Ryan Tells Republicans He Will Focus on House Races, Won’t Help Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., told fellow Republicans on Monday that he has washed his hands of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and will focus on maintaining the Republican majority in the House.

“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” said AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman.

According to those involved with the call, Ryan said he will not defend Trump or in any way support the billionaire’s campaign. He also said that he will not publicly withdraw his endorsement of Trump.

Ryan said he will devote “his entire energy making sure that Hillary Clinton does not get a blank check with a Democrat-controlled Congress,” the Associated Press reported, taking Ryan’s means to words he does not believe Trump can defeat Clinton in November.

As for other members of the House, Ryan told them “to do what’s best for you in your district,” the Associated Press reported.

Republicans currently hold the majority in both houses of Congress. Throughout the campaign, Republican leaders have worried whether a lackluster showing on Election Day for Trump could put those majorities at risk.

The Republican National Committee is also having a conference call with its members on Monday.

Ryan issued a statement Friday condemning Trump’s conduct in a leaked 2005 video in which Trump spoke graphically about his pursuits of women.

“Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified,” Ryan said Friday. “I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Since that video was leaked, many Republicans have withdrawn their support for Trump.

CNN reported that during the call, Ryan’s decision to back away from Trump was met with disapproval by some congressmen. Ryan then made it clear that although he would keep his distance from the presidential campaign, he would not publicly break with his party’s nominee.

Earlier Monday, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, told CBS This Morning that she hoped Ryan would stand by Trump. She also said that Republicans abandoning Trump may have a political price to pay, noting that Ryan was booed by Trump supporters over the weekend after disinviting Trump from an event in the wake of the controversial video’s release. (For more from the author of “Ryan Tells Republicans He Will Focus on House Races, Won’t Help Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Charges, Hillary Fades in Second Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Good news, America: Contrary to the tension and expectation at the start, the earth didn’t open up under the last night’s debate stage, and send the candidates and the country into the fiery flames.

In fact, what started with high dread and more mud than a monster truck competition ended with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton complimenting each other. And in between they actually talked a little bit about policy.

However, most importantly, Donald Trump showed why he was able to write a book called The Art of the Comeback. In fact, his Secret Service code name might well have to be changed to Lazarus. What was supposed to be Trump’s political funeral instead may have brought his campaign back to life. “Donald Trump Lives,” blares the headline from Forbes.

“The Question”

Going into the debate, nothing less than the future of the election was at stake in the wake of a firestorm over a 2005 video of crude-talking Donald Trump.

There would be no talk of ISIS or taxes, and certainly not private servers and open borders, until the matter was addressed. How would Donald Trump handle the controversy? With contrition or with combativeness? Could he take a rotten lemon of a story and turn it into Trump lemonade?

Well … a nervous Donald Trump picked up the lemon, apologized for it, said he was embarrassed about it, and then proceeded to lob it at Hillary like a grenade. He brought up the woman who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, and one raped by one of Hillary’s clients.

Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.

The four had taken part in a stunning press conference with Trump before the debate.

Anderson Cooper would bring the video up again, accusing Trump of having committed sexual assault. Trump again insisted it was “locker room talk,” again said he was embarrassed, denied assaulting anyone, and the issue at least for the night was as good as dead.

Trump Beyond The Video

Trump survived “the question,” and then got busy. He spent the rest of the debate prowling the stage, controlling the conversation, not letting Hillary or the moderators make a move against him without a comeback.

Trump pounded on Clinton for the “33,000 emails that you had deleted and that you acid-washed” after they had been subpoenaed. He made several appeals to Sanders voters, reminding them of what Hillary and the DNC had done to their guy and how Sanders repeatedly attacked her “bad judgement.”

Trump promised to launch an investigation of her if elected. Hillary replied, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the laws in our country.” “Because you’d be in jail,” Trump said.

When Clinton said “I take classified material very seriously,” Trump replied “Yet she didn’t know that ‘C’ meant classified.”

And Trump had the best line of any of the debates this year.

A questioner challenged Hillary on the WikiLeaks transcript where she talks about how it’s fine to say one thing in private and tell voters something else. “Is it OK for politicians to be two-faced?” “As I recall,” Hillary said, “that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln.”

At his first opportunity, Trump pounced: “She lied, now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln.” He went on. “Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you.”

While Trump did get into policy at times, as in his discussion of his tax policy, and fact-checkers are sleeping in this morning after a long, busy night, that was hardly the point of the evening. Donald Trump had one goal last night: to emerge still standing. He did more than that. Partisans can bicker over the particulars, but Trump owned the room and he delivered under enormous pressure.

Hillary Clinton

Did Hillary Clinton have a bad night? Only to the extent she didn’t kill the wounded beast.

She gave her typically deep, involved policy answers on matters such as Syria, energy and taxes. She admitted there were problems with Obamacare, offered her suggestions and when it was noted her husband called Obamacare the “craziest thing,” she brushed it off like lint on her pantsuit.

Clinton eloquently defended her years of public service, talking about her decades of work assisting families and children. (She left out the rapists.)

Hillary also defended her private server use by saying there’s no proof anyone actually hacked into it. Neither the moderators nor Trump pointed out that while “no harm, no foul” is okay for pick-up basketball, that’s not the case with national secrets.

She repeated her tactic of showing bemusement at Trump’s answers, denying his words have any truth to them. She even said at one time, “There he goes again.”

Which gets to this fun fact: During the course of the debate, Clinton evoked Lincoln, quoted Reagan and praised Bush. Meaning, Hillary Clinton had more nice things to say about Republicans last night than Donald Trump.

Yet there was a problem: Sunday night she was the Hillary Clinton often seen on the campaign trail: Wonkish and somewhat weary.

Clinton was clearly not as sharp or energetic or effective as she was in the first debate, and seemed to tire as the debate went on. While Trump bounced around the stage the whole time like a gangsta rapper Hillary tended to sit when she wasn’t speaking. She seemed content to let Trump talk rather than engage him. And her attacks weakly drifted through the auditorium like campaign balloons.

In fact, as Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz interjected themselves more and more into the debate against Trump, Clinton seemed to become an afterthought. (Were Cooper and Raddatz simply biased or was it something more interesting? I’ll answer that later today.)

Finally, to the amusement of the Twittersphere, Hillary had the misfortune of having a fly land on her forehead while delivering an answer.

The Good News

The debate opened in an atmosphere so tense it made bomb-disposal work feel a yoga class. Fortunately it didn’t stay that way. The spirit broke. Sure, Clinton and Trump said some tough things about each other, but the tone grew less belligerent and almost relaxed. It’s not like they broke out into song, though it looked like it at one point.

Then came the final question from an audience member: “My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?”

“Look, I respect his children,” replied Hillary, whose daughter is indeed BFF’s with Ivanka Trump. “His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald.”

Trump also gave an earnest answer.

I will say this about Hillary. She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard, and she doesn’t quit, and she doesn’t give up. And I consider that to be a very good trait.

At the end of the debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton shook hands, which they pointedly did not do at the start of the debate.

Who won? The Frank Lunz focus group of undecideds gave it to Donald Trump by more than a two-to-one margin. It was enough of a win for Lunz to declare Trump back in the race.

The third and final Presidential debate takes place Wednesday, October 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The moderator is Chris Wallace of Fox News. What happens in Vegas definitely will not stay in Vegas; we can only pray it stays out of the gutter. (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Charges, Hillary Fades in Second Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why All the Fuss Over the Trump Sex-Comments Tape?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m not writing this to defend Donald Trump or to minimize the despicable nature of his comments captured on video in 2005. Not a chance.

Nor am I writing this to convince NeverTrumpers to vote for him.

My own wife, Nancy, has told me repeatedly that she could not vote for him, despite the possibility of Hillary getting elected. (Of course, she will not vote for Hillary either.)

Instead, I’m writing this to ask those who once supported Trump, like my highly esteemed, Christian brother Wayne Grudem, a fellow-professor and theologian, why the video tape changed things.

Prof. Grudem wrote, “There is no morally good presidential candidate in this election. I previously called Donald Trump a ‘good candidate with flaws’ and a ‘flawed candidate’ but I now regret that I did not more strongly condemn his moral character. I cannot commend Trump’s moral character, and I strongly urge him to withdraw from the election.”

Certainly, I commend Prof. Grudem for his integrity and for acknowledging what he now feels was an erroneous endorsement of Trump. In fact, just a few days ago, I wrote a piece questioning whether I will endorse another candidate in the future, having previously endorsed Sen. Cruz.

But my issue is simply this: Why the surprise now? Did anyone really think the tape misrepresented who he was in 2005 and who he likely continued to be.? Did any of us think that he didn’t sexualize women, that he didn’t lean into his star power, that he didn’t boast about his many (alleged) sexual trysts? Why the outrage and shock now?

Even if Trump changed in certain ways since 2005 — perhaps he has been more faithful to Melania and more involved with their kids — the character he displayed throughout the election process indicated some very deep, moral flaws, making him the least likely poster boy for the evangelical right.

During the primaries, I issued numerous words of warning and concern about Donald Trump, in writing, on radio, and on video, also making clear that these warnings were in the context of the primaries, when we had other, more viable candidates for president. (Obviously, this was simply my opinion.)

Once it came to Trump vs. Hillary, my posture has been that I cannot vote for Hillary but that Trump could earn my vote, and that remains my position until today.

I would like to be able to vote for him, and I do hope that he will heed the godly advice that is being given to him and learn to humble himself before God and people. But his failings and flaws are such that I still have concerns about helping to elect him as president, despite the dire possibility of a Hillary presidency.

But these are just my personal opinions, and I do not write this to persuade or to influence. My purpose in writing is to ask those who once backed Trump but do so no longer: Why the surprise at his past conduct? Weren’t his weaknesses and flaws shouting aloud to the nation over the last year via tweet and spoken word?

I never for a moment bought into the “Saint Donald” rhetoric, questioning other Christian leaders who embraced him as such. (I don’t mean to deny that he has helped people privately and has a compassionate, caring side. I simply mean that to present him as a wonderfully Christian man is to be self-deceived.)

And I understand the convictions of the NeverTrumpers, although I have never identified with this group. (I once used the hashtag in a tweet but decided not to do so again.)

My issue is with the political leaders and Christian leaders who endorsed Donald Trump and who worked to help elect him but are now distancing themselves from him in shock and dismay. Who did you think you were dealing with?

I know he can be gracious and humble in person, and there are surely many positive qualities about him.

But if you’re going to endorse him, do so with your eyes wide open, or don’t endorse him at all.

The man who once boasted about his adulterous encounters with famous women and who opened a casino with a massive strip club inside but felt he didn’t need to ask God for forgiveness is the man you endorsed for president.

Had he renounced with shame his past life, that would be one thing.

Had he not insulted and degraded his political opponents (and other perceived opponents) in the most vile and cruel ways, crushing them at any cost so that he could advance politically, that would be one thing as well.

But he did not renounce his past or change his public ways, because of which, the only issue with the 2005 tape should not have been the tape itself but rather how he responded to it today.

I have colleagues who believe that God is raising up Trump the way He raised up Cyrus, pointing out that Cyrus was used by the Lord although he was a pagan king who did not know the God of Israel (see Isaiah 45:1-6, and note carefully the phrase “although you do not know Me” in v. 5-6).

I have no problem with this concept at all. As the old saying goes, let God be God (in other words, let Him do what He chooses to do in His way and for His purposes). So be it. As I’ve written before, I personally hope it’s true.

But for those who are having cold feet about Trump now, I ask again: Wasn’t it clear from day one that this was the man you were endorsing?

For all of us, then, from here on in, the lesson is simple and clear: Whatever we do, let’s do it with our eyes wide open and with our trust in God alone. (For more from the author of “Why All the Fuss Over the Trump Sex-Comments Tape?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Young Town Hall Questioner Sure Looks Like a Plant

/0 Comments/in , /by

…Did Hillary Clinton use a teenage girl as a plant at her Tuesday town hall in Haverford, Pennsylvania? The question that kicked off the event, as Alex Griswold of Mediaite observed, was just a little too perfect, and aligned itself flawlessly with Clinton’s recent ads attacking Donald Trump’s alleged offensive comments about women.

The 15-year-old Brennan Leach, who had a conspicuous red bow in her hair, was selected to ask the first question. “At my school, body image is a really big issue for girls my age,” she said, reported the New York Times. “I see with my own eyes the damage Donald Trump does when he talks about women and how they look.” She went on to ask how Clinton could help girls understand “that they are so much more than just what they look like?”

YouTuber Spanglevision questioned the randomness of the girl and her question, decided to investigate further, and discovered several interesting tidbits of information. (Note: The video contains mildly offensive language).

Brennan Leach is a child actor and the daughter of Democratic Pennsylvania Senator Daylin Leach. Incidentally, Senator Leach is a Hillary Clinton endorser and campaign donor. What’s more, Brennan admitted right after the Town Hall that her father helped her write the question.

Interestingly, the camera focuses on Brennan two minutes before she asks her question and she appears very nervous. Spanglevision said this is likely a camera test letting her know she needs to be ready, but why would she need to be ready if participants were chosen at random? The host, Elizabeth Banks, “randomly” picks her out of the crowd with a pert “How about you, with the little red bow?” Brennan then reads her question. She is the only participant to use a script.

When Hillary excitedly jumps up to answer the question, she says, “Thank you!” and “I think Chelsea also wants to say something about this!” She could not know whether Chelsea would want to say something about it — unless it was pre-planned.

While the Clinton campaign denies Brennan was a plant— and anything is possible — it’s not like Clinton hasn’t pulled a stunt like this before. According to Mediaite, Hillary’s campaign was forced to apologize in 2007 for “feeding question[s] to Iowa college students to ask during a rally.” MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported in 1999 that Hillary Clinton used a “prearranged question from a friendly union leader” during her New York Senate run. And according to The Associated Press, as late as this year, Clinton conducted a “careful, behind-the-scenes effort to review introductory remarks … as well as suggesting questions that happened to be aligned with her campaign platform.”

It isn’t difficult to see how Brennan could have been used to further Hillary Clinton’s purpose. It remains to be seen if the pattern continues at Sunday night’s town hall presidential debate. Half of the questions will come from participants. How many will come with scripts? (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Young Town Hall Questioner Sure Looks Like a Plant” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans Agree: Big Government Sucks but They Aren’t Willing to Cut Any of Its Programs

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you think the federal government is too big, most Americans agree with you.

The latest Gallup poll reveals that a majority of Americans (54 percent) think the federal government is trying to do too much. In the 25 years that Gallup has gauged “Americans’ Views of Government Role,” the American public has always answered the same, with two exceptions. In 1993, when concerns about the economy were especially high and Bill Clinton came into office, and immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Americans thought that government should do more.

But that feeling didn’t last long.

In the Clinton and Obama years, the percentage of Americans who thought government is doing too much stayed at higher levels than in the George W. Bush years. Gallup says that “[t]his most likely reflects a counteraction to perceptions that the two Democratic presidents were oriented toward increasing the government’s role.”

And indeed, the size and role of government has increased unabated the past 25 years, even under President Bush. (Remember Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind? Oh, and trillion-dollar budgets.)

While a majority of Americans think government is too big, studies repeatedly show that when it comes down to actual solutions, answers are sparse. Americans don’t want cuts and major reforms to entitlement spending — specifically Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending — which is the main driver of our $19 trillion national debt.

A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that seven out of 10 Americans thought increasing deficits were a “very serious” problem, but “when asked to choose among cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or the nation’s third-largest spending program — the military — a majority by a large margin said cuts to the Pentagon.”

A 2016 Public Policy Poll shows that a staggering 88 percent of Americans oppose cutting Social Security benefits. A majority of Americans also said: they oppose privatizing Social Security by investing retirement money in the stock market (68 percent), are less likely to vote for a politician who thinks Social Security benefits should be cut (80 percent), and oppose raising the retirement age for Social Security eligibility (62 percent).

While Americans don’t want to see cuts to entitlement programs, something will have to change — and soon. As The Daily Signal reported, entitlement spending, on the current trajectory, will absorb all federal revenue in just 17 years. That means there will be no money to pay the interest on our national debt, for national security and defense, for anything.

When will things change, though? The Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, rarely ever talks about entitlement spending. When he does, he says he doesn’t want to make cuts, particularly to Social Security; he wants to find a way to save it. Naturally, Hillary Clinton also opposes cuts to entitlement spending.

Our presidential nominees aren’t the only ones who don’t want to do anything substantive to avoid the impending cliff — neither does Congress. As National Review has noted, the number of times “debt” or “deficit” was mentioned in Congress dropped sharply between 2011 and 2015, and Congress has left entitlement spending largely untouched.

Regardless of how many politicians, Republican or Democrat, want to avoid the inconvenient topic, in a few years they won’t be able to ignore it anymore. And the American voters shouldn’t ignore it, either. In order to lessen the impact of Social Security or Medicare going bankrupt, it would be better to start addressing the inevitable now. That requires courage, though, and when you look at Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or the “leaders” in Congress, is that the first word that comes to mind? (For more from the author of “Americans Agree: Big Government Sucks but They Aren’t Willing to Cut Any of Its Programs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the Truth About Hillary the Media Won’t Tell You

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In 1993, the president of Wellesley College approved a new rule upon being contacted by Bill Clinton’s White House. The rule stated that all senior theses written by a president or first lady of the United States would be kept under lock and key. The rule was meant to keep the public ignorant about the radical ties of the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the radical Marxist organizer, Saul Alinsky. The 92-page thesis was titled, “There is only the fight…: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

The thesis became unlocked after the Clintons left the White House and is now posted online. After being ruled by Barack Obama, another Alinskyite, for 8 years, perhaps one might think the fact that the modern Democratic Party is completely taken over by Alinskyites is old news, but the connection between Alinsky and Hillary is special.

Hillary describes Alinsky as a “neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him, conflict is the route to power.” Alinsky’s central focus, she notes, is that the community organizer must understand that conflict will arise and to redirect it and, as she quoted him in her thesis, be “…dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions… to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function–to agitate to the point of conflict.”

The thesis in and of itself is limited to whether or not “social justice” can be attained through the tactics described by Alinsky in “Reveille For Radicals,” and the numerous speeches he gave on hundreds of college campuses in the 1950s and 1960s. What had become clear was that Alinsky’s previous organizing had fallen apart and almost all attempts to recapture the original intent had gone by the wayside.

Hillary noted that, “Alinsky’s lessons in organizing and mobilizing community action independent of extra-community strings appear to have been lost in the face of the lure of OEO money.” Pointing out that the power of the government took away the work of the “local organizer.” It is here that we see her light bulb illuminate. With this reasoning, the better approach would be to be the government who had the power to force social change.

But just because Hillary criticized Alinsky’s model in 1969 doesn’t mean she disagrees with his politics. In fact, it could very well be that Hillary’s model, which was to gain political power and wield it to gain social change, is simply her thesis finally realized. She criticized Alinsky, not so much for his tactics, but for his focus on organization. What is possibly the best way to put Hillary’s philosophy is what she told the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, “I don’t believe you change hearts, you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

Hillary questions whether organizing as Alinsky did in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago and eventually across the country was effective enough because of the unanticipated results. She pointed to other lefty thinkers that criticized Alinsky as a “showman rather than an activist.”

It should also be noted that while Alinsky’s “Reville for Radicals” was directed at labor organizing, “Rules For Radicals” was directed at middle class youth, instructing them how to carry out his model in a new age. Ever the social observer, Alinsky recognized that the blue-collar workers of the 1930s were no longer, “where it’s at,” but that middle class youth of the 60s was ripe for organization. But also, the emphasis in the prologue of working within the system is eerily similar to Clinton’s argumentation. In her 2003 book, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

At the end of Clinton’s thesis, she includes correspondence she received from Alinsky, and notes the personal interviews she conducted with him: twice in Boston in October 1968 and once at Wellesley in January 1969. She followed his organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, which was a training institute for communist radicals. She credited Saul Alinsky for both “providing a topic” and “offering me a job.” She never questioned the organization’s ultimate goal to achieve a Marxist utopia. What drove Hillary was how to get there.

Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the 40s, 50s and 60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling. For 75 years, inner city blacks have been poor, labor unions have worked to put their members out of a job, and everyday there is some new group claiming it doesn’t have equality. All of these groups have been targeted by these so-called organizational geniuses. No matter what happens, either by the power/conflict ideals of Alinsky and Obama or by power grabs/money laundering of the Clintons, the lives of the people get worse. It is not whether Saul or Hillary are right about how to “achieve democratic equality,” or whose tactics are more effective, but of the failure of the philosophy behind it.

Hillary kept in contact with Alinsky throughout college and while in law school, she wrote him a letter claiming that she missed corresponding with him. The letter began, “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” — she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

David Brock, in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter.” That is an apt label. Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.

Saul’s daughter has it all figured out. (For more from the author of “Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the Truth About Hillary the Media Won’t Tell You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These 4 Women Were the Real Debate Winners and the Clintons Will Hate It

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Yes, Donald Trump was significantly better in tonight’s debate than the first debate. Yes, he probably won on points. It won’t matter much for his campaign. But tonight’s real winners were the women impacted by Bill and Hillary’s quest for power, who finally got the media to pay attention to them, if only for a few minutes.

Many young people voting today do not know the stories of the sexual assault victims that Bill and Hillary Clinton have allegedly left in their wake. The media has done a fantastic job — for the Clintons — of whitewashing Bill’s extracurricular activities as “consensual.” There are many women who say that is not the case. Some have even credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping them, and Hillary Clinton of covering it up.

Tonight Trump gave those women a voice. Try as they may, the media could ignore it no longer — if only for a brief moment in time.

Before the debate, four of the Clintons’ alleged victims, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Shelton, joined Trump for a press conference.

Then, on the debate stage, Trump mentioned some of those women and what the Clintons did to them. Here is the transcript of those remarks, as compiled in real-time by Vox.

That was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly I’m not proud of it, but that was something that happened. If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse, mine are words, his was action. This is what he has done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women, so you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.

Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years-old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off and she’s seen laughing at the girl who was raped. She is here with us tonight, so, don’t tell me about words. And absolutely, I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say, but what President Clinton did, he was impeached, lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine. To one of the women. Paula Jones, who’s also here tonight.

And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.

With those women in the audience, Hillary Clinton called them liars in her next breath.

First, let me say so much of what he just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he gets to talk about.

Her first instinct, as it has always been, was to denigrate the women who dare speak out against her and her husband. This time to their faces.

But this time, the media had to cover it, because it was brought up in the debate. The talking heads got back to calling it a non-issue, but for a few brief moments these women got their day in the court of public opinion. For that reason, they were the true winners tonight. (For more from the author of “These 4 Women Were the Real Debate Winners and the Clintons Will Hate It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Laugh After Successfully Defending a Child Rapist

/0 Comments/in , /by

During the second presidential debate, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, “Hillary Clinton attacked them viciously,” referring to former president Bill Clinton’s female victims and a child rape victim whose attacker Clinton defended.

“One of them is a wonderful woman, [who] at 12 years old was raped. At twelve. Her client — she represented — got him off, laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl that was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight. So, don’t tell me about words,” Trump said . . .

In the mid-1980s, journalist Roy Reed interviewed Hillary Clinton, and a tape of that interview has been uploaded to YouTube and is available in the Special Collections Department of the University of Arkansas libraries.

“He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton said about her client Thomas Alfred Taylor, who raped Shelton in 1975, laughing.

Clinton also laughed in the video about saving the child rapist from a “miscarriage of justice.” He served one year in county jail, with two months shaved off his sentence for the time he already served. Shelton’s injuries were so traumatic, she could never have children. (Read more from “Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Laugh After Successfully Defending a Child Rapist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Says U.S. Actions Threaten Its National Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Sunday he had detected increasing U.S. hostility towards Moscow and complained about what he said was a series of aggressive U.S. steps that threatened Russia’s national security.

In an interview with Russian state TV likely to worsen already poor relations with Washington, Lavrov made it clear he blamed the Obama administration for what he described as a sharp deterioration in U.S.-Russia ties.

“We have witnessed a fundamental change of circumstances when it comes to the aggressive Russophobia that now lies at the heart of U.S. policy towards Russia,” Lavrov told Russian state TV’s First Channel.

“It’s not just a rhetorical Russophobia, but aggressive steps that really hurt our national interests and pose a threat to our security.”

With relations between Moscow and Washington strained over issues from Syria to Ukraine, Lavrov reeled off a long list of Russian grievances against the United States which he said helped contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust that was in some ways more dangerous and unpredictable than the Cold War. (Read more from “Russia Says U.S. Actions Threaten Its National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Carson: Dirty Trick Video a Tactic Born of Desperation to Derail Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

To Ben Carson, the release of the 2005 video in which Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump uses vulgar terms to describe pursuing women is part of the smear campaign America’s political class will continue to wage against Trump to keep him from the White House.

“I’m not seeing anything that I didn’t totally expect,” Carson said Saturday during an interview with Newsmax. “The political class and the media has to make this about Donald Trump. They cannot make this about the issues.”

Carson said the fact the tape was leaked at the same time WikiLeaks exposed damaging comments made by Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton in closed-door speeches is more than a coincidence.

“They’re getting desperate because they’re seeing the crowds that Trump is attracting. They see the enthusiasm gap between the candidates and they know how that’s going to translate on Election Day. Their goal is now is to dribble out all of these things like this tape,” said Carson, who added, “This won’t be the last thing, by the way.”

He said the flood of Republican denunciations since the tape came out shows the success of the tactic.

“They’ve been waiting to drop these things out periodically because for one thing, this Hillary open borders thing came out. This is obscuring that.

“Why aren’t we talking about what the implications of that are?” he said, referring to comments Clinton made about expanding free trade.

“It will change the nature of everything in this nation. They were very clever, and because they have the arm of the media it makes it very easy for them to get across what they’re doing. Unless people understand what’s going on,” he said.

Carson said the election is not a referendum on Trump or Clinton, but about the “direction of the country.”

“It’s about the elites and the status quo being desperate to maintain their position and this direction versus a change in direction that’s desperately needed,” he said.

“Their (Democrats) strategy will have some impact. Some people will always capitulate instead of fight. But by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans think we’re on the wrong track. That’s what you need to be talking about,” he said.

Carson, who throughout the campaign has distinguished between his opinion of Trump’s private style and the country’s need for change, said there is no argument that Trump “made some mistakes.”

“He concedes that,” Carson said. “Those are not good things to say, what he said in that tape. He’s not going to try to defend that. And he’s not going to allow this to become about him. The issues are too important.”

Carson characterized Trump Saturday as “resolute.”

“I think Donald has a very good understanding what’s going and why it’s imperative that he carry the torch for the people in terms of the issues and not allow him to be sidetracked by any of this,” Carson added. (For more from the author of “Carson: Dirty Trick Video a Tactic Born of Desperation to Derail Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.