10 Outrageous Clintonian Things Exposed by Wikileaks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Recently, WikiLeaks has released over 17,000 emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman and Obama advisor John Podesta’s email account. Like most email accounts, a lot of what has been released is SPAM. Yes, the Clinton campaign manager gets an annoying amount of political fundraising emails, just like you. However, hidden beneath the sheer volume of the emails are several that depict what many Americans have suspected all along: The Clinton campaign is corrupt. Be it collusion with the media on carefully crafting stories, hiding her real position in secret, or trying to smear other candidates, these emails break the façade of the Clinton campaign.

1. Hillary wants open borders

Hillary’s staff went through her paid speeches to highlight potential problems if they were ever released. In one of her speeches to Banco Itau — a Brazilian bank — she spoke of her dream for a European Union-style open market complete with open borders for the Western Hemisphere.

Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

2. Podesta agreed the Iran deal was Neville Chamberlain-esque

On July 15, 2015 BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski reported that Illinois senator Mark Kirk said, “This agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear > war in the Persian Gulf… This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain > gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler.”

The statement was emailed to John Podesta to which he replied simply, “Yup.”

This flies smack in the face of what Clinton has been saying on the campaign trail and in debates. When Donald Trump says the deal was bad, Clinton responds that it got rid of Iran’s nuclear program without firing a shot. Her senior staff seems to know how bad it really is.

3. Sanders was enticed to support Hillary

The Libertarian Republic showed, through WikiLeaks emails, that the Sanders campaign was manipulated to support Hillary Clinton.

In other words, Budowsky suggested the HRC campaign and the DNC ingratiate Bernie and his supporters by speaking and writing positively about him until the right time… Then get him to back Clinton officially so the game can go according to plan. Or at least, that is what is being alleged by those who have read the email.

Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark called it a “double-cross” on his official Twitter upon reading it …

4. Team Hillary created false Trump job postings on Craigslist

Team Hillary took time out of its busy schedule to troll Donald Trump on Craisglist. They posted fake job openings. Here’s one.

The boss has very strict standards for female employees…

Job requirements:

No gaining weight on the job

Must be open to public humiliation

A willingness to evaluate other women’s hotness

Proficient in lying about age if the boss thinks you’re too old

Working mothers not preferred (the boss finds pumping breast milk disgusting, and worries they’re too focused on their children).

Like it or not, [the boss] may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table.

5. Team Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud in Colorado

This is one of the most amazing. Yesterday, Barack Obama got on stage and chided Trump for saying the election was rigged because of voter fraud. This is despite knowing, due to an earlier WikiLeaks dump, that the Hillary campaign thought he rigged the Colorado primary process in 2008. Here’s what Podesta wrote via email:

High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region

Mike is likely to talk to WJC about this in the near future. Marlon and Brynne, can you respond to the org chart request and give them some points of contact. Marc can you reach out to them on the lawyer election protection issues. Thanks.

6. Clinton staffer’s wished the San Bernardino jihadis were white

In December of 2015, Sayed Farouk and his wife committed an act of jihad in San Bernardino, California. John Podesta lamented that the name sounded too foreign and — gasp! — even Islamic. Here’s what Podesta wrote.

Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

That’s right, as Crowder says in the video, conservatives joke about that being the response of liberals. But it ACTUALLY IS!

7. & 8. Media collusion

Crowder wraps together two points into one. The Clinton campaign brags about colluding with the media. Especially with Ezra Klein at Vox. The Clinton campaign sees Klein as the person it can count on to tell its side of the truth. When pressed about who the campaign could use to hold a “journalist accountable,” top Clinton staffer Jennifer Palmieri wrote:

I think that person, the degree to which they exist, is Ezra Klein. And we can do it with him today.

True to form, Klein’s Vox has been a large pushback against the WikiLeaks email dumps.

9. Clinton knowingly deleted email

Her staff was perplexed at Clinton’s use of private email and that she deleted emails she should have kept. Here’s that exchange:

Ok, one thing to use personal email, but why the “twisted truth” on why – with the two problematic areas being (a) emails to bill (when they were to bill’s staff) and (b) i only used one device — [Blackberry], when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB and ipad. As Ann and I discussed, hopefully that’s a timing issue and whilst in state, she only used one. 🙂

I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren’t satisfied with answers to date. While we all know pf the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in.

It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

10. Obama and Clinton communicated via her private server and colluded to hide that fact

Andrew McCarthy at National Review has an in depth rundown of the fact that Clinton and Obama emailed each other using her private server. A fact that her team tried to hide.

We now know that Podesta was very concerned about the Obama-Clinton e-mails and turned to Mills for advice. His succinct e-mail to Mills is dated March 4, 2015 (at 8:41 p.m.), and he entitled it “Special Category.” He stated:

Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I [sic] seems like they will.

Plainly, Podesta was suggesting to Mills that the Obama-Clinton e-mails were in a “special category” — i.e., distinct from the tens of thousands of other Clinton e-mails — because they involved the president. Only the president has power to invoke executive privilege, and Podesta believed such invocation would legitimately cover a communication between Obama and his secretary of state, since such consultations are “the heart of” the privilege recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon. (I think he was wrong about that, but that’s a matter for another day.)

There are certainly more damning WikiLeaks revelations. These are 10 that as Crowder says, “You should know about.” Today is the final presidential debate, and WikiLeaks has released the 12th installment this morning. As today is the last day for Trump to bring anything up at the debate, there should be something very interesting in today’s leak. (For more from the author of “10 Outrageous Clintonian Things Exposed by Wikileaks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Immigration Lunacy: DOJ Seeks to Prosecute Sheriff Arpaio for Enforcing Federal Immigration Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The inmates are running the asylum. Literally.

In Stolen Sovereignty, I warned about judges granting citizen rights to those who are in the country without the consent of the people and providing them standing to sue for affirmative benefits. Now, in the latest legal assault on Arizona, law enforcement, and sovereignty, illegal aliens have succeeded in getting a radical judge and the Obama Administration to collude against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and charge him with criminal contempt for enforcing federal immigration and national sovereignty in his jurisdiction, which has been devastated by the effects of illegal immigration. He faces up to six months in jail if convicted of contempt. Meanwhile, the most violent criminal aliens remain at large in the state. This is Orwellian beyond imagination.

In August, Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court of Arizona took the unprecedented step of referring Arpaio for misdemeanor criminal contempt charges for allegedly not following a prior court injunction against his police tactics of apprehending those reasonably suspected of being in his jurisdiction illegally. The injunction stems from a 2007 class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) accusing the Maricopa County Sherriff of racial profiling — the golden goose of liberal litigation against law enforcement. After soliciting federal officials to take action against a sitting sheriff protecting one of the most dangerous jurisdictions, the Obama DOJ took up the mantle and brought charges against Arpaio the day before early voting began in his race for reelection. The charges were brought up at a hearing last Tuesday, called for by Judge Susan Bolton who herself is a notorious liberal activist who has sided with illegal aliens over Arizona sovereignty for years.

When the charges were announced, the Arizona Republic observed the unprecedented nature of this case:

Announcement of the charge, which came minutes into the start of the criminal-contempt proceedings, surprised even those closest to the lawsuit.

“Usually a set status conference is a meeting between the court and council to discuss legal issues,” said Mel McDonald, Arpaio’s defense attorney. “We had no clue that they were going to come here today and make the announcements that they made.”

McDonald said Arpaio will plead not guilty.

Legal experts say the judge and attorneys have little historical guidance moving forward with the case.

“As rare as it is to have a federal judge refer the head of a law-enforcement agency for prosecution, it is even rarer that the Department of Justice would pick up that gauntlet and move forward with the charge,” said Paul Charlton, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. “It’s unheard of.”

As I note in my book, our Founders are rolling over in their graves at the sight of a sheriff being placed on trial for taking common sense steps to protect his state’s sovereignty and applying federal law in cases of reasonable suspicion laws over which Congress, not the judiciary, has plenary authority. While Arpaio admits to mistakenly violating the injunction, the broader question is how a federal court can issue an injunction against sovereignty laws of a nation using … you guessed it … the Fourteenth Amendment. Arpaio was acting according to federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to state inquiries on an individual’s immigration status [8 U. S. C. §1373c]. Yet, he is potentially facing jail time while illegal aliens chanted “Si se puede! Si se puede!” outside the court house. This is an image and a perverse juxtaposition even Orwell could never have imagined.

A number of important observations are in order:

1. While thousands of criminal aliens are being released onto the streets of Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio is the one who is facing the prospect of jail time. There is something fundamentally wrong when a state like Arizona is being destroyed by a foreign invasion and local elected officials are hamstrung from defending the state, even though they are following federal law. At the same time, sanctuary cities that thwart federal immigration law, are being rewarded by the federal judiciary.

2. While illegal aliens get standing in court to sue over the enforcement of federal immigration laws — as we covered last week — Arpaio and other law enforcement officers were never able to get standing to sue Obama for violating federal immigration law when he implemented the DACA amnesty. As Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her concurring opinion in the Arpaio case where she reluctantly accepted the precedent on standing issues, “if an elected Sheriff responsible for the security of a county with a population larger than twenty-one states cannot bring suit, individual litigants will find it even more difficult to bring similar challenges.” By individual litigants, she meant taxpayers suing on behalf of American sovereignty, not illegal aliens suing to remain in this country against the national will.

3. The legacy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States — in which the court gutted the state’s ability to protect itself — will make life harder for Arpaio’s defense and any law enforcement agency that wants to protect sovereignty. That decision, which was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, was shredded by Justice Antonin Scalia who was so irate he read his dissent from the bench. He warned that the court’s injunction against SB 1070 “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.” “Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result,” wrote an indignant Justice Scalia.

4. How ironic that the courts are now using the Fourteenth Amendment to steal the sovereignty of the nation and the states. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James F. Wilson said during the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866 that the addition to the Constitution established “no new right” and declared no new principle: “[I]t is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.” Tragically, that amendment — which was designed to protect existing rights of American citizens — is being used to disenfranchise the citizenry at the hands of illegal aliens!

5. Consider the damage wrought upon Arizona by illegal immigration as the sheriff who is protecting his people faces jail time. Here are some key facts from chapter five of my book:

As of 2013, it was estimated that there were 630,700 illegal aliens residing in Arizona (including American-born anchor babies). That is a population of foreign invaders larger than the total population of any single colony at the time of our Founding.

Over 10% of the state’s public school population is comprised of illegal alien children. When coupled with the fiscal strain of health care and incarceration, the total cost of illegal immigration is $2.4 billion a year.

The Arizona Department of Corrections estimates that illegal aliens comprise 17% of its prison population and 22% of all felony defendants in Maricopa County.

Arizona has become the drug smuggling capital of the country. From 2010-2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207%, while Methamphetamine seizures grew by 310%. In FY 2014, there were more pounds of Marijuana seized in the Tucson corridor than every other border sector combined.

Arpaio has a grim road ahead of him — as does the entire state of Arizona — if Congress doesn’t strip the courts of their foray into immigration law. Judge Bolton was the original district judge who placed the injunction on SB 1070, Arizona’s enforcement law. The Ninth Circuit is … well … the Ninth Circuit. And Roberts has already agreed with the five leftists on the court that states must follow the whims of international law and the Obama administration instead of congressional statutes.

Scalia used to lament that states would never have joined the union had they been told they would be crushed by the federal courts. As Scalia concluded in his dissent in Arizona, “if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Who ever said crime doesn’t pay and cheaters never prosper? (For more from the author of “Immigration Lunacy: DOJ Seeks to Prosecute Sheriff Arpaio for Enforcing Federal Immigration Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN Cuts Feed When WikiLeaks Mentioned

/0 Comments/in , /by

During an appearance on CNN this morning, Congressman Chris Collins’ satellite feed was cut as soon as he began talking about Wikileaks.

Host Chris Cuomo asked Collins what he thought Trump could do in tonight’s debate to prove he was fit for office. However, the Congressman went off script.

“Two thirds of the public know that Hillary Clinton’s a liar, she can’t be trusted and now the two faces of Hillary are coming out – the fact through Wikileaks she says one thing and….”

The feed is then immediately cut.

Cuomo continued the discussion with pro-Hillary Congressman Hakeem Jeffries for a full two and a half minutes before Collins returned. Cuomo was sure to ask Collins a question that would steer him away from the subject of Wikileaks. Collins was only then allowed to speak for a brief time before the segment ended. (Read more from “CNN Cuts Feed When WikiLeaks Mentioned” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Final Debate: Trump, Hillary Go for Jugular

/0 Comments/in , /by

With America exactly three weeks from Election Day, GOP nominee Donald Trump challenged Hillary Clinton in a final showdown in Las Vegas, Nevada, Wednesday.

The third – and last – presidential debate of the election season took place at the University of Nevada. Fox News’ Chris Wallace moderated. Debate topics included debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy, Supreme Court, foreign hot spots and Hillary and Trump’s fitness for the presidency.

As his guests, Trump brought Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe; for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; President Barack Obama’s Kenyan-born half-brother, Malik; and Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. He also invited Leslie Millwee, a woman who accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault on at least three separate occasions in 1980. Hillary invited well-known billionaires Meg Whitman and Mark Cuban to the event.

The debate began with a question about Supreme Court appointments and interpretation of the Constitution. Wallace said the next president could have two or three appointments and “determine the balance of the court for the next quarter century” . . .

“I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and wealthy,” Hillary said. She said she wants a court that will reject Citizens United. (Read more from “Final Debate: Trump, Hillary Go for Jugular” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge has stopped President Obama’s policy forcing public schools to allow boys in the girls’ locker room.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the Obama administration’s request to lift an injunction against enforcement of the transgender bathroom policy put forth by the Department of Education.

In response to 13 state attorney generals, Judge O’Connor issued the nationwide injunction in August. The Justice Department requested the injunction at least be limited to the 13 objecting states, but O’Connor ruled late Tuesday against the Obama administration.

“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy,” O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled. “A geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”

The Justice Department vowed to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans if it did not prevail. (Read more from “Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 30, 2016, the National Enquirer released a bombshell report, accusing Sen. Ted Cruz of having 5 mistresses, and the mainstream media was all over it, pressing him on the accuracy of the charges, reading between the lines if he didn’t explicitly deny every detail of the report, and talking about it incessantly for days.

Yet all of this was based on one single report from a notorious tabloid, and without any substantiated claims at that.

More recently, after the 2005 video surfaced of Donald Trump’s infamous conversation with Billy Bush, a number of women came forward accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior (serious charges to be sure), and he too was dogged with this incessantly by the mainstream media, who now had even more salacious material to report.

The women were interviewed on TV, and their accusations dominated the headlines day after day. This — in contrast with the flood of stunning, Clinton-hurting, WikiLeaks revelations — was big news. This was what really mattered to the American people. This is what they needed to hear in the closing weeks before the elections.

Hillary Exposed, the Media Ignores

And then yesterday, October 18, lightning struck again, but this time, it was Hillary Clinton being accused of sexual scandals (with both men and women), and the accuser was actually someone who allegedly worked closely with the Clintons for years.

The bombshell was reported once more by the National Enquirer, and it was given immediate, massive exposure by being featured as the lead story on the Drudge Report, read by millions of people each day.

You might say, “That’s odd. I didn’t hear anything about that.”

But of course. The mainstream media doesn’t think you should hear about it, just like they don’t think you should hear about the WikiLeaks revelations or other stories that could help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

Yet it was nothing more than an Enquirer story that launched the non-stop attacks on Ted Cruz, and from the initial reports, it appears that the witness indicting the Clintons is far more credible than those attacking Cruz. Yet thus far, the mainstream media is largely silent on the matter.

As I scanned the online news sites of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, along with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek, not one of them had one syllable about these charges against Hillary Clinton — and I searched these sites 8 hours after the Drudge headline went live.

At the same time, almost all of them had one or more article about Trump’s alleged sexual sins. (But wait. I stand corrected. The Washington Post website really did have much more important news to cover, giving pride of place to this story: First lady shimmers in Versace at the Obamas’ final state dinner. Yes, this is far more important than the other national news.)

Why the Double Standard?

Why the ridiculously obvious double standard? Why the frenzied reporting of a National Enquirer report accusing Cruz of sexual infidelities but such studious silence when the same publication accuses Hillary? Did this notorious tabloid suddenly become reputable when it targeted the staunchly conservative Cruz but again became disreputable when it targeted Hillary?

Worse still, as others have pointed out, the mainstream media has all but ignored the WikiLeaks email dumps, although the information contained in them so far would be enough to sink most campaigns. The coverage has been minimal, at best, and quite understated at that, giving the viewer the feeling that the news is marginal, while what really matters is whether Trump touched a woman on a plane 30 years ago (or, more recently, in other settings).

To further underscore this glaring double standard, if the current batch of WikiLeaks emails had come from the Trump campaign rather than the Clinton campaign, with his people insulting Catholics and with his right-hand man expressing disappointment that it was a Muslim, not a white American, who was one of the San Bernardino murderers, the media would virtually crucify Trump, with shrill calls across the nation demanding that he step down and that he fire his campaign manager immediately.

But when it is Hillary Clinton and John Podesta at the center of the firestorm, the email scandals take a very distant back seat to the sex charges against Trump. (Which, to repeat, I absolutely do not minimize, if true.)

And what if Trump had been guilty of using a private email server for classified government correspondence, as Hillary was? What if his staff had destroyed his laptops and cellphones, refused to answer more than 100 incriminating questions from Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment, and then were granted immunity? The media would be shouting hysterically, “Cover up! Expose the dirty rascals!”

Instead, when it is Hillary at the center of these very serious charges, they join in the cover-up.

But should this surprise when recently released reports indicate that political donations from the media are 27-1 in favor of Hillary over Trump? And should it surprise us when off-the-record meetings are set up with media elites and the Clinton campaign?

As if further evidence of the media’s extreme bias was needed, just look at the mainstream media’s virtual blackout of two damning videos produced by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, apparently documenting serious campaign abuses by operatives allegedly working directly with the Clinton campaign. You didn’t hear about those either? No surprise. The media doesn’t seem to think you should.

Recently, conservative pundits Pat Buchanan and George Will have agreed with Trump that, on some level, “the system” is rigged, with Buchanan claiming that, “Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism.”

It’s No Surprise

But again, none of this should surprise us.

As I noted in Outlasting the Gay Revolution:

[Liberal media bias] has been documented for several decades, beginning in 1981, when professors S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman “released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns.” The survey found these “media elites” to be shockingly liberal, to the point that “54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent [of the general public] who regarded it as wrong,” while, “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.”

I say it’s high time for a media revolution and a listener-viewer-reader revolt, which would mean that the media leaders report the news in an unbiased way, and if that is not possible, they then clearly declare their biases.

And if they won’t do either (or if their biases are too offensive), we take our business elsewhere.

Are you with me? (For more from the author of “The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Last night’s presidential debate put me in an uncharacteristically Bible-quoting mood. After watching it, this inspired verse haunted my mind: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

I realized that this is the choice that faces us on Election Day: The seedy, fallen, life that all of us slog through after the Fall, with sudden irruptions of Grace that can save us, if we will let it. Or a shiny, polished, smoothly crafted death, a beautiful death (euthanasia).

Donald Trump is the lumpy, rough-shod reminder of how man really is — comprehensively fallen, with occasional glimpses of decency, with natural virtues that God made crusted over by sinful habits and clouded by self-deception. The kind of man whom preachers have to yell at, but whom they bother to since they have ears. They aren’t cyborgs.

Trump knows that men can be dogs because he has for decades been one. He knows that businessmen will take whatever advantage the law allows them because he has done so. He’s aware that foreign relations rest on strength and self-assertion, not happy talk and children’s scrawls of rainbow-pooping unicorns. He’s the sin-hammered face we see in the mirror each day, when we peer through our own deceptions and make an examination of conscience. And it isn’t pretty. We’d rather look at some shiny, man-made idol.

Hillary Clinton is the flawless mechanical goddess of a newborn pagan religion. She’s the Witch-Queen of Narnia, dispensing endless boxes of delicious Turkish Delight that makes us so very sleepy. In her dream world, if we can believe it, politicians can take tens of millions of dollars from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that torture rape victims for the “crime” of adultery, but not be tainted by it. They can be trusted to delete tens of thousands of emails from illegal private servers holding national security secrets, because why would the leaders of our democracy lie to us? Isn’t that a cynical, ugly thing to think? It’s in our interest to think happy thoughts instead.

Every refugee, whatever his age or commitment to jihad, is one of the innocent “women and children” whom we may safely welcome into our country. An apocalypse-hungry despotism like the government of Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons, because they really mean us no harm. No woman would ever abort her nine-month-old child except for the very best of reasons. It is cruel to suggest otherwise. (What kind of monster are you? Trump’s simple, visceral horror at such abortions just proves what we always said about that man.) The “rebels” in Syria who are backed by al Qaeda only want to establish a Swedish-style democracy, and if you don’t agree then you are clearly someone who is sick with Islamophobia.

Your sickness is deplorable. But it is not incurable. Just turn over the power to rule by decree to the nice judges whom Hillary will appoint from Harvard Law School, and they will make laws for you — you won’t even have to vote on them. If you tried to, it wouldn’t matter, anyway. So rest your little head on her icy lap and let her tell you a story. Don’t talk back—that isn’t polite.

Donald Trump is the seedy boss you’re pretty sure will sexually harass your daughter. Hillary is the cool, unflappable doctor whom you learn, too late, intends to euthanize your parents. Trump has no good excuses for his behavior — it’s just what guys do, ya know? But Hillary’s story is letter perfect. She has charts ready, and figures. She has calculated to the minute and even the second the number of “happy moments” your aging parents (an army vet, a mother of five, it doesn’t matter) can expect out of earthly life. She has totaled them up in an algorithm against the “happy moments” she can offer some stranger in Syria with the money not wasted on their “useless” medical care. She can quote the U.N. Charter, and maybe Kahlil Gibran, on why you ought to be happy with her decision. But the bottom line is: she decides. If you got involved, started invoking some of those obsolete religious tenets she already told you need changing … well that would just make things messy.

And we like things neat and clean. We like to think well of ourselves. We like to imagine that we are pretty much free of sin, while those other people — those troglodytes in tacky hats who listen to trashy music — embody what’s wrong with the world. They subscribe to “middle ages dictatorships” and bitterly cling to their guns and their religion. We don’t want to be grouped with them. The taint might rub off on us.

And that’s why the best and brightest, the folks who know how to look out for their long-term rational self-interest, are backing Hillary Clinton. They know that it suits their good cheer and bottom line to believe in the icy goddess, and repeat her happy tales. They know none of it is true, but it doesn’t really matter. By the time of the day of reckoning they will be dead. And as every parent in a no-fault divorce has told himself as a mantra, “Kids are so… resilient.” (For more from the author of “Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment’

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a wide-ranging interview with Texas Observer, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards says that her “proudest moment” at America’s largest abortion company was when she found out the federal government’s birth control and abortifacient mandate was about to become federal policy. Asked by the liberal magazine to name her proudest moment, she answered:

Definitely the day President Obama called to say he was about to announce that birth control would be covered for all women under their insurance plans, because it had been a hard-fought battle, long before I came to Planned Parenthood. We were fighting to make sure that insurance companies covered it and pharmacies would fill prescriptions. The fact that now, I believe, for your generation, all women will be able to get it without a fight, and they’ll be able to get the best birth control, is an enormously important moment. It was a win for the movement.

Elsewhere in the interview, Richards said that her movement is “fighting these issues in the Supreme Court for some employers who are completely unwilling to allow their employees to get access to birth control….” After the establishment of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services created a “contraceptive mandate” requiring almost every organization to include contraception coverage in its insurance plan. Religious groups were not given an exception, and the administration vigorously fought in the courts to force religious groups to comply.

The Mandate Against Religious Groups

The mandate’s backers have said it is an important way for women to gain access to contraceptive measures. Though Richards doesn’t say so, almost all these groups are Christian ministries or businesses, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, Franciscan and Oklahoma Wesleyan universities, the Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh and the Hobby Lobby business. Most have sued the Obama administration, saying they have no intention of preventing women from accessing birth control. They argue they simply do not wish to participate in insuring their employees’ use of birth control and abortifacients.

Many of the contraceptives that are required to be insured also double as abortion-inducing drugs and devices — products that end the life of unborn children. This is one reason mandate supporters and opponents, as many who back the mandate claim that human life is not created until after implantation in the womb. Catholic organizations object to contraception of any sort, in keeping with Catholic teaching.

The mandate has faced legal difficulties since it was first announced in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the mandate partially unconstitutional in its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, and earlier this year ordered lower courts to reconsider how the mandate could be worked without requiring religious non-profits with moral objections to cover the products.

The face of the mandate’s non-profit opponents is the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that provides care to the elderly poor. Represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nuns have received enormous support from Members of Congress, including two Democrats. In an exclusive interview earlier this year,a spokesperson for the order told The Stream that the Obama administration has admitted women can easily access contraceptives and abortifacients without involving the nuns, priests and others opposed to the mandate. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton demonstrated tonight that if we only had a political party committed to American sovereignty — sans the gratuitous baggage that has come along with Trump — the Democrats would be decimated on the issue of immigration alone, not to mention other policies.

Kellyanne Conway must have invented a pill to finally keep Trump on message about the issues, and it especially showed with regard to immigration before it wore off later in the debate. Hillary got ensnared in the classic open borders canard in which the radicals extol the virtues of illegal immigration, but then are forced to proclaim why they still support border security. Which begs the question: what exactly are they trying to secure if they want illegal immigrants?

Hillary referred to “undocumented” immigrants almost a dozen times and refused to recognize the interests of American citizens. At one point she brazenly said this used to be a bipartisan issue. She is more correct than she knows!

In the 1995 State of the Union Address, her husband, President Bill Clinton, exalted the work of the Jordan Commission on immigration — which called for a reduction in immigration and comprehensive enforcement against illegal immigration. He railed against the unfairness of illegal immigration and sounded, ironically, a lot like …Trump.

During tonight’s debate, Hillary went on to offer the false choice between open borders and mass deportations by trains and buses. Nobody is buying that line anymore. We already have a deportation force — it’s called ICE. Husband deported four times as many people as Obama did and more than the Bush administration did using that force. And don’t even get me started on Harry Reid’s strong position on immigration in the ‘90s and the bipartisan bill after 9/11 to cut off visas to countries with a presence of Islamic terrorists.

Indeed, there was a time when both parties supported the concept of a nation state with borders.

Then, Chris Wallace caught her in the tight rope act between what she really believes on immigration and what she tells the public:

Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. So that’s the question…”

Hillary simply could not answer the question, and in an awkward pivot, began hitting Trump on his comments about Putin. She simply demurred on the issue of immigration by saying the comments were only about energy. Yeah, right.

You could hear the sucking sound coming out of her level of support from your average swing voter.

Unfortunately, this was probably a dollar late and a dime short to get to issues of substance, given that the contours of this race are already defined by baggage. But what this debate did demonstrate is that when the focus is on issues, Democrats lose; when it’s about personalities, Democrats win. It’s that simple. The few times Chris Wallace veered off his very effective and disciplined agenda into personal stuff you could feel Trump doing damage to himself. When it was about issues, Trump’s performance vacillated depending on the issue, but Hillary was not winning points on a single policy and was an utter disaster on immigration. In general, Trump expressed the least support for some of his liberal positions and the most support for conservative ideas than at any other time, especially towards the beginning on the topics of the Constitution and immigration.

Does this mean he is back in the game? It’s hard to see enough people moving beyond the character issues to dramatically alter the entrenched impressions of him, especially when he is down by so much with early voting already under way. He also didn’t help himself by refusing to accept the outcome of the election. Once again, when he wasn’t attacking Hillary from principle on issues he was hemorrhaging support. However, the exposure of Hillary’s radicalism on policies such as immigration will likely help Republicans down ballot by reminding voters that there is more to life than Donald Trump’s zaniness after November 8. The American people don’t want to give the keys of all of the federal government to the Democrats. Hillary will not have a mandate to pursue a single policy issue.

The field is wide open for a new movement, unencumbered by the distraction of personal baggage, to fight the Democrats on the issues. The Left has nothing left but to fight Republicans on their own glass jaw. What if we had a party unvarnished by Trump-like personal baggage or pale-pastel immigration and economic views of establishment Republicans? Perhaps, even if we accepted the outcome of the presidential election, their dangerous agenda would be crushed in the states and in Congress.

A Hillary victory will be an utter disaster. But tonight’s debate performance shows why there might also be a critical opportunity to finally fight back on the issues in a way we’ve never done before. (For more from the author of “Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senators Promise to Block Potential Clinton Supreme Court Nominees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two U.S. senators say they plan to oppose Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees should she win the presidency.

In the past week, both Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have indicated they would continue to block confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee next year.

According to CNN, McCain said in a radio interview that he believes the Republican Party will take a united stand to block Clinton’s nominees.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you … ”

According to The Hill, since making this statement on Monday, Rachael Dean, a spokeswoman for McCain, has softened the senator’s claim. She said McCain “will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career.”

Lee said that he will oppose potential Supreme Court nominees put forward by Clinton.

“Make no mistake: As a former law clerk … I don’t believe there would be a real substantive distinction, a real noticeable difference between the voting pattern of a justice who would be appointed by a President Hillary Clinton … and Merrick Garland,” Lee said to reporters. “I just don’t think there is much, if any, difference.”

Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was nominated by President Barack Obama to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Garland has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative judicial organization, said she is heartened by the fact that Lee and McCain are committed to doing all they can to support nominees whose only agenda is to uphold the Constitution.

“I am very impressed with the stance that the senators are taking,” Severino told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “They are taking seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution. It is exciting to see them taking their job seriously.”

Severino said it is refreshing to see these senators take the initiative to do what they can to ensure that conservative values will be considered in the Supreme Court nominee process.

In contrast, Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, an organization “dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American,” said the statements from Lee and McCain are inappropriate. Baker said in an email to The Daily Signal:

These new statements make clear that Republicans’ blockade of Merrick Garland was never about principle and always about partisanship. With almost a year left in the president’s term when the Supreme Court vacancy first opened up, Republicans said, “let the voters decide” (ignoring the fact that the voters had in fact elected Obama in 2012 for a full four-year term). Now that it’s looking more likely that the voters will elect Hillary Clinton, they’re coming up with new reasons to justify their unconstitutional blockade. Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give fair consideration to a nominee shows a real contempt for the Constitution.

Rather than seeing the opposition of Lee and McCain as “contempt for the Constitution,” Severino said she believes that Clinton is being inconsistent with the way she has been discussing her potential nominees, as Clinton was quite vocal in her opposition to President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. (For more from the author of “Senators Promise to Block Potential Clinton Supreme Court Nominees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.