Murkowski

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Anchorage, Alaska. September 28, 2016 — A new poll released this week finds Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller within single digits of incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.

The People’s Pundit Daily tracking poll surveyed 317 likely Alaskan voters and found Murkowski with 38 percent, to Miller’s 30 percent, while Democrat Ray Metcalfe garnered 13 percent and 19 percent remained undecided.

Not included in the poll was left-leaning Independent senate candidate Margaret Stock.

A poll conducted in late August, prior to Miller’s entry into race, had Murkowski at 56 percent to Metcalfe’s 12 percent and Margaret Stock’s 5 percent. In other words, the senator has seen a significant drop-off since Miller entered the field.

Though Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll, Metcalfe’s consistent numbers in both surveys bolster the results as giving at least a rough picture of where the race stands.

It should be noted that Alaska has a strong conservative base, as evidenced by the Republican presidential primary results in March.

Sen. Ted Cruz, won the state taking 36 percent of the vote, followed by Donald Trump with 33.5 percent, Sen. Marco Rubio with 15 percent and Dr. Ben Carson with 11 percent. In other words, non-establishment Republicans accounted for at least 80 percent of the primary vote total in the state.

Miller’s insurgent candidacy would appear best poised to benefit from the popular anti-establishment sentiment in the country.

“We like where we stand right now,” said Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto. “We are three weeks into this race, and Joe is within single digits of an incumbent U.S. senator who spent millions billing her herself as ‘The Conservative Voice For Alaska’ but having a record of voting with Obama more than any other ‘Republican’ senator up for re-election (72 percent of the time during the last Congress).”

“I believe when Alaskans learn that record, many of those undecided voters will move into the Joe Miller column,” he added.

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin Endorses Joe Miller For U.S. Senate

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Fairbanks, Alaska. September 28, 2016 — Family Research Council Executive Vice President and former Delta Force Commander Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin announced his endorsement of Joe Miller for U.S. Senate on Wednesday, describing the Alaskan as a “rock solid” conservative with whom he is “100 percent” in alignment.

“I am supporting Joe Miller. I believe in Joe,” Boykin stated, adding he is “a strong conservative on issues of national security, smaller government and fiscal constraint, and social issues like life and family. On all the core issues that conservatives hold dear, Joe is rock solid.”

“A West Point graduate, Joe has served his nation in the uniform of a United States Army officer, making him one of a dwindling number of leaders in America to have done so,” the retired three-star general said. “As a dedicated father and devoted husband, Joe embraces the family values that will help keep America strong.”

Miller responded to the backing of the renowned military and conservative leader saying, “I am deeply honored and humbled to receive the endorsement of a man whom I respect so deeply and who has served our country with such distinction.”

He added, “I share the general’s assessment that our nation is at a critical juncture, and new leadership is desperately needed in Washington, grounded in America’s founding constitutional principles, in order to restore the security, prosperity and liberty that have been the birthright of all Americans.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed

/0 Comments/in , , /by

At last night’s debate, there was one issue that Hillary Clinton really exposed herself on: gun control. With her talk of the “no fly list,” discussion of a “gun epidemic,” and a “plague of gun violence,” it became evident that Hillary has many ideas of how to impose comprehensive gun control.

According to the Washington Post transcript of the first presidential debate, Hillary said of guns:

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.

The term “epidemic” and “plague” are medical terms used to describe illnesses. This is language intended to communicate the idea that gun violence is a health problem like cancer or the Zika virus. When one makes the ownership of guns akin to a sickness, it becomes easier to sell the American people the idea of mandatory gun confiscation.

Violence isn’t caused by guns, it is caused by people with guns, and knives and bombs. An issue that receives far less attention is the fact the violence is a societal problem made worse by rampant glorification in movies, cable shows, music, and violent video games. In other words, guns are not the problem. The people holding the guns are the problem because we, as a society, have been desensitized to violence through entertainment that glorifies violence.

Movies like Hostel to Reservoir Dogs to Natural Born Killers all glorify violence and make it acceptable to see death. Video games like Grand Theft Auto and the many military style games teach kids how to kill and allow kids to go on killing rampages. Violence in entertainment impacts the attitudes of people towards real life situations.

No liberal would dare to call these movies and video games an “epidemic” or a “plague” because that might lead to a chipping away of what many consider a First Amendment right. Yet, no similar treatment is given to the Second Amendment that resides in that same Bill of Rights.

According to the Washington Post transcript, Hillary argued:

And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we’ve got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.

Here Hillary called for a widespread gun confiscation, the closing of gun shows, and ending face-to-face sales of guns by requiring background checks on private sales. Hillary is an anti-gun extremist who does not respect the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Clinton closed that segment with a false equivalency:

And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

Trump, along with the NRA, supports the idea of imposing some due process when somebody is pinged as being on a watch list so they can challenge the removal of the right to purchase a gun. The NRA position is that if somebody tries to purchase a gun and they are on the “no fly list” then they have the opportunity to go into court and challenge the action.

Hillary supports legislation that process rights from those that end up, intentionally or unintentionally, on the no fly list. Trump and Clinton do not support the same idea on how to treat individuals who are on the “no fly list” who try to purchase a gun, because Hillary does not support due process protections in the legislation being supported by Trump, the NRA, and other Republicans.

The noise of “who won and who lost the debate,” Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s tax returns, and Rosie O’Donnell don’t really matter to most voters. Having their guns confiscated and does matter.

On the issue of guns, Hillary lost the debate with Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night’s debate was a reflection of the Kim Kardashian culture and the fake two-party system that has destroyed our Constitution.

There were sharp rhetorical barbs tossed at one another in this reality TV show, but over what exactly did they debate? Where was the major point of contention on the actual issues that matter?

For all of the talk about how this election is so new, exciting, and consequential, this debate merely reflected a typical day in Washington. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) toss rhetorical barbs at one another every day, but they fundamentally agree on so many issues. They engage in confrontation just to entertain the political class with a fake WWE-style bout.

Many of us have been pining for years to watch a general election debate in which the GOP candidate would deracinate the entire premise of socialism and pin the high cost of living, loss of jobs, and lethargic growth on the Democrats’ liberal policies. Yet, the beginning of the first presidential debate was an astounding display of “me too” socialism whereby Trump made his entire plan for economic growth centered around protectionism. Even if one subscribes to some degree of protectionism, the notion that this is a proactive tool for growth is absurd. Trump didn’t pitch his tax plan until Hillary brought it up and when she did, Trump spent more time focusing on “preventing” companies from leaving the country — whatever that means.

Trump got back on message for a few minutes when he finally defended his tax plan and spoke about onerous regulations. But fundamentally, the economic side of this debate sounded more one-sided than any presidential debate in memory, and that includes the debates with liberals like John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) and Bob Dole. It was further astounding that Trump did not mention the 800-pound gorilla on fiscal policy —Obamacare —a single time. Then again, for someone who loves expansion of Medicaid, it’s hard to articulate what exactly is wrong with Obama’s signature legislation.

The most disappointing part of the debate was when Trump enthusiastically agreed with Hillary on universal child care and maternity leave. Trump uttered a line that embodies the pale-pastel nature of the oligarchy since 1988. He asserted that while he agrees with Hillary’s program, they “probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts.”

Freeze frame right there.

This is the perfect summation of the GOP since 1988, excepting for the brief aberration of the 1995 House Republicans. They agree with whatever Democrats are doing at any given time, albeit disagree over the numbers and amounts. Trump should have retorted by listing all of the Democrat policies that make it impossible for women to stay home with their children if they choose to do so because the cost of living through socialism forces both parents to work every year of their lives. Of the 14 winning issues we’ve outlined, he barely touched on a few of them and none of them in a meaningful way.

Somehow Donald Trump managed to (finally) hit Hillary on the debt, but never explained how he will end deficit spending given that he will not repeal a single program, will continue to add programs, and sign a massive stimulus bill on infrastructure projects, an idea that should be pursued by state governments.

When Hillary asserted that Trump referred to global warming as a hoax, instead of embracing the opportunity to discuss how this hoax is decimating the economy in swing states, he retreated by denying he ever said it. I think we all remember a candidate in the primary who would have relished a debate over global warming.

And while fiscal conservatism was dead in this debate, social conservatism — even social libertarianism, private property rights, religious liberty, and inalienable rights — never made an appearance.

But most of the debate wasn’t about issues — liberal or otherwise. To debate moderator Lester Holt’s credit, he let the candidates banter back and forth for most of the debate — you might even call it a debate for once. But that is the point. Given the nature of these two candidates — a tired, old Great Society culture warrior at one podium and her donor at the other — the meat of the debate was about personality. At the beginning, it was Trump’s personality who knocked Hillary off her game, but over time Hillary engaged in jujitsu by leading Trump into his own rabbit holes and in a defensive posture about his personal life and prior statements.

We already know Trump is a social and fiscal liberal on many issues, but the one saving grace has long been his strong views on immigration and national security. Yet, when given a fast-ball up the plate to talk about his solution to homegrown terror, Trump didn’t mention immigration or the Muslim Brotherhood once or body slam Hillary for increasing refugees by 550 percent. Rather, he went off on a tangent about NATO, got caught on his past statements on Iraq, and was ensnared in a lengthy discussion about birtherism.

When Hillary brought up the issue of gun control and the terror watch list, Trump could have destroyed her on bringing in assault people while foolishly focusing on the inanimate object. He could have exposed her hypocrisy of confiscating guns from innocent people on the list (a prominent journalist wound up on the list) while vigorously clamoring to let violent gun felons out of jail. He could have demonstrated how Hillary wants to go after guns without due process but opposes stripping individuals of citizenship after being convicted through due process of joining a terror group. Instead, he chose the age-old milquetoast GOP approach, the same strategy he employs on so many fiscal issues; he “strongly” agreed with Hillary, thereby throwing the NRA under the bus.

The one area of strength for Trump, however, was the discussion on law and order and how Hillary’s pro criminal policies will hurt inner cities. Trump was also on message when discussing Hillary’s failures in the Middle East, but that line of attack was overshadowed when he got trapped in his past statements on Iraq and his support for the Libya intervention. Furthermore, his answer to the question on nuclear weapons and North Korea was literally incomprehensible…as in weapons-grade stupid.

I couldn’t help but reflect with sorrow of how 52 years after Phyllis Schlafly called for “a choice, not an echo” in our political system. Today, we still hear the faint echo on policy from Republicans — yes, even this new and exciting one — drowned out by the raucous noise of the personal insults. When you strip away the WWE smack-down, there is no choice there.

For those who still desire to beat Hillary at all costs, I don’t blame you. But don’t kid yourselves: if Trump wins on November 8, the work would have only begun. We will have his incoherent luggage piled on top of the existing GOP establishment, which is more empowered than ever before. Blindly cheering everything we fought against for years – without immediately charting a new path for conservatism – won’t end well.

Until Americans return to the values that made this country great in the first place and seize the monopoly away from the oligarchy, we will continue to get the same failed leadership and the same indistinguishable choices every four years. And we deserve it. (For more from the author of “Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NEW STAFFER DETAILS: Docs Reveal Role of ‘Confidential’ Clinton Aide

/0 Comments/in , /by

When Romanian hacker “Guccifer” breached Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal’s email account in 2013, it set off an explosive chain of events among a tight circle of Clinton family aides – including one “confidential assistant” whose extensive role in managing some of the former secretary’s mobile devices and computer security requests is only now becoming clear.

The details were contained in the latest document dump of FBI files on Clinton’s personal email use. The FBI chose late Friday afternoon to release nearly 200 highly redacted pages of so-called “302” files from the bureau’s investigation, a release that quickly became overshadowed by the impending presidential debate Monday.

But the files included new details of the tech intervention by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Clinton Foundation official Justin Cooper – and a third individual, a Hillary Clinton aide named Monica Hanley.

Hanley was interviewed twice by the FBI, on Jan. 11 and June 23. Working for Hillary Clinton as a “confidential assistant,” Hanley joined the State Department in 2009 as Hillary Clinton began her job as secretary of state. Previously, the 35-year-old worked as an intern for Clinton while she served as a U.S. senator for New York.

In the released documents, Hanley emerged as the go-to staffer often tasked with finding replacements to satisfy Clinton’s chosen use of non-secure BlackBerries. Hanley stated she tried to find BlackBerries for sale on eBay and admitted that she made a trip to a mall in Virginia to try to find devices for sale. (Read more from “NEW STAFFER DETAILS: Docs Reveal Role of ‘Confidential’ Clinton Aide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Satanism Rise Fresh Sign of U.S. Fall From God

/0 Comments/in , /by

Elementary schools forced by the government to allow “Satan Clubs” on school grounds. Statues of Baphomet are erected in major American cities. And a national headquarters for the “Satanic Temple” in Salem, Massachusetts, famous for its “witch trials” during colonial times.

Has America gone to the devil? Christian leaders are speaking out – and they are reluctantly saying it has.

Karl Payne, pastor of leadership development at Antioch Bible Church and the former chaplain of the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks, said the rise of devil worship is an ominous development.

“Historian Arnold Toynbee famously declared countries crumble from within,” he said. “I believe we are nearing the end of that same course in our country that once represented a light of hope and freedom to the world.”

Payne, the author of “Spiritual Warfare: Christians, Demonization and Deliverance,” said America is no longer a Christian nation. And Christians need to wake up. (Read more from “Satanism Rise Fresh Sign of U.S. Fall From God” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Likely to Face Opposition After Nominating Cuban Ambassador

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama nominated Jeffrey DeLaurentis Tuesday to serve as the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba in more than 50 years.

DeLaurentis has already been serving as the senior U.S. diplomat in Havana while Obama worked on restoring relations with the Communist island. Technically, he already has the rank of ambassador, but the post must still be confirmed by the Senate.

“Jeff’s leadership has been vital throughout the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba, and the appointment of an ambassador is a common sense step forward toward a more normal and productive relationship between our two countries,” Obama said. “There is no public servant better suited to improve our ability to engage the Cuban people and advance U.S. interests in Cuba than Jeff.”

The decision will undoubtably face strong opposition from a Republican-controlled Senate.

Cuban-American Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas have been very vocal in their criticism of opening relations with Cuba, arguing the country and its leader have done nothing to earn American engagement.

Both senators have stated they would block any ambassador appointed by Obama.

“A U.S. ambassador is not going to influence the Cuban government, which is a dictatorial, closed regime,” Rubio said during a phone interview with Politico in July.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told Yahoo News that he doesn’t believe having an ambassador should be a “reward” that America doles out to someone.

“We have such a basic difference on that,” Rhodes added. “To us, the concept that it’s a reward for a country to have an ambassador makes no sense. On the contrary, having an ambassador gives you a higher profile, a higher-ranked advocate for what America cares about, whether that’s bilateral cooperation or whether that’s speaking out for human rights.”

Rhodes did admit that “it will be hard” to get DeLaurentis confirmed. There is a good possibility the Senate won’t even consider his nomination before Obama leaves office in January.

The president also faces a longstanding tradition which allows an individual senator to anonymously impose a delay, and potentially end, the confirmation process.

“We have no illusions,” Rhodes said. “But we feel that it’s important to validate the good work that Jeff DeLaurentis has done while also indicating that we think the norm should be that there’s an ambassador — and put the onus on opponents to articulate why it makes any sense at all to not have such a well-qualified person in the position.”

“He is exactly the type of person we want to represent the United States in Cuba, and we only hurt ourselves by not being represented by an ambassador,” Obama said of DeLaurentis. “If confirmed by the Senate, I know Jeff will build on the changes he helped bring about to better support the Cuban people and advance America’s interests.”

Commercial flights between the U.S. and Cuba resumed in August for the first time in 55 years.

”We only hurt ourselves by not being represented by an ambassador,” the president added. (For more from the author of “Obama Likely to Face Opposition After Nominating Cuban Ambassador” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Orders Pentagon to Quit Talking About ‘Competition’ With China

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon to quit referring to the country’s response to Chinese expansion in the Asia-Pacific as a “competition,” as the word is too inflammatory, sources familiar with the directive told the Navy Times.

Over the past decade, China has aggressively expanded its military presence in the South China Sea, including creating number of fortified, man-made islands within the region.

As a result of the increased Chinese naval presence, countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States — in addition to other world powers — have experienced strained relations with Beijing.

The U.S. has, in response to the increased military presence, attempted to form strategic alliances in the region to balance out the expansion.

The Navy has also sailed ships close to disputed boundaries claimed by China to exercise freedom of navigation under the rules of “innocent passage,” in an effort to deter Chinese aggression, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

A number of high-profile U.S. military commanders have also weighed in.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, have both previously referred to the American response as a “competition” or “great power competition.”

According to the Navy Times report, in a classified document directed at the Pentagon, the National Security Council recently ordered military leaders to stop using language referring to the dispute as a “competition” when discussing the issue publicly.

The news outlet reported:

[…] a recent directive from the National Security Council ordered Pentagon leaders to strike out that phrase and find something less inflammatory, according to four officials familiar with the classified document, revealed here for the first time by Navy Times.

Obama administration officials and some experts say “great power competition” inaccurately frames the U.S. and China as on a collision course, but other experts warn that China’s ship building, man-made islands and expansive claims in the South and East China seas are hostile to U.S. interests. This needlessly muddies leaders’ efforts to explain the tough measures needed to contain China’s rise, these critics say.

Bryan McGrath, a naval expert and retired destroyer skipper, told the Navy Times the White House’s explanation is “an exercise in nuance and complexity, purposely chosen by the administration to provide maximum flexibility, to prevent them from committing to a real structural approach to the most important national security challenge of our time.”

Despite an international tribunal that found this year China has no rights to waters around man-made and other island chains in the Asia-Pacific region, the country has threatened to move forward with a new island-building project that would put forces within 140 miles of the Philippines’ capital, Manila, and a nearby U.S. military base.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has criticized China’s island-building.

“We have rebuilt China, and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen,” Trump said. “Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country.” (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Orders Pentagon to Quit Talking About ‘Competition’ With China” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Okay, Donald, you’re not going to like this. But if you wanted to hear from a yes-man, you would have let Christie out of the basement. So here’s the deal: We GOP voters didn’t overlook your long years of schmoozing with corrupt Democrats, your childish attacks on solid conservatives like Ted Cruz, and your cartoonish public persona, just to have you blow this thing in the home stretch. We nominated, for better or worse, a guy who body-slammed and head-shaved Vince McMahon in a wrestling ring on TV.

What we saw last night was more like George Pataki — nervous, defensive, wonkish, boring, and worried about your legacy. If you win this thing, you’re the president. You’ll have upended U.S. politics. If you lose, you have no legacy. You’ll be a cautionary tale, which the GOP establishment uses to nominate Paul Ryan next time. How’s that going to feel?

In last night’s debate, you started off strong, like an angry boxer blowing all his steam in the first three rounds. Then you let Hillary Clinton play you. She played you like a fiddle — no, I take that back. Sometimes we don’t mind hearing a fiddle. She played you like an accordion. Every time she pushed a button and squeezed, you made the exact wheezing sound that she wanted. And she leaned back and gave that same icy smile that psychologists painted on the wiry monkey mama. Please, for the love of everything that is decent, don’t hand our government to that woman.

Every time she attacked something that you hold dear, like your business acumen, you took the bait and swam right up to the surface where she could spear you. Only once or twice did you hit back effectively — for instance, when she pressed you on your tax returns and you came back and demanded her emails. But then you let it drop — an issue that ought to disqualify Clinton completely from serving as president. Then you actually let her bloviate about the importance of “cyber-security.” Even “little” Marco Rubio would have been pounding on the lectern at that point demanding:

How DARE you, of all people, even mention that! You broke the law, violated the rules, evaded government safeguards, and sent classified materials floating around the Internet — which who knows what countries are using to track down our friends and allies and murder them. Your underlings are all hiding behind immunity and the 5th Amendment, and you barely escaped being put into handcuffs and arrested — because you intentionally destroyed the evidence. You’re the Al Capone of foreign policy — except he got caught on a technicality, while you managed to skate. Maybe you had some friends at the Justice Department.

Why didn’t you point out that your tax returns don’t affect America’s security, did not result in dead Americans and launch a wave of dangerous Muslim immigrants, like her amateur-hour meddling in Libya? Then you could have reminded Americans how Hillary wants to increase the number of unvettable Muslim immigrants into America — like the Cascade Mall shooter from Turkey who is a Hillary supporter. Instead of thinking about reams of boring tax filings, Americans would have been wondering how many more pressure cooker bombers Hillary wants to resettle in their home towns.

You need to stop defending the honor of your hotel chains. Stop thundering like Ralph Kramden (of The Honeymooners) about how wonderful your temperament is. You stopped just short of saying something like “Bang, zoom, Alice — right to the moon!” Remember that in each of those arguments, Alice won.

Stop wandering into the weeds with references and names that only make sense to reporters but not to the public. That tells the media pros who have been targeting you since the convention that they’re getting inside your head. You had Hillary dead to rights on starting the ridiculous birther issue — but you squandered that moment by rattling off boring names and facts. John Kasich could have done that, if that was what we wanted — with more entertaining hand gestures.

Why didn’t you talk about the bribery and influence-peddling operation that is the Clinton Foundation, which sold access to the Department of State in return for secret donations from murderous governments like Saudi Arabia — which hatched most of the 9/11 hijackers, and beheads women and gays? Why didn’t you talk about the uranium deal with Russia that the government had turned down, and suddenly approved after the Russians made a big donation to Bill? How about Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, whose magazine tries to radicalize Muslims throughout the West, and published pieces blaming domestic abuse on women, and blaming the 9/11 attacks on American policies?

When Hillary accused you of stiffing building contractors, why didn’t you answer that she lied to the families of four Americans who died in Benghazi on her watch, blaming what she knew was an al Qaeda attack on a Coptic Christian’s Internet video?

More so than most politicians in the past 30 years, you know how to be funny. We didn’t see that last night. I was hoping that you’d interrupt Hillary’s blather about her father’s drapery business with a classic Trumpian zinger — for instance, “Where was your father on Nov. 23, 1963? I think America deserves to know.” The audience would have loved it, and it would actually have helped defuse some of the resentment which we Cruz voters still treasure despite his endorsement.

Instead, you seemed rattled and touchy. That’s not even the real you, most of the time. You are typically blithely, even blindly self-confident. It’s Hillary who’s the paranoid, secretive, misanthropic control freak. Americans need to see that, before it’s too late.

You need to hit Clinton hard, relentlessly hard, on her deep personal corruption and radical policies — which don’t even flow from conviction, but cold and soulless ambition. You can get away with hitting back at a mean girl — you’ve proven that. Those who despise you for being a bit of a cad are already Hillary stalwarts. Now the rest of us need to see you use that power for good, instead of … stupid. You’re Jimmy Cagney, facing Lady Macbeth, and you’re the one holding a grapefruit. We want to see you use it. (For more from the author of “Post Debate Memo to Donald Trump From a Never-Hillary Voter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Lifers Protest, Pray as D.C. Planned Parenthood Headquarters Opens

/0 Comments/in , /by

After months of legal wrangling and pro-life prayer and protests, Planned Parenthood’s new D.C. headquarters and abortion center opened on Monday.

But pro-lifers aren’t giving up. A Sunday evening prayer vigil (disclosure: the vigil was attended by this reporter) drew approximately 30 people, and two events on Monday drew many more. And Lauren Handy, the full-time, self-described “Barefoot Activist,” will remain at the center after others have gone home, praying for women to choose life.

“It’s time to move from outrage to action. I refuse to celebrate the scourge of abortion and I hope our community reflects that as well,” Handy told The Stream. Larry Cirignano, Virginia Director for American Catholics for Religious Freedom and the D.C. representative at Choose Life license plates, noted that the center was built with taxpayer money, and declared it “government waste, fraud and abuse at its worst.”

The center has drawn controversy not just for its abortions and Planned Parenthood’s proven and alleged law-breaking across the country. Its location next to a popular charter school just down the street from homes has led to controversy within the community. Late last year, the school filed a lawsuit against several pro-life advocates it claims intimidated parents and children, and trespassed on school property.

One of those advocates, a felon with mental issues who had planned to bomb an abortion center in Maryland a decade ago, has agreed to stay away from the clinic. However, Handy, who is also named in the lawsuit, hasn’t let it stop her from peacefully attempting to save lives.

She criticized the Monday evening gala held by Planned Parenthood to celebrate the center’s opening, saying,“While Planned Parenthood wines and dines tonight, women and children living on the streets go hungry.”

Planned Parenthood received over $500 million from taxpayers in 2015, despite allegedly using illegal abortions to illegally sell fetal body parts. Many of its affiliates have been accused of breaking myriad state and federal laws, such as an Alabama law requiring health organizations to report possible abuse of minors.

In that case, an abortion center in Mobile, Alabama gave a 14-year old girl two abortions in four months. A state official told LifeSiteNews that he and other officials believe the abortion center did not intend to violate state law.

The new headquarters in the Nation’s Capital replaced one across town that closed last year. Pro-life activism delayed the opening of the new center, which was supposed to open this past spring, by several months. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers Protest, Pray as D.C. Planned Parenthood Headquarters Opens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.