New Project Veritas Video Reveals How Pay for Play Creates Access to Clinton, Obama

/0 Comments/in , /by

Gaining access to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama is a simple matter of cutting a check, according to a new video released by Project Veritas. (Mild language warning.)

In this video, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe describes an undercover operation where his group bought a shell company that sent $20,000 to a Democratic operation called Americans United for Change (AUC). Top Democratic operative Robert Creamer and AUC were told that the money was rerouted through Belize. According to Creamer, the cash would likely gain O’Keefe’s “donor” access to both the Democratic presidential nominee and the current occupant of the White House.

O’Keefe said AUC returned the donation after the first in the current Project Veritas video series was released earlier this month. According to The Washington Times, however, AUC president Brad Woodhouse claims the money was returned because “it was discovered that this was a Donald Trump-funded James O’Keefe scam,” and “the last thing we want to be associated with is a character like O’Keefe, who has been convicted and successfully sued for his illegal tactics and fraudulent activities.”

A spokesperson for AUC did not immediately return The Stream’s attempt to clarify whether AUC would have returned the possibly illegal donation if it was not affiliated with O’Keefe’s organization. O’Keefe notes AUC held onto the money for a month before discovering his involvement.

The video is the fourth in a series that appears to show Creamer, former AUC operative Scott Foval and others engaging in illegal and disruptive actions to help Clinton win the White House in November.

The first video, released in mid-October, catches Foval and Creamer discussing how they incite violence at GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s rallies. The second presents the Democrats’ possibly illegal Get Out The Vote efforts, while the third video shows evidence of illegal coordination between Clinton’s campaign and outside groups.

Foval was fired from AUC after the first video was released, and Creamer resigned from Democracy Partners, a group he founded. Both men and both groups have denied any wrongdoing. (For more from the author of “New Project Veritas Video Reveals How Pay for Play Creates Access to Clinton, Obama” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Not a Choice: The Progressive Cult Must Be Crushed Now

/0 Comments/in , /by

I do a live, nationally syndicated radio show five days a week, and currently have three contributors who regularly join me to discuss and debate the issues of the day. While they wouldn’t be on my show if we didn’t generally share a common world view, I have made clear to them from the beginning that not only are they free to disagree with me, but I expect them to.

Iron sharpens iron, and there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. If I shut off the ability of my employees to question me — whether on or off the air — I would be guilty of slouching into a tyrannical mindset. And sooner or later, that would transform me into a man of caricature instead of character.

Unfortunately, it appears there are many who prefer tyranny these days. Certain elements of progressivism rely on tyranny as they rely on oxygen. It is their reason for getting up in the morning. Whatever their backward and broken cause, you will be made to care about it. If you are such a progressive, knowing your place in the pagan hive mind is paramount. There will be no dissent. There will be no questions. There will be no second opinions.

For never forget progressivism is the heresy of this era, and the spirit of the age. Seeking to replace the church with the state and God with the government. And political correctness is its inquisition.

Just ask New York University (NYU) assistant professor Michael Rectenwald.

His fear of the progressive thought police was such that he willingly suffered the indignity of posing as an anonymous Alt-Right professor on Twitter last month to speak his mind. All because he’d had it with trigger warnings and safe spaces. But he knew that if he tried to “engage in a dialogue” as progressives have long insisted upon, even among his own peers, he would be falling into a trap the likes of which turned the University of Missouri into an insane asylum within the last year.

Still, Rectenwald finally came forward this week to discuss the Tweets that had increasingly been getting under the skin of NYU students and staff. Which, of course, proved his point. As did the letter signed by many of them accusing Rectenwald of being “guilty of illogic and incivility.”

Sure, guys, the man who feels compelled to go into witness protection just to speak his mind is the guilty one. And what could he possibly be talking about anyway? It’s not as if protestors on the other coast, at the University of California-Berkeley, were just caught on video blocking the entrance to a high-traffic campus footbridge in support of transgender safe spaces. People of color were allowed to go, but chants of “go around!” were leveled at white people.

Or that the state of North Carolina is under siege because of perverse bathroom politics.

Or that a preacher in Georgia was asked by his government employer to turn over sermons he gave and was subsequently fired.

Or that radio host Dennis Prager has been censored by YouTube because God and the Constitution are deemed offensive.

Or that a University of Toronto professor is being treated like a heretic because he refuses to use gender neutral pronouns.

Rectenwald clearly has nothing to worry about. Except everything. It’s like that ‘how is my gay marriage going to affect you’ doozy from a few years back. Just smile and wave and they won’t even feel the knife slit their throat until it’s too late.

There I go, being illogical and uncivil, I guess. But like Rectenwald, I proudly own that. Because fighting this garbage isn’t really a choice. It is an existential command and a moral obligation. Either we defeat this beast, or we die at the hands of multiple devils of our own making.

“My contention is that this particular social-justice-warrior-left is producing the [A]lt-[R]ight by virtue of its insanity,” Rectenwald said in a discussion with the NYU student newspaper. He continued,

Frankly, I’m not really anti-pc. My contention is that the trigger warning, safe spaces and bias hotline reporting is not politically correct. It is insane. This stuff is producing a culture of hyper-vigilance, self-surveillance and panopticism. This kind of left that we’re talking about, the SJW — identity-politics left — it’s not political; it’s religious. A white, straight male like myself is guilty of something. I don’t know what. But I’m [expletive] sure I’m guilty of it. And I am very low on the ethical totem pole.

Preach, brother. And remember, that’s coming from somebody who actually claims to have an affinity for some degree of political correctness. But nuts is nuts, he says.

What’s nuts is we continue to tolerate this intolerance, while subsidizing it to boot. However, a culture capable of standing up to such nonsense probably wouldn’t have permitted it in the first place. (For more from the author of “It’s Not a Choice: The Progressive Cult Must Be Crushed Now” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Much Longer Can We Tolerate Illegal Aliens Stealing Our Sovereignty?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”
~ Chief Justice John Marshall 1812

Welcome to Absurdistan where Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces the prospect of jail time for enforcing federal immigration laws. Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is suspended indefinitely for not redefining marriage in his state. Meanwhile, illegal aliens are out in full force campaigning in a presidential election and blocking traffic on one of the nation’s busiest bridges. And nobody bats an eyelash.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that CASA In Action has mobilized groups of illegal aliens to organize ground game for the Clinton campaign in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. What is particularly disturbing about this effort is that it is utilizing those who received Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. Which means that “crime pays” so to speak — Democrats are benefiting from the illegal violation of American sovereignty.

Let this observation sink in slowly: American sheriffs and state supreme court justices are being punished for upholding legitimate laws and sovereignty of the people, yet CASA can harbor illegal aliens and use them for get-out-the-vote efforts. Hence, people can break into this country and then organize publicly in order to sway an election and bestow themselves with citizenship rights against the consent of the people. We now have no control over our own destiny.

Fast-forward to Wednesday, when a group of illegal aliens chained themselves together across the George Washington Bridge, blocking traffic in New York at the peak of rush hour and delaying commuters for as much as 90 minutes. What are the odds a single protester will be deported?

No words can describe the depravity of our stolen sovereignty; no analogies can fully capture the moral and intellectual dyslexia playing out without understating the problem. One of the reasons why so many immigrants have flocked to our country over the years is because they respect the stability of democracy, the rule of law, and private property rights. Many of them have emigrated from countries that have no civil society or stable system of governance — countries where mob rule reigns supreme. Now, this generation of illegal aliens is bringing with them the mindset of the governments from which they have fled.

What we are witnessing today with the refusal of the federal government to enforce national sovereignty is the greatest mass trespassing of private property rights. Public property is paid for by the citizenry of the nation-state, and, for those here without the consent of the people, to takeover that property is the ultimate violation of property rights. And between illegal aliens campaigning to sway an election and some non-citizens registering to vote (and courts preventing states from weeding out non-citizen voting), they are stealing the most sacred right of a citizen — the franchise.

Let’s be clear: if Hillary wins this election, the outrage over stolen sovereignty will not abate. She would not have won based on this issue or any other policy initiative. She would have won by making this election a referendum on the personal character of her former donor. No election entitles a president to steal the sovereignty of her people. The citizenry will not tolerate this for much longer. (For more from the author of “How Much Longer Can We Tolerate Illegal Aliens Stealing Our Sovereignty?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Threatens to Veto Military Bill Because It Protects Religious Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

On D-Day, Franklin Roosevelt famously asked a country of many faiths to pray that God protect our troops as they “struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization” against tyranny.

Given our military’s tradition of defending religious liberty from attack, it is disappointing to see President Barack Obama threaten to veto the military’s main authorization bill if it contains protections for religious freedom.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual bill that sets policies and budgets for our nation’s fighting forces and is currently being negotiated by both houses of Congress in conference before a final vote.

Included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act is an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., that applies decades-old religious exemptions from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) to federal grants and contracts.

The Russell Amendment is sound policy that will prevent the administration from stripping contracts and grants from faith-based social service providers whose internal staffing policies reflect their faith.

Jewish day schools and Catholic adoption centers, for example, are not liable under Title VII for being authentically Jewish or Catholic, and their staffing policies shouldn’t disqualify them from federal grants and contracts either.

But Obama’s veto threat is actually the strongest proof of why the Russell Amendment is needed. It shows that the president wants absolute freedom to discriminate against religious social service providers that interact with the government—all because many religious organizations won’t endorse the LGBT cause. Congress should say no to the president’s blatant attack on religious diversity.

Undermining Religious Liberty

For decades, the left has attempted to raise sexual orientation and gender identity to special protected status through Congress. Seeing little success using the democratic process, the Obama administration has instead turned to issuing various edicts that misinterpret existing civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

On July 21, 2014, Obama issued an executive order that unilaterally elevated sexual orientation and gender identity to special status for purposes of federal contracts.

As our colleague Ryan T. Anderson pointed out at the time, the order “disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues.”

The executive order left in place the Title VII religious staffing exemption, and the Russell Amendment merely reaffirms this protection while clarifying that religious organizations have a right to employ people committed to authentically living in accordance with their faith tenets. In short, religious organizations are free to be religious organizations.

But Obama would interpret existing religious protections narrowly in order to make religious groups bend to the LGBT agenda. As seen in the administration’s education and health care mandates on gender identity, in practice, this means requiring employee bathrooms and showers meant for women be opened to biological men who self-identify as female regardless of people’s religious beliefs on the matter. The administration’s proven lack of respect for religious freedom when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity policies is more than enough reason to keep the Russell Amendment.

Reaffirming Long-Standing Policy Is Apparently Unacceptable

Despite the Russell Amendment’s straightforwardness and precedent, 42 Senate Democrats have written to the Senate Armed Services Committee asking that the Russell Amendment be stripped from final National Defense Authorization Act language during conference negotiations.

The letter states that prospective employees should not be “disqualified from a taxpayer-funded job based on an individual’s religions.” Except that’s not how federal contracts typically work. Existing organizations bid for contracts to produce services or products based on their ability to deliver them, not to provide somebody “a taxpayer-funded job.”

The programs at issue are designed to help the needy in the most effective and efficient way possible, and faith-based organizations have proven that they are often the very best at providing these social services precisely because of their faith-based character.

But moreover, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already specifically protects religious organizations’ ability to hire based on religion, so the burden is on the objectors to the Russell Amendment to prove why a system that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and has served religious pluralism well for decades should now be stripped away when it comes to federal contracts.

Will Congress Hold the Line?

The Russell Amendment was included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act and passed by a comfortable margin (277 to 147) because it reflects the best of our traditions without taking away anything from anyone.

Congress should not let the president’s veto threat get in the way of passing sound policy, and the Russell Amendment is just that—a commonsense continuation of policy that has served our diverse society well since 1964. (For more from the author of “Obama Threatens to Veto Military Bill Because It Protects Religious Groups” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Judge Asks Why Obama Administration Isn’t Admitting Christian Syrian Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an otherwise unremarkable opinion over the federal Freedom of Information Act, a federal appellate court judge has issued a sharp rejoinder to the Obama administration over an issue that has been discussed in the news—the almost complete lack of Syrian Christian refugees being brought over to the U.S.

The Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center, a progressive liberal advocacy organization “dedicated to ensuring human rights protections” for immigrants and asylum seekers—including apparently terrorists—filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

The lawsuit claimed that DHS was refusing to release the identity of Tier III terrorist organizations, unlike the identities of what are defined as Tier I and Tier II terrorist groups that are publicly identified.

Tier III terrorist organizations “tend to be groups about which the U.S. government does not have good intelligence, making it essential that [DHS] be able to obtain information about them during screening interviews that are as focused and complete as possible.”

The government argued that Tier III terrorist organizations are exempt from disclosure under FOIA because it would disclose “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.”

Individuals in Tier III groups are more likely than other asylum seekers “to commit violent or otherwise unlawful acts.” The court accepted the government’s assertion that if immigrants become aware of the identity of these Tier III organizations, which the Heartland Alliance made clear it intended to publicize, then members of the groups would “have a very strong incentive to falsify or misrepresent ” their “encounters, activities, or associations” with the terrorist groups.

If the immigrants don’t know a terrorist organization they have been associated with has been identified by the government, they are “likely to be less guarded in answering questions about [their] activities or associations with the organization.”

All three members of the panel agreed that the FOIA exemption applied, particularly because the Heartland Alliance could not “explain what the government would gain by pretending that harmless organizations are actually terrorist groups.”

The Heartland Alliance also made it clear that “its goal in the litigation” was to “discredit” the government’s classification of terrorist organizations, according to the court. Both “the tone and content” of its briefs “signals its disbelief that the government has secrets worth keeping from asylum seekers and their helpers.”

However, in a spirited concurrence written by Judge Daniel Manion, the judge expressed his “concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country.”

According to Manion, it is “well-documented” that the refugees are not representative of that “war-torn area of the world.” Ten percent of the Syrian population is Christian and “yet less than one-half of 1 percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.”

President Barack Obama set a goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S., and by August that goal had already been exceeded. But of the “nearly 11,000 refugees admitted by mid-September, only 56 were Christian.”

Yet Christian Syrians have been one of the primary targets of the Islamic jihadists infesting Syria and butchering, murdering, and killing civilians. The Islamic State has made it clear that it is going after Christians because it intends to “conquer Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.”

Thus, one would expect that Christian Syrians would represent a significant portion of the Syrians being accepted into the U.S. as refugees. But that hasn’t been the case, and, according to Manion, the Obama administration has no “good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.” Thus, we “remain in the dark as a humanitarian catastrophe continues.”

This is also relevant to the complaints of various states about the Obama administration settling Syrian refugees in them without providing any information about the people arriving. As Manion points out, “the good people of this country routinely welcome immigrants from all over the world. But in a democracy, good data is critical to public debate about national immigration policy.”

The courts and the Obama administration “demand high evidentiary burdens for states seeking to keep their citizens safe, and then prevent the states from obtaining that evidence” on these refugees. That creates a catch-22 for state governments.

So while the administration brings Syrian refugees into the country by the thousands, it is concealing basic information about those refugees behind a wall of government secrecy. This, despite the fact that the Syrian refugee crisis has been the catalyst for the infiltration of terrorists into Western Europe.

Yet the administration refuses to tell the American public or the states how it is making its decisions on who it is accepting for resettlement in the U.S., or even what steps it is taking to ensure we don’t have the same infiltration here.

Or why, in a religious civil war where Christians are one of the main targets of the Islamic terrorists engaging in indiscriminate slaughter, it is bringing in almost none of those victims of one of the worst human rights atrocities of the new century. (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Asks Why Obama Administration Isn’t Admitting Christian Syrian Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why It’s Wrong That America Refused to Defend Its Embargo on Cuba at the UN

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the first time ever, the United States abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution condemning America’s embargo on Cuba.

This breaks decades of bipartisan support for U.S. law on the international stage. It shows just how far the Obama administration is willing to take its misguided and ill-informed Cuba policy.

For the past quarter century, the Castro regime annually introduced a U.N. General Assembly resolution blaming America’s trade embargo for the island’s chronic economic and social problems and calling for the end of the embargo. Until Wednesday, the U.S. has always voted against the resolution, often standing virtually alone in defense of human rights and democracy for the Cuban people.

President Barack Obama’s administration has refuted this bipartisan position. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security Adviser, stated there was “no reason to defend a failed policy.”

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power celebrated the abstention by declaring the U.S. was closing the door on “50-plus years of pursuing isolation,” in favor of choosing the “path of engagement” in order to be better able to empower the Cuban people.

This is no cause for celebration. The U.S. embargo is not the source of the suffering of ordinary Cubans, but rather the Castro regime and its economically destructive policies. Over 190 countries do not observe the U.S. embargo and engage with Cuba economically and diplomatically, and yet there has been no positive change on the island.

If “engagement” with the rest of the world has not alleviated economic hardship or produced positive political change in Cuba, then the Obama administration and the international community must realize that it has been the policies of the Castro regime itself that have led to the deplorable conditions on the island.

The Obama administration made this exact argument as recently as 2014, when U.S. Ambassador Ronald D. Godard stated in explanation of America’s vote against the Cuba resolution:

The Cuban government uses this annual resolution in an attempt to shift blame for the island’s economic problems away from its own policy failures … the Cuban economy will not thrive until the Cuban government permits a free and fair labor market, fully empowers Cuban independent entrepreneurs, respects intellectual property rights, allows unfettered access to information via the internet, opens its state monopolies to private competition, and adopts the sound macroeconomic policies that have contributed to the success of Cuba’s neighbors in Latin America. …

The United States strongly supports the Cuban people’s desire to determine their own future, through the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. The right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media is set forth in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Cuban government’s policies that continue to prevent enjoyment of this right. …

This resolution only serves to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, and therefore my delegation will oppose it … We encourage this world body to support the desires of the Cuban people to choose their own future. By doing so, it would truly advance the principles the United Nations Charter was founded upon, and the purposes for which the United Nations was created.

Abruptly abandoning America’s principled position of championing the Cuban people against the repression of its government is a disgrace.

Repealing the embargo, which is the aim of the U.N. resolution on which the U.S. abstained Wednesday, will do nothing but further empower the brutal Castro regime. It would also serve to diminish the leverage we would bring to any engagement we have with Cuba. The U.S. must recognize that it is the Castro regime that needs to change its policies first, not the other way around.

It is one thing for the Obama administration to pursue its reckless policy toward Cuba domestically, but quite another to fail to defend our nation against a U.N. resolution attacking America’s laws and established policy. It demonstrates a shocking disregard for its responsibility to loyally represent and defend our nation and its policies in international organizations.

Unfortunately, the potential for damage by the Obama administration in the U.N. is not limited to fecklessness on nonbinding Cuba resolutions in the General Assembly.

The Palestinians are reportedly sounding out the Security Council in another attempt to secure full U.N. membership and demand a halt to Israeli settlements. Would anyone be surprised if the Obama administration changed its position on this as well? (For more from the author of “Here’s Why It’s Wrong That America Refused to Defend Its Embargo on Cuba at the UN” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mother Angelica’s Simple Advice on Voting Is Going Viral

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mother Angelica’s faithful voice still rings loud and clear with reason seven months after her passing, as a 16-year-old video of remarks she made on voting is making the rounds on Facebook.

The culture of death is an abomination to the Lord, and she simply cannot vote for death, she tells viewers.

But arguably even more profound and pertinent still all these years later is Mother’s pronouncement that she will not vote for candidates, but rather, for life.

“I’m not going to vote for candidates,” she states, pausing. “I vote for life … for life.”

“I vote for life,” Mother Angelica says again with profound emphasis. (Read more from “Mother Angelica’s Simple Advice on Voting Is Going Viral” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why ‘Never Trumpers’ Should Reconsider

/0 Comments/in , /by

While Democrats perpetually circle the wagons, Republicans engage a perpetual circular firing squad. The same holds true for many evangelicals. Democrats and secularists count on it.

And we never disappoint.

Full disclosure: I went from a dogged “Never Trumper” to a “Maybe Trumper,” and, finally, settled as a “Reluctant Trumper.” I, like any God-fearing father of daughters was, and remain, appalled by Donald Trump’s sordid past, and his 11-year-old vulgar video in which he objectified women. His words are indefensible and I fully expect the Clinton camp to strategically release additional revolting and embarrassing opposition research about the Republican nominee before election day.

Still, I will be voting against Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8 in what is objectively and irrefutably the most effective way possible: by casting a vote, for better or worse, for the policies and promises of Donald Trump — and for the vice presidency of Gov. Mike Pence.

Regrettably, with many of my Never Trump friends I’m reminded of the fanatic who refuses his daughter chemotherapy and watches her die in an effort to convince himself (and others) of the strength of his own faith. Pride is an awful thing. We are to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Foolishness called “faith” is just foolishness.

Even so, there are Christian Pharisees on both extremes of this Trump fiasco: those Trumpian cultists who buy the “Make America great again!” pablum and deride any person who, while not casting judgment upon others, makes, with all sincerity, what they view as the principled decision. The latter say they’ll sit this one out (or go through the motions by voting third party — a wasted vote by any objective standard). While I appreciate this milder strain of Never Trumper’s sincerity, I nonetheless believe it is sincerely wrong.

And then there are the self-righteous, plank-in-the-eye Never Trump prigs who slander as having “lost their saltiness,” “sinned against God,” and “compromised their principles,” brothers and sisters who recognize the empirical reality that a vote for a horribly flawed (Lord knows I’m the worst sinner of all) baby Christian as president is a vote against Hillary Clinton’s tyranny in perpetuity.

Hillary and the Horror of Partial-Birth Abortion

The Media Research Center has done America a tremendous service. In 2014 the watchdog organization released a video of an actual partial birth abortion — something Hillary Clinton stood on stage during the final presidential debate, stared into the camera with cold, callous eyes, and then both lied about and defended unequivocally. I plead with Never Trumpers to watch the video and then prayerfully reassess their plans for Nov. 8.

Mrs. Clinton’s beloved late-term abortion practice is one so brutal and needless that even the left-leaning American Medical Association has admitted that it is dangerous to the mother and never necessary under any circumstances, not the least of which is for “the life or health of the mother.”

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully “viable” child — often kicking and thrashing — feet first from her mother’s womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion, rather than committing murder.

He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. Next, he opens the scissors to enlarge the wound as blood and brainstem fluid gush down his hands, inserts a vacuum tube and sucks out her brains, thereby collapsing her skull.

Her now limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.

This is homicide, plain and simple. Hillary Clinton supports it. Donald Trump opposes it.

We deserve God’s wrath and judgment as a nation for allowing this abortion holocaust to occur on our watch. In my estimation, Mrs. Clinton is a bloodthirsty monster who enthusiastically supports this barbarity. Her Supreme Court appointees will ensure that tens of millions of precious babies like the one in the video are murdered in the same brutal manner.

My conscience tells me that I must vote in such a way that exercising my civic duty will have the strongest net effect against Mrs. Clinton and ensure that she is stopped. She must not be elected president. To not vote — or to vote for a non-starter third party candidate, which is effectively the same thing — while not an actual vote for Mrs. Clinton, still puts this Mengele in a pantsuit one step closer to the White House and the Supreme Court.

It’s simple math and it’s undeniable. The most effective thing you can personally do as a citizen is to vote against Mrs. Clinton by voting for Mr. Trump. This does the most electoral damage possible to Candidate Clinton and offers the best chance for life that you can provide future generations.

With its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then, the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. “Pro-choicers” are the bad guys and pro-lifers, the good guys. It really is that simple — that black and white. It’s good versus evil.

History will reflect as much.

Under a President Hillary Clinton, millions more babies will be tortured and dismembered alive. Under a President Donald Trump, these millions might live.

The Devil and Democrats: Oh, how they love derision and division within the body of Christ. (For more from the author of “Why ‘Never Trumpers’ Should Reconsider” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Wikileaks Releases Show Clinton Staffers Worried About Her ‘Head’ in 2015

/0 Comments/in , /by

Long before it became an issue in the 2016 campaign, the health of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton concerned two senior staffers, emails just released by Wikileaks reveal.

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta asked in a September 26, 2015 e-mail, “How bad is her head?” The question was the only thing he asked campaign spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri in the message, which had the subject line, “Any sense of whether and when she wants to talk?”

Palmieri responded: “Don’t know. Huma left here about an hour ago. I just pinged again to ask about prep, haven’t heard back. She leaves at 6 pm for DC.”

That exchange was preceded by more than five months by an e-mail from close Clinton aide Huma Abedin. In a lengthy exchange about a Super PAC used by soon-to-be Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and how the campaign should talk about “dark money in politics,” Abedin told Podesta, Palmieri, campaign manager Robby Mook and others, “She’s going to stick to notes a little closer this am, still not perfect in her head.”

Clinton’s only official event that day, according to the campaign’s website, was a roundtable event in New Hampshire.

It is unclear what spurred Abedin’s comment. She may have meant only that Clinton did not have had her notes memorized or was tired —or she may have been expressing a larger concern with Clinton’s health.

The health of both elderly candidates has been an undercurrent of the 2016 presidential season. Trump is 70, and has released relatively little information about his health. A year younger, Clinton has fallen on multiple occasions in the last seven years, including a very public collapse in September that her campaign attributed to pneumonia and exhaustion. Clinton also had a concussion in 2012, and broke fractured her arm in 2009.

Clinton has been targeted by Wikileaks for some time, including a release this week that showed her staffers were concerned that President Barack Obama may have lied when he said in early 2015 that he found out from the news that his former Secretary of State was improperly and illegally using a private server. Obama had exchanged e-mails with Clinton on the server before making the comments.

The Clinton campaign has steadfastly refused to address the information revealed by the many Wikileaks releases, declaring them untrustworthy because they were illegally procured and possibly tied to the Russian government. (For more from the author of “New Wikileaks Releases Show Clinton Staffers Worried About Her ‘Head’ in 2015” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian University Under Fire for ‘Deep Ties’ With Abortion Industry, Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

“In all of its endeavors, Whitworth University seeks to advance its founder’s mission of equipping students to ‘honor God, follow Christ and serve humanity,'” the school’s website reads.

And yet the Presbyterian-affiliated school is partnering with Planned Parenthood.

Whitworth University is facilitating and promoting Planned Parenthood student internships for college credit, where student interns are “professionally trained.” Whitworth lists the nation’s largest abortion chain as their “community partner” and allows them to have a booth at their school volunteer fair to recruit students.

The prestigious Christian school also sends out flyers listing Planned Parenthood as a resource for pregnant students.

Last spring, Whitworth hosted a fetal tissue research discussion event, where they highlighted the “upside” of abortion as donating baby body parts and sought to discredit the Center for Medical Progress videos as “highly edited.” (Read more from “Christian University Under Fire for ‘Deep Ties’ With Abortion Industry, Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.