Abortions Are Down but Abortion Medication Use Is on the Rise. What Are Pro-Lifers to Do?

New data from Reuters shows more women are using an abortifacient to end their pregnancies — referred to as “abortion medication,” which seems a bit contradictory — than ever before, even though abortions overall are still declining. The data reveal not only the current state of abortion in this country, but also the effect pro-life lawmakers have had on the debate, and what lays ahead for the movement.

What is ‘abortion medication’?

Reuters, via Huffington Post, reported, “Medication abortion involves two drugs, taken over a day or two. The first, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy sustaining hormone progesterone. The second, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions. Studies have shown medical abortions are effective up to 95 percent of the time.”

These drugs have been available for some time, but fewer FDA regulations that occurred in March increased availability and popularity. Doctors can now prescribe the pills up until mom is 10 weeks along, instead of seven. The guidelines also changed to reduce the “number of required medical visits and allowed trained professionals other than physicians, including nurse practitioners, to dispense the pills.” Its usage is now at 43 percent, up from 35 percent just six years ago. States like Michigan and Iowa have very few restrictions on the drugs, and so “medication abortions” make up nearly half of all abortions in Michigan and a little more than half in Iowa.

Why? Convenience. Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, said, “Women who ask for the medication prefer it because they can end a pregnancy at home, with a partner, in a manner more like a miscarriage.”

That said, the overall U.S. abortion rate continues to decline. In 2008, there were roughly 19 terminations per 1,000 women aged 15-44. In 2011, that had dropped to 16.9. And last year, it was at its lowest point since 1973.

What does this mean?

Let’s face it: This “medication” makes abortion even more convenient than it already is. Contrary to liberal talking points, abortions are quite easy to receive. In fact, in some states, teens don’t even have to tell their parents they’re getting one. Folks in Florida are up in arms that the Florida Supreme Court is considering implementing a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates will no doubt spin this bit of “good news” to their advantage, claiming once and for all that determined women will abort their children and no amount of effort from pro-life advocates can stop it. But this type of spin is normal.

Remember back in September, when Ushma D. Upadhyay, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, penned The New York Times op-ed about these very abortion drugs? She said, “my colleagues and I found that such laws are not just covers for restricting abortion access — they can actually harm women’s health.” Upadhayay continued, saying:

We need scientific research that evaluates these laws’ actual effects on women and their health. If state legislatures want to create policies around abortion, they should be based on evidence. When policy is not based on science, American women pay the price.

Since more women than ever before are utilizing these drugs, I guess American women aren’t suffering (she didn’t make the case for it regardless).

The Frisky observed “Just think about it: while TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws were exploding across the nation, reasonable guidelines for abortion pills were being developed. Today, more than 2.75 million U.S. women have used abortion pills since they were approved in 2000.” The Frisky went so far as to say it shows that regardless of what pro-life advocates do, nothing will stop a woman determined to end the life of her unborn child.

TRAP laws resulted in hundreds of clinics across the country shutting down and have forced women seeking abortions to travel long distances to obtain the procedure, delay having the procedure potentially until the second trimester, or to self-induce. The anti-abortion laws may close clinics, but they fail to actually achieve the anti-choice movement’s goal of stopping abortions from happening.

While fewer abortion clinics, due to TRAP laws, may have contributed to the rise in “abortion medication,” I’m not sure it supports the idea that pro-life advocates are failing. After all, there abortions have at their lowest number since Roe v. Wade. So women are having fewer abortions. Why this is happening seems more multi-faceted.

Pro-life lawmakers should press on, along with educators and families

The fact that the usage increased only when FDA regulations were reduced shows the power of regulation and legislation. As a small-government conservative, I’m hesitant to encourage regulation just to take up space. But pro-life lawmakers’ strategies to help reduce abortions, whether by defunding Planned Parenthood or imposing strict guidelines of the condition of abortion clinics, have contributed to the national reduction of abortions.

Lawmakers should continue to reduce abortions, by whatever creative, persuasive, and legal means necessary. A few mind-boggling videos caused a House Committee to investigate Planned Parenthood in 2015 and at least a dozen states have voted to defund it. I’d say that’s one way to accomplish the “anti-choice movement’s goal of stopping abortion from happening.”

It’s imperative women understand what an abortion entails and when life begins. Knowledge and education, via schools, communities, families, and friends, are key ways to discuss this “abortion medication.” If life begins at conception, which science supports, these drugs are ending a tiny baby’s life. This cannot be overstated. As I said in this space a few months ago,

his former abortion doctor explains that the abortion pill slowly starves a baby to death. ‘Dr. Anthony Levatino, an OB/GYN who did over 1200 abortions, uses medically accurate animations inside the womb to show how the abortion pill slowly starves a baby to death over a period of days. He also details how developed the baby is at this early stage and the abortion pill’s potentially dangerous effects on the mother.’

While a mother can’t see much at an ultrasound under 10 weeks — research show women are often moved to change their minds after seeing her baby on an ultrasound — she may be able to hear a heartbeat, which is often exciting. Finally, the most obvious answer for many pro-life advocates, and the hardest for a mother-to-be is to encourage mom to forgo the use of any “abortion medication,” and bring the baby to term. There are between one and two million couples waiting to adopt. There is a way that is safe for everyone, including mom and baby.

Pro-life advocates should not be discouraged at the news that “abortion medication” is increasing, but neither should they ignore what it says about a woman’s desire for convenience and privacy. While legislation can be a helpful tool in decreasing abortions, education, knowledge and support are key in continuing to reduce the number of aborted babies nationwide. (For more from the author of “Abortions Are Down but Abortion Medication Use Is on the Rise. What Are Pro-Lifers to Do?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan in Precarious Position Ahead of Election Day

Paul Ryan says he’s running for House speaker again, but the Wisconsin Republican’s air of confidence belies divisions within the GOP and a deep-seated disdain for the party establishment from conservatives.

“I am going to seek staying on as speaker,” Ryan told Wisconsin talk-radio host Jerry Bader in an effort to quell speculation Friday. “There’s a lot of unfinished work to do, and I think I can do a lot to help our cause and our country.”

Returning to the job he’s held since October 2015 won’t be easy. The results of Tuesday’s election—regardless of who wins the presidency—are likely to bring calls for new leadership on Capitol Hill. Plus, with several House Republicans in danger of losing their seats, Ryan will face a more conservative caucus, potentially with fewer allies in his own party.

Conservatives, however, aren’t the only lawmakers creating headaches for the 46-year-old speaker from Janesville, Wisconsin.

This weekend, the latest challenge came not from the conservative House Freedom Caucus but instead a centrist Republican from Ohio. Politico reported Saturday that Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, is circulating a letter seeking to delay GOP leadership elections. The vote is set to take place Nov. 15, just one week after Election Day. It is a precursor to the official vote for House speaker in January.

“There are fractures in the conference which truly need to be discussed, vetted, and healed,” states the Renacci letter, which was obtained by Politico. “Asking members to vote for a leadership team within 24 hours of their return to Washington without time to reflect on ways of coming together as a conference is truly ill advised. That in itself ignores the reality that the conference is divided. … There is no reason to hastily hold elections.”

In a subsequent interview with Politico, Renacci also declined to endorse Ryan for speaker.

“At this stage of the game, I don’t know who all is running,” Renacci told Politico. “I’m very supportive of Paul, but when it comes to elections I want to see who’s in before committing [to] who I’m supporting.”

Renacci isn’t the first lawmaker to complain about the hurried nature of the leadership vote. In September, the Freedom Caucus mulled pushing for a delay as well. Conservatives wanted to evaluate Ryan’s handling of the lame-duck session of Congress before committing to support him.

There’s also another factor at play: Republican supporters of Donald Trump are unhappy with Ryan’s treatment of the GOP presidential candidate and, according to Politico, “they’ll lay the blame at Ryan’s feet if the GOP nominee loses narrowly.”

One such lawmaker, conservative Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, announced last month he wouldn’t support Ryan as speaker.

Another conservative, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., cited a different reason for his opposition to Ryan.

“It would be very difficult for him to get my vote based on what I assume his motives are, which are to run for president in 2020,” Massie told The Huffington Post last week.

Massie, who voted against Ryan for speaker in 2015, also outlined a series of conditions he would use to judge the next speaker. In a statement to The Huffington Post, he wrote:

The next speaker shouldn’t send the House on vacation for five weeks in August unless the appropriations bills are done. The next speaker needs to make good on the broken promise to give members and the American public time to read the bills. The next speaker should immediately put a stop to the institutionalized extortion that requires members to pay for their committee assignments with lobbyists’ money. Finally, the next speaker needs to allow a debate on whether or not to authorize the military conflicts the president has unilaterally engaged us in around the globe.

Under his leadership, Ryan failed to complete the annual appropriations process, prompting the need for a lame-duck session of Congress next month to fund the government. Conservatives opposed the post-election session because some members who are retiring or lost their elections will no longer be accountable to constituents, yet voting to spend billions in taxpayer money.

While Ryan put significant effort into the “A Better Way” agenda, there were few legislative accomplishments for conservatives to cheer about this year. One of the few cited by Ryan’s office—the fiscal relief package for Puerto Rico—was unpopular among conservatives.

“The American people are calling for action, not just ideas,” Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal last month.

“The American people already understand the difference between what the parties stand for,” Jordan added. “What they want to see from Republicans is a willingness to stand firm and get something done.”

Ryan has pointed to 2017 as an opportunity to enact his agenda. In the radio interview with Bader, he said, “I’ve led us to offer a very comprehensive agenda to take to the country and I want to execute and implement that agenda.”

Executing and implementing that agenda could help win over some of Ryan’s critics. But for conservatives like Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., Ryan needs to do more. That includes opposition to a trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration and a firm stance against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“If he commits to regular order—in writing—and no Trans-Pacific Partnership until we reduce regulations and no amnesty bills and a commitment to reduce federal spending, then I will vote for any candidate who backs these conservative positions that 80 percent of Republicans share,” Brat told CNN.

“Each of these issues should just be reflexive for any Republican,” Brat added. “They should not take more than 5 seconds to say ‘yes.’”

Like Massie, Brat voted against Ryan for speaker in 2015. They were two of the nine Republicans who cast a ballot for Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla. The others were Reps. Curt Clawson, R-Fla.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Bill Posey, R-Fla.; Randy Weber, R-Texas; and Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

Many members aren’t saying publicly if they’ll support Ryan until after Election Day.

“I’m not commenting on leadership elections until after Nov. 8,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told CNN. Meadows is a candidate to succeed Jordan as chairman of the Freedom Caucus if he decides to step down.

Jordan, meanwhile, was pressed by CNBC’s John Harwood last week on Ryan’s future, but he wouldn’t commit either way.

“There’s time to deal with who’s in leadership, who may not be in leadership, how leadership is done, what the rules are, what we’re going to focus on in the lame duck,” Jordan said on CNBC.

Jordan’s group of 40 Freedom Caucus members hold the most sway over the speaker election in January. Members of the conservative caucus huddled at Meadows’ Washington, D.C., apartment last week to plot their strategy.

Following the meeting, Politico reported that Freedom Caucus members might support Ryan if one of their own secured a seat at the leadership table. At least a couple lower-tier leadership roles could be available—vice chairman of the conference and secretary of the conference—if incumbents decided not to seek re-election to those roles.

But one Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, suggested such a deal with GOP leadership wasn’t in the cards.

The uncertainty, at least for now, puts Ryan in a precarious position. Last year, he initially rebuffed the speakership before eventually emerging as John Boehner’s replacement. Since getting the job, he’s made defending the Republican majority a top priority. The GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee is using his national profile to raise money and campaign for incumbents. That includes members of the Freedom Caucus.

Ryan recently visited the districts of two vulnerable Freedom Caucus members: Reps. Rod Blum, R-Iowa, and Scott Garrett, R-N.J. They’ve returned the favor by supporting Ryan.

He’s also donated to the campaigns of more than a quarter of Freedom Caucus members, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. They include Reps. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.; Alex Mooney, R-W.Va.; Mark Sanford, R-S.C.; Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga.; and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio.

Ryan will need as many of those conservative members in his corner given the probability that some of the 246 House Republicans won’t be back in January.

Even if he wins the initial backing of his GOP colleagues on Nov. 15, there’s still the possibility that Ryan won’t have the votes in January when the full House votes for speaker. To be elected speaker, Ryan needs 218 votes. Because no Democrats will support a Republican speaker, Ryan must limit the number of defections within the GOP to remain in the job.

“The final exam for Paul Ryan will be in January 2017, when there is a speaker election,” Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told The New Yorker last year, “and we will look at his body of work and determine whether he gets a passing grade or not.”

Ryan won 236 votes last year. With a smaller GOP majority likely in January, it will be in the hands of House conservatives to ultimately decide if Ryan deserves to remain in the job. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan in Precarious Position Ahead of Election Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WIKILEAKS: Chelsea Clinton’s Multi-Million Dollar Wedding Paid for By… “Charitable” Clinton Foundation

Former President Bill Clinton’s top aide wrote in 2012 that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources “for her wedding and life for a decade” and a top Foundation donor was responsible for “killing” unfavorable press coverage – all as an internal Foundation audit uncovered numerous conflicts of interest and “quid pro quo benefits,” according to emails released Sunday by WikiLeaks.

Doug Band, founder of global strategies company Teneo and Bill Clinton’s personal assistant since the 1990s, wrote the Jan. 4, 2012, email to future Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chair John Podesta and two other Clinton aides after receiving word that Chelsea had told “one of the [President] bush 43 kids” and others about “an internal investigation of money within the foundation.” Band wrote such chatter was “not smart.”

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents….,” Band wrote. “I hope that you will speak to her and end this[.] Once we go down this road….”

The FBI reportedly is looking into The Clinton Foundation, although the extent and focus of the investigation is unclear. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, had previously said some of the “personal” emails she deleted from her secret, homebrew server – the subject of another FBI probe – were related to Chelsea’s wedding. (Read more from “WIKILEAKS: Chelsea Clinton’s Multi-Million Dollar Wedding Paid for By… “Charitable” Clinton Foundation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s Causing the Surge of Illegal Immigration? Lawmakers Want Answers and Action

Four members of Congress are calling on the Obama administration to quickly address the recent spike in illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the four lawmakers ask the administration to “take immediate action and mobilize all available resources of the department to stop the ongoing surge of illegal immigration at the southwest border.”

The letter was sent Thursday by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., along with Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Grassley and Goodlatte lead each chamber’s judiciary committees.

According to the letter, the lawmakers believe the immigration surge is connected to the U.S. presidential election.

“Numerous media reports indicate that this surge is a large-scale effort to enter the United States before this year’s presidential election,” the letter states. “The onslaught of illegal immigration reflects continued efforts by aliens from Central America—El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala—to overwhelm our limited resources at the border, which inevitably results in the release of tens of thousands of removable aliens within the United States.”

The letter also states that “thousands” of Haitians and Africans are gathering in two Mexican cities, Tijuana and Mexicali, and “asserting dubious claims of asylum [to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers], which will practically guarantee their entry.”

In the last fiscal year, according to the letter, 408,870 illegal immigrants were found by the Border Patrol attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Of those apprehended, more than 77,000 were members of so-called ‘family units,’ which represents an increase of 95 percent over [fiscal year] 2015 figures, and nearly 60,000 were unaccompanied alien minors, which reflects a 49 percent increase over the previous fiscal year,” the letter reports.

Currently, the 40,000 illegal immigrants are being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The letter warns that this record number could easily reach 47,000 in the very near future.

“Without additional funding, ICE likely will release thousands of those detained into the United States, many of whom are criminals, who will abscond and hide from authorities,” the letter states.

Goodlatte, Gowdy, Grassley, and Sessions are calling on Homeland Security to immediately address this issue. They noted the department abruptly canceled a briefing last week with congressional staff, leaving questions about the recent surge unanswered.

“It has come to light through information provided to our committees that the department may have issued a directive to limit engagement with Congress until immediately before the election,” they wrote. “Any such directive, if issued, would be an unacceptable political ploy and a serious infringement of Congress’ oversight authority under the Constitution. We fully expect that such a directive, if issued, would be immediately rescinded.”

David Inserra, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation, believes this is yet another instance that illustrates President Barack Obama’s lack of action to address the country’s immigration policy.

“The Obama administration’s failure to enforce our immigration laws and ongoing promises of amnesty or legalization by policymakers have encouraged continuing waves of illegal immigration,” Inserra said in an email to The Daily Signal. “Until the U.S. redoubles the enforcement of its immigration laws and provides ICE and other immigration agencies with the resources they need, the U.S. will keep struggling with the surges of illegal immigration we have seen and continue to see at our borders.” (For more from the author of “What’s Causing the Surge of Illegal Immigration? Lawmakers Want Answers and Action” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Pays for Politicking on Air Force One? Here’s the Formula for How Costs Are Split

President Barack Obama hit the skies in Air Force One in the week before the presidential election, stumping for who he hopes to be his successor—at a cost that will mostly be covered by taxpayers, but will be partially refunded by the campaign.

The president stumped for Hillary Clinton, stopping for speeches in Columbus, Raleigh, Miami, Jacksonville, and Fayetteville, North Carolina. Obama previously stumped for Clinton in Charlotte, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Orlando.

Air Force One, for fiscal year 2016, has an estimated cost per flying hour of $180,118, according to the U.S. Air Force information obtained by Judicial Watch.

The reimbursement is based on what a flight would cost if it were a first-class commercial airline, according to Federal Election Commission regulations.

All presidential travel is classified into two categories. It can be taxpayer-paid official travel, involving any presidential duties. Or it’s unofficial travel, including political trips, which would require some reimbursements to the federal treasury.

The Reagan administration established written standards in 1982 about political travel on Air Force One. The guidelines determined when the president and vice president would travel entirely at government expense and when political campaigns or committees would have to reimburse the government for these costs.

Subsequent opinions by the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel and the Federal Election Commission backed up the Reagan administration policy, extending to the first lady and vice president’s spouse, according to a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service.

The Federal Election Commission guidelines require that the cost of Air Force One travel be offset by “the lowest unrestricted and non-discounted, first-class airfare in the case of travel between cities served by regularly scheduled first-class commercial airline service,” or the “the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable commercial aircraft of sufficient size to accommodate all campaign travelers and security personnel, if applicable, in the case of travel to or from a city not regularly served by regularly scheduled commercial airline service.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest predicted early last week that Obama would be very active on the campaign trail before Election Day.

“I would anticipate that the president will spend a significant amount of time traveling next week in support of not just Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, but Democrats further down the ballot,” Earnest said.

“The president’s view is that the stakes in the election are high, not just in terms of determining who will occupy the Oval Office for the next four years, but how much success President Obama’s successor will have in advancing their agenda through the Congress, so that would account for the president’s passion.”

Previous presidents of both parties have typically taken the presidential plane on the campaign trail both for their desired White House successor and for candidates running for office in congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. Usually, the party out of power raises questions about how tax dollars are funding partisan politics.

To fly first class in the cities Obama visited in the final week of the campaign, it would cost $5,396.82 per person, based on Expedia numbers. That would seem hefty, but the total Air Force One cost for travel would be about $1.08 million. This would be just under six flight hours, according to the website Flightmanager.com.

“The average cost to fly on commercial is far less than the taxpayers are covering, it’s just a small portion,” Demian Brady, director of research at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “There are also a lot of undisclosed costs. We need a fairer system for compensation as well as greater transparency.”

Campaign flights earlier in the year were shorter. In September and October, Obama traveled to Charlotte, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Orlando to stump for Clinton.

The highest price for a round-trip flight from the District of Columbia to Charlotte would be $2,869.10 per person, according to the travel site Expedia. A one-day round-trip flight from the District to Philadelphia and back would cost $872.20 per person.

A one-day round-trip flight from the District to Cleveland and back would cost $886.20 for a first-class round trip. A first-class round-trip commercial flight from Washington to Orlando would cost as much as $1,077.20 per person.

The presidential trips from the District of Columbia to Charlotte, Philadelphia, and Cleveland would have all been less than one hour, based on flight time estimates from the website FlightManager.com. So, that would mean at least one way, the flights would each be less than $180,118.

Still, for those three presidential round trips, the cost would be about $540,000 combined—most of which taxpayers would absorb. The less than two hours to Orlando and back on Air Force One would cost about $528,000 round trip.

Vice President Joe Biden and first lady Michelle Obama made campaign appearances for Clinton, while the president also made campaign trips for Democratic congressional campaigns this year.

The National Taxpayer Union Foundation has studied presidential travel, determining earlier this year that Obama has officially had the second-most flights abroad of any president except for Bill Clinton. The organization, however, does not track campaign travel separately.

In February 2013, Obama had a trip that mixed official and unofficial business, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last Wednesday.

Obama first flew to Chicago to deliver remarks about the economy, and from there to Palm Beach, Florida, for a vacation. The entire trip cost the Defense Department $2.8 million and cost the Department of Homeland Security $770,000 because of the needed protection from the Secret Service, according to the new GAO finding.

There isn’t a tally on how much Obama has spent on political travel throughout his presidency and what proportion has been reimbursed. However, there were similar tallies for former President George W. Bush.

A 2006 report by the Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the then-ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, determined that Bush’s travel for Republican candidates in 2002 cost $15.7 million, and the taxpayers covered 97 percent of the expense.

Further, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s travel to campaign events in 2006 cost about $7.2 million, and just $200,000 was reimbursed to the taxpayers, according to the Waxman report. (For more from the author of “Who Pays for Politicking on Air Force One? Here’s the Formula for How Costs Are Split” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Huma Abedin

The following exchange, or something very like it, is taking place all across the country via email, social media, or cryptic series of texted memes, between patriotic citizens who are scared pantless by the prospect of Hillary Clinton and her team taking absolute executive power come January — and their friends or family members who simply can’t or won’t see what they’re so worried about. Initially, I thought of presenting it entirely in Tweets using social media jargon, but why punish the reader?

CASSANDRA: Did you see that Stream article I sent you on the lifelong ties Hillary’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, has to radical Islamist movements and governments — and their links to terrorist groups that have attacked America?

POLLYANNA: Yeah, I’m really sick of all this racist Muslim-bashing, you know.

CASSANDRA: You know Islam isn’t a race, right? Some of the worst Islamists are blond-haired, blue-eyed losers from the U.S. and Britain who convert to radical Islam as a means of raising their low testosterone count or finding a man who will marry them despite all those extra “fish-and-chips pounds.”

And the majority of Arabs in the U.S. are Christians, who fled the godforsaken hellholes that intolerant Islam made of once-prosperous countries. Of course, the Democrats’ immigration policies are trying to change that, spending millions to fly Muslims from safe camps in Turkey to dump them in Minnesota and Maine, where they can cash nice checks from the U.S. taxpayers — while real refugees (Christians, Yezidis) get beaten at the gates of U.N. camps by highly organized Sunni Muslim bigots.

POLLYANNA: You say that you object to radical Islam. Fine, I can see problems with that, just as I have problems with radical Christianity. You’ve heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, right?

CASSANDRA: Which has maybe 50 members. Remind me, which presidential candidate has an advisor that belongs to Westboro? Is there some oil-rich country pouring millions of dollars each year into turning all Christians into Westboro-style bigots? Building churches and staffing them with Westboro preachers, running journals that explain how to spread Westboro’s ideas to mainstream, peaceful Christians? Because that’s what Saudi Arabia does, and Huma Abedin joined her entire family’s effort to help them, with Saudi money, from people whose other donations went to al Qaeda.

POLLYANNA: The problem with you conservatives is that you read some wild conspiracy theory on the Internet, you don’t bother to fact check it, but if it supports your prejudice you just start forwarding it around. Have you ever heard of Snopes.com?

CASSANDRA: Yes. It’s two pasty-faced Democrats sitting on their couch with a laptop and Doritos. Why should I trust them any more than you should trust Alex Jones?

POLLYANNA: Well you don’t have to. Real publications with real journalists have looked into the wild allegations you people are throwing to try to smear Huma Abedin.

CASSANDRA: You mean like Vanity Fair, which is the source of most of the facts tying Abedin to radical Islamist propaganda organizations that support terrorism, jihad, and sharia?

POLLYANNA: How about Glenn Kessler’s Washington Post “Fact-Checker” column? It completely devastates stories like the one you sent me.

CASSANDRA: Does it now? Are you willing to go through with me, fact by fact, the claims that the WaPo piece challenges, and what it offers in evidence against those claims? Or do you just want to wave it off, and pretend that the matter is settled because a left-leaning newspaper exuded some spin that helps you feel better about voting for Clinton? Let me know now — my time is precious. Those episodes of Dr. Who on Amazon Prime aren’t going to watch themselves.

POLLYANNA: Sure. Go ahead.

CASSANDRA: Great. Keep in mind that many of the claims put forward by Paul Sperry in the New York Post and in that Stream article I sent you aren’t even addressed here.

Was Huma Abedin an editor at a sharia newspaper, as Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) told CNN?

Kessler points out triumphantly that, contrary to the charge of Rep. Duffy, the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs is not a newspaper — but a “journal.” He asserts that it is “staid,” and “peer-reviewed,” nice reassuring words for Washington Post readers, but irrelevant to its contents. There’s a Holocaust-denial journal out there that claims to be peer-reviewed too. You just pick the right set of “peers.” Kessler doesn’t dispute the fact that the journal itself openly supports sharia (the core of Duffy’s claim). But Kessler asserts that calling the journal “radical” is “ridiculous, according to experts on Islam and members of the advisory board.”

He does not address the misogynist and anti-American positions taken by Abedin’s mother in the journal, except to call them “cherry-picked” and “mischaracterized,” based on his own review. Kessler makes no argument to defend these claims, but expects us to trust him — and the opinion of one scholar of Israel, and several people who serve on the magazine’s board (hence, interested parties). So is Kessler saying that it isn’t “radical” by contemporary Muslim standards to blame domestic violence on women, claim that sharia law is more empowering for women than legal equality, and blame the 9/11 attacks on U.S. foreign policy? Kessler might be right about that, tragically.

Did Huma Abedin work at this sharia-advocacy journal?

Kessler waves off the indisputable fact that her name was on the masthead for 12 long years, even as she worked for the Clinton White House and Clinton’s Senate campaign. That’s old news, he suggests, so it doesn’t matter. Did she approve of and agree with the misogynist, theocratic, and anti-American articles that appeared with her name on the masthead? Here Kessler is satisfied with an answer from … the Clinton campaign itself: “The Clinton campaign says Abedin played no role in editing articles.” Well, that settles things, doesn’t it? What journalist would ever question a claim from a political campaign just before a presidential election? Not Kessler.

Here’s a question Kessler didn’t bestir himself to ask: Assuming the (completely unproven) claim that Abedin played no role whatsoever in the journal (and so she was essentially committing career fraud): Was she aware of the journal’s contents? If she disagreed with the views expressed there (something she has never publicly said), why didn’t she resign? It helped to sink Ron Paul’s 2008 run when it came out that bigoted newsletters were put out under his name, though he claimed he’d never seen them. You’d think a political reporter like Kessler could remember a major story like that from just eight years ago.

Was the founder of the journal, Huma’s father, Syed Abedin, a supporter of Saudi Wahabi Islam?
Wahhabism is one of the most puritanical religions in the world. It forbids women to drive cars, flogs and executes adulterers, and demands the death penalty for Muslims who join other faiths. Kessler doesn’t address Abedin’s actual views or statements, but relies on the word of Harvard professor Ali Asani, who vouches that Abedin was a model of a “moderate Muslim.” Had Kessler troubled to look into Syed Abedin’s stated positions, he might have found an interview such as this one, where Abedin endorses Saudi-style theocratic control over the lives of citizens:

The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the Sharia.

Is the Abedin family tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist financiers?

Kessler goes deep into the weeds here, counting on readers’ confusion and weariness with foreign names. Essentially, he argues that all the connections between the people who funded the Abedins’ sharia journal and also funded organizations that engaged in terrorism pre-date those groups’ proven involvement in terrorism. Essentially, these organizations seemed entirely innocent when the Abedins worked with them, and only later emerged as radical Islamist groups willing to train, equip, and dispatch terrorist attacks against the West.

Kessler ignores the most significant Muslim Brotherhood link of all, Abedin’s service for three years (while she was in college) on the board of the George Washington University branch of the Muslim Students Association — a group which the Muslim Brotherhood itself named in 1991 as a like-minded allied organization. Remember, as the original Stream piece pointed out, that it was Abedin’s own local branch of the MSA that (just two years after she graduated) hired as its chaplain the al Qaeda operative Anwar al Awlaki, later killed by a U.S. drone strike.

POLLYANNA: This is boring. What’s your point?

CASSANDRA: That the same woman with all these shadowy ties to terrorist financiers and radical organizations, who was raised a puritanical Muslim in a country where women live as serfs, who has never condemned the views she once helped propagate, helped Hillary Clinton create a secret private server where she could hide how the $30 million dollar payoffs the Clinton Foundation was taking from the Saudi government had influenced U.S. policy via the State Department. But probably now you want to talk about how some Alt-Right online trolls are using Pepe the Frog to Tweet about Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “What We Talk About When We Talk About Huma Abedin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Voting Is Sacred, Early Voting Must Go

Let’s work backward.

Less than a week before the election, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News’ Bret Baier reported that the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation for “pay-for-play” allegations for over a year — and that the Department of Justice may have been trying to monkey-wrench the effort.

Eleven days before the election, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was reopening the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails. A few days before that, WikiLeaks dropped a bombshell of a hacked memo showing the full extent of “Clinton Inc.” — the tawdry, tacky and some would argue criminal web of for-profit, nonprofit and political entities that make up the Clinton empire. A couple weeks before that, NBC News released a tape of Donald Trump describing how he likes to sexually assault women. Since then, nearly a dozen women have come forward describing treatment that closely tracks the behavior Trump himself described in an unguarded moment.

Those are just the highlights.

Both candidates have also made controversial statements about their policies and philosophies. In the third debate, Clinton refused to support any limitations on even late-term abortions. She also claimed that the longtime gun ban in Washington, D.C., ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, was really just an effort to keep toddlers from getting their hands on guns.

And Trump? Well, let’s just say he’s said a lot of things.

And you know what else happened during all of this? People have been voting. A lot.

Early-voting start times vary by state and often by county. In Minnesota, people started casting ballots in September. In Ohio, voting began just five days after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, three days after the second presidential debate and a week before the final debate. As of this writing, more than 22 million people have voted already. In all, an estimated 40 percent of voters will cast ballots before Election Day.

And that’s nuts.

Before you rush to the safety of the usual argument, let me admit that, of course, some early and absentee voting is necessary. Obviously, overseas military personnel and voters with certain disabilities should be accommodated. But defending their right to vote absentee is not a defense of mass-scale early voting.

The standard argument against widespread early voting is that it encourages many people to make their decisions without important information available to the voters who wait until Election Day. That’s really not debatable, so early-voting supporters concede the point and then say it just doesn’t matter. They note that the people most likely to cast early votes are committed partisans, immune to new facts and information. There’s surely some truth to that, but as the scale of early voting increases with each year, it must also be less and less true every year. Also, one might wonder why people who decry the rise of ideological polarization and partisanship are so eager to make it easier for hardcore partisans to vote.

Comey’s bombshell is a perfect illustration of how new facts can make a hash of things. Trump is imploring people who’ve already cast their votes for Clinton to remedy their “buyer’s remorse” and switch to Trump — which is legal in six states. The problem is worse in the primaries. Voters often cast early ballots for candidates who drop out before Election Day. That’s real voter suppression.

But my main problem with early voting is different. Every day we hear pious actors, activists and politicians talk about the solemn and sacred duty to vote, and yet everyone wants to make voting easier and more convenient. Many still dream of the most cockamamie idea of all: online voting, so we can make choosing presidents as easy as buying socks on Amazon.

This gets human nature exactly backward. Nothing truly important, never mind sacred and solemn, should be treated as a trivial convenience. Churches that ask more of the faithful do better at attracting and retaining congregants. The Marines get the best and most committed recruits because th1ey have higher standards. Elite schools demand more from students and get more as a result. No wonder one study found that early voting actually lowers turnout because it makes Election Day seem like a less special event.

Of course we shouldn’t put up any insurmountable obstacles to voting. But if we want citizens to value their vote, why are we constantly lowering the price? (For more from the author of “If Voting Is Sacred, Early Voting Must Go” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Trump Win Would Mean

Sometimes it’s hard to know how history really played out.

Those who keep the record books usually have an agenda. Thus the Orwell maxim: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

In an election year of deplorables, WikiLeaks, “Access Hollywood” hot mics, FBI investigations, another round of Obamacare failures, and party-wide disarray, it is a wonder how future generations will be made to understand the forces that have culminated in Trump v. Hillary.

Soon the partisan dust will settle, and everyone will again have a stake in manipulating the recent past, selectively remembering the mood of the nation. Before that day comes, let’s stipulate a few, true things.

Neither of these candidates is likable. Americans’ faith in their political leaders is at a record low, while the belief that we are, as a country, “on the wrong track,” soars higher and higher.

Considering these immutable conditions of the electorate, I would submit that most votes cast on November 8 will not be party or candidate driven. They will be votes of utter rejection. Rejection of the established order. Of all that the election cycle has revealed. Rejection of the very despair driving the rejection.

The most popular choice on the ballot will not be a specific candidate, but a sentiment. More than ever before, Americans have been made to realize how both parties are willingly failing them. This understanding informs how little they have come to expect from their political leaders. Even many of those who support Hillary Clinton consider her untrustworthy or blatantly corrupt. And further research continues to reveal what a misnomer “Trump supporter” actually is: These voters aren’t diehard Trumpians. They are desperately, bitterly opposed to everything Trump pledges to decimate. They hate that which he has sworn to defeat. They have bonded over mutual enemies: the vociferous Left, a sycophantic media, a spineless GOP, and a feckless president.

A masterfully plotted political thriller could not deliver a final chapter as layered and metaphorical as this election’s. How pitch-perfectly reflective of the mood driving the votes. The president’s defining, progressive achievement collapses underneath the weight of its own inept construction in the same week that the FBI finally realizes it has been had by an eminently indictable presidential candidate. You could not orchestrate a finale so in tune with vox populi. That both the Obamacare collapse and Director Comey’s reengagement are resuscitating Trump’s poll numbers lend a perfect symmetry to the rejection storyline. He is once again being saved by the interconnected ugliness of the powerbrokers and Americans’ inability to stare at them for another second.

If Trump wins, it will not be because he was successful. It will be because the rebellion used him as the cudgel to smash open the empire gates.

And yet the media continue to treat his supporters as anomalous racists and xenophobes to be disregarded the morning of November 9. The mainstream media lack the perspective to understand the motivating factors for close to half of the electorate. The fact that Hillary cannot outpace Trump by more than a few points at a time has nothing to do — they insist — with the culture of liberal orthodoxy dominating the mainstream. No one is surprised by the WikiLeaks uncovering of the collusion between camp Clinton and top news networks.

Surely, no one is dismayed by the media’s utter refusal to report on her triangulations, all the while morally outraged at Trump’s every tweet. No, the only feasible way to explain any support the GOP ticket has in 2016 is that those Americans simply haven’t listened to reason. It is this trademark, leftist condescension that so much of the country can no longer stand to marinate in.

“Make America Great Again” means little more than make it different. Most people called upon to interpret the slogan simply rail against the established order. And yet the utter question mark that is Donald Trump is, to many, preferable than the answer everyone already knows. The Clintons will do what the Clintons will do, and the media, apparently, will support, protect and extol them.

For history to dismiss a Trump win as the work of a reasonless mob of deplorables is to deprive future generations of a terrific lesson. Whenever a ruling class confirms the people’s worst fears — that they really do scratch one another’s backs, that they really are all in it for money, that they really can live by another set of rules — the people will turn to whatever alternative they have to protect themselves.

Should Trump win on Tuesday, against all odds and despite the opposition of the entire aristocracy, the American people will have sent a reminder to the establishment of corruption it desperately needed and ought not soon forget: You work for us. (For more from the author of “What a Trump Win Would Mean” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Total Political Hack’ Loretta Lynch Denies Grand Jury Request From FBI Clinton Investigators

Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice is unquestionably playing defense for Hillary Clinton.

Thursday night on the “The Mark Levin Show,” former U.S. Attorney for D.C Joseph diGenova appeared on the program to discuss the potential fallout of electing Hillary Clinton president of the United States. The Democratic nominee, of course, is amidst an FBI investigation into her private email server and Clinton Foundation practices.

With extensive experience on Capitol Hill, diGenova informed Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin that senior FBI officials had approached the criminal and national security divisions of the Justice Department, asking for a grand jury in the Clinton investigation. Lynch’s DOJ denied that request.

Listen:

“I think it’s pretty clear that Loretta Lynch is a total political hack,” diGenova said. “She has demeaned the department, she has abused her authority, and I think she is headed for quite an outrageous ending between the election and the inauguration.”

Discontentment within the FBI over the conduct and perceived obstruction of these investigations into Hillary Clinton is approaching a boiling point.

“There’s going to be an explosion after the election,” diGenova said. “No matter who wins.” (For more from the author of “‘Total Political Hack’ Loretta Lynch Denies Grand Jury Request From FBI Clinton Investigators” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton and the Extreme Abortionist Culture

On the abortion issue alone, I believe that Christians should vote for Donald Trump as the only possible candidate to defeat the march of the death culture Hillary Clinton would lead if she were to be elected.

Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she’s a woman.

Don’t get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process — whom they perceive as a threat to women’s rights.

This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic “status” and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks’ revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party’s grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.

If Clinton wins this election — despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep — she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn’t think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if Hillary were to be victorious.

She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She’d accelerate Barack Obama’s war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.

Some will say I’m exaggerating here — that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their “reproductive” decisions. Leftists aren’t pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother’s choice and health.

Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother’s health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don’t believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they’ll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked “death.”

I wrote in 2004:

People I’ve debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is “potential life” or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I’ve anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that “the fetus is not a human life.” Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances — such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain — it’s practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument.

Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, “So what if abortion ends life?” She writes: “Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word ‘life.’ Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants (to) be on the side of … not-life? … The ‘life’ conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.”

I don’t like quoting just some of her statements and don’t want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean “lest” you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That’s exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.

Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it “evil” for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton and the Extreme Abortionist Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.