(Editor’s note: the original publisher of this article, RT News, is funded by the Russian government) Russia is being forced to look for ways to neutralize threats to its national security due to deployment of the NATO anti-missile shield in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin said after the alliance launched a missile defense site in Romania.
“Now, after the deployment of those anti-missile system elements, we’ll be forced to think about neutralizing developing threats to Russia’s security,” Putin said.
The US missile shield in Europe is a clear violation of Russian-American arms treaties, Putin said at a meeting with Russian military officials, adding that the anti-missile facilities can be easily repurposed for firing short and midrange missiles.
The US anti-missile shield in Europe is yet another step in increasing international tensions and launching a new arms race, he stressed.
“We’re not going to be dragged into this race. We’ll go our own way. We’ll work very accurately without exceeding the plans to finance the re-equipment of our Army and Navy, which have already been laid out for the next several years,” Putin said. (Read more from “Putin: Russia Will Consider Tackling NATO Missile Defense Threat” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Vladimir_Putin_20090128_2.jpg27304096Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 01:28:532016-05-14 02:01:28Putin: Russia Will Consider Tackling NATO Missile Defense Threat
Could dissatisfaction with the choice between Republican presidential Candidate Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton set the stage for a third party to be successful in November? Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen thinks so.
“I decided to run because I was frustrated with Donald Trump,” Petersen told TheBlaze in an interview Friday, arguing that Trump has not displayed an understanding of the constitutional limits of the executive branch’s power.
Petersen said his Libertarian campaign saw “a surge of support” after Sen. Ted Cruz suspended his bid for the Republican nomination particularly “from the #NeverTrump crowd.”
Following Cruz’s departure, Petersen said he is “the last constitutional candidate standing.”
Petersen said he hopes to “build a coalition” between libertarians and conservatives seeking an alternative to Trump in spite of their “real differences” over their shared respect for the Constitution. (Read more from “Libertarian Presidential Candidate Says He Saw ‘Surge of Support’ After Cruz’s Departure” HERE)
By Melanie Hunter. White House Spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Friday that the Department of Education issued specific suggestions today along with its directive that federally funded schools nationwide must allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their “gender identity” and that one of those suggestions was “just putting up curtains” in school locker rooms.
“There are some school districts across the country that have sought to enhance the privacy of their students by making relatively minor changes to shared use facilities,” Earnest said. “In some cases that means just putting up curtains, so that people are, have more privacy when they are changing their clothes or taking showers in what had previously been shared use facilities.”
The Department of Education and Justice Department issued guidance on Friday saying public schools nationwide must treat transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity – not their biological sex.
“The challenge here is not to isolate anybody. It is not to discriminate against anybody. It’s not to make anybody unsafe. It is actually to ensure that our schools are as inclusive and respectful and safe as they can possibly be, and that’s why the guidance that we’ve put forward includes tangible specific suggestions for how that can be achieved,” Earnest said. (Read more from “The White House Just Made This Disgusting Suggestion for High School Locker Rooms” HERE)
____________________________________
Obama Admin. Forces Transgender Bathrooms, Locker Rooms, on Schools as Condition of Funding
By Ben Johnson. The Obama administration has issued a “guidance” to all public schools telling them to allow students of either biological sex to use the showers, locker rooms, and restrooms – and stay in the same hotel rooms during field trips – designated for the opposite sex or risk losing federal funding.
A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice, released Friday morning, states that students who identify as “transgender” must be allowed to use the private facilities that match their gender identity.
The letter clarified that schools should not require a “medical diagnosis or treatment” before accepting a student’s transgender self-identification. The moment a child’s parent or guardian says the child identifies as a member of the opposite sex, the school must recognize that and act accordingly “as a condition of receiving federal funds,” the eight-page letter says.
A school also cannot require a transgender student to use separate facilities, although it may choose to allow students who object to the new arrangement to use individual restrooms or changing facilities. (Read more from “Obama Admin. Forces Transgender Bathrooms, Locker Rooms, on Schools as Condition of Funding” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-49.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 01:18:302016-05-14 01:49:46The White House Just Made This Disgusting, Ludicrous Suggestion for High School Locker Rooms
The William J. Clinton Foundation, established after former President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013, “in recognition of Secretary Clinton’s and Chelsea’s contributions and to acknowledge their role in shaping the Foundation,” the organization said. Much of the foundation’s work is documented in a 2014 letter, including the Clinton Global Initiative, whose purported mission is to “inspire, connect, and empower everyone to forge solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.”
But reports are surfacing Bill Clinton has a much closer tie to one of the foundation’s donors than the Clintons may want to admit.
The Wall Street Journal published a report Thursday indicating Energy Pioneer Solutions, a firm founded to help defer energy costs for needy homeowners by improving the insulation factors in the homes, was run by Clinton friends and close acquaintances. One such acquaintance is Julie Tauber McMahon, part owner in EPS.
In his 2015 expose’ book, The First Family Detail, Ronald Kessler wrote that McMahon was nicknamed the “Energizer” by Secret Service personnel charged with protecting the former president and his family. According to Joe Tacopino, writing for The New York Post, that term of endearment wasn’t given to the “wealthy blond divorcée” for her bubbling personality as much as it was reportedly a reference to her sexiness and her frequent visits to the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
“Secret Service agents were even given special instructions to abandon usual protocol when the woman came by,” Tacopino writes. Quoting from Kessler’s book, he writes, “’You don’t stop her, you don’t approach her, you just let her go in.” Although rumors abound, Tacopino writes, McMahon has “denied having an intimate relationship with Bill Clinton.”
But it’s McMahon’s business dealings with the Clintons that have her and her company squarely in the journalistic spotlight.
More #Clinton fraud. Energy Pioneer Solutions laid off most of staff, closed offices, sold a fleet of trucks. pic.twitter.com/MHkWXL4K7a
James Grimaldi of the Wall Street Journal writes, “The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world’s problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.”
That financial arrangement amounted to a $2 million funding of the energy company by the Clinton Foundation in 2010, and an $812,000 Energy Department Grant, made possible by Bill Clinton’s personal endorsement of the company to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu, writes Grimaldi.
Fortune Magazine described the ethical implications of such donations. Chris Matthews writes, “The problem … is that Energy Pioneer Services is owned by friends of the Clintons.” Those friends include Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska; Jane Eckert, the owner of a New York art gallery; and McMahon.
While Fortune was quick to point out no laws may have been broken, it said the arrangement may “run afoul” of IRS rules that disallow donations from nonprofits to entities that may benefit private interests.
Responding to the accusations, Clinton Foundation officials told the Wall Street Journal, “President Clinton has forged an amazing universe of relationships and friendships throughout his life that endure to this day, and many of those individuals and friends are involved in CGI Commitments because they share a passion for making a positive impact in the world. As opposed to a conflict of interest, they share a common interest.”
The profitability of the company is also a subject of interest. Grimaldi wrote, “Energy Pioneer Solutions has struggled to operate profitably. It lost more than $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in the first half of 2011, said records submitted for an Energy Department audit. … The audit found deficiencies in how the company accounted for expenses paid with federal grant money, Energy Department records show.“
@WSJ this family has no shame. Worth $400mm and they do stuff like this, imagine their actions back in the White House?!😳
In an interview this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said he could have attacked her by pointing to controversy at the Clinton Foundation but he chose to focus on the issues instead. However, it’s highly unlikely Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will show such mercy. (For more from the author of “Clinton Foundation Accused of Having Friends With Benefits” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-48.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-14 00:51:462016-05-14 00:51:46Clinton Foundation Accused of Having Friends With Benefits
By now you’ve likely read or heard of the knock-down, drag-out fight that we had at the Missouri legislature on Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 39. If passed by simple legislative majorities, SJR 39 would have placed a ballot question on either the August or November ballot pertaining to religious liberty.
Missouri voters would then decide if government should be prevented from punishing (through adverse tax treatment, revocation of licensing, court fines and other means) clergy and small business owners connected to the wedding industry (wedding planners, bakers, etc.) who refused to take part in gay weddings as a result of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
After a 40-hour filibuster by Democrats in the Missouri Senate, the measure moved to the relevant House committee, where it continued to be a source of tremendous attention and controversy.
I was among the most frequent and vociferous supporters of SJR39 on social networks and learned several lessons that might prove useful to fellow conservatives who take up such a fight in the future.
1) Yes, the culture wars have moved this far, this fast. Get over it.
I’m old enough to have worked on George W. Bush’s campaign in Missouri in 2004 when we also had on the ballot a pro-traditional marriage initiative. It passed 71-29. I was as incredulous as most people in Missouri when I realized our House might balk at SJR 39. This fight is coming to a state legislature near you, if it hasn’t already. Get your incredulity out of the way now.
2) Both sides are 100 percent committed to the idea of their own righteousness.
I’ve never worked on a public policy issue where both sides were so entrenched about the righteousness of their position. I’ve always found that liberals take politics far more personally than conservative—they take this issue especially personally. If you engage on this issue and have liberal friends, be prepared to lose some of them.
3) Your friends in business aren’t committed.
Remember those generous business people who fund the Republican campaigns you’ve spent so much time around? Well, they think you’re a troglodyte on this issue and they’d prefer you just go back to the phone bank room now, thank you.
4) The other side’s public officials want this fight more than ours.
Missouri’s elected Democrats were in absolute lockstep in opposing SJR39. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we’ve beat them so badly over the years in House and Senate races that there’s only a handful of them left and they’re confined to the city centers.
Their people not only were in total agreement on the matter but desperately wanted to take this fight on. We had some committed Republicans on our side, particularly in the Senate. But among House Republicans some were for it, some were against it. But the most common refrain among House Republicans was that they’d vote for if they had to but they really didn’t want to have to go against the donor and business communities.
5) We can’t allow our surrogates and supporters to become the story.
I remember well the exact moment that I realized we were going to lose the battle over SJR39. I had been texting with a House Republican who matter-of-factly referred to the head of a statewide conservative organization by a nasty nickname. It was immediately apparent to me that, after attacking him incessantly on social networks for days, our opposition had succeeded in making this leader the issue. They had turned him into the face of our effort, and a caricature at that. Remember that every post you do to social networks could become fodder for the other side; choose your words carefully.
6) Social networks matter. A lot. And the other side is using them much better than we are.
Many of our House and Senate Republicans were glued to #SJR39 on Twitter during the debate and it was a critical platform to changing hearts and minds. I can’t tell you how many people mentioned tweets of mine to me after the fact. So engaging in this way is critical. But generally speaking, pro-SJR39 voices were swamped by the opposition on social networks. Particularly when hearings were being conducted. The population as a whole agrees, but they’re not making it known where and when it matters most.
7) Don’t wait for the cavalry, it isn’t coming.
On the day that SJR was to be decided I spent most of the day driving to and from appointments, listening to Rush Limbaugh on KMOX in St. Louis. If he mentioned a word about this critical cultural vote going on in his home state that very day, I managed to miss it. That was my experience with national conservative and religious leadership as a whole—they just didn’t show up. So when this battle comes to your state, don’t incorporate outside support into your plans – plan for them to be absent.
8) You have to try to find a way to be winsome if you’re going to win hearts and minds.
In the days following this battle I found myself exhausted by it all and not a little bit glad the fight was over for the time being, even if we did lose. As a committed, emotionally involved activist, you must constantly try to keep your cool in this battle when all others around you are losing theirs.
You can’t win hearts and minds with vinegar—only with honey. In the month-long battle I failed myself on this a couple of times and it’s among my greatest regrets about the whole episode. (For more from the author of “What We Should Learn After Religious Liberty Fight in Missouri” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Missouri_Capitol_1979.jpg18152760Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 20:38:072016-05-13 20:38:07What We Should Learn After Religious Liberty Fight in Missouri
The North Carolina transgender fight has gone national, thanks to a letter from the Obama Administration.
According to a report published Thursday night at the New York Times:
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
So, as soon as a parent or guardian says that a child’s identified gender changes, or “differs from previous representations or records,” public schools have to comply and treat the child as such.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” reads a statement from Department of Education Secretary John B. King on the issue. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”
The 25-page letter also provides information on how schools should best use a child’s preferred name and pronouns.
In effect, the letter uses similar reasoning to a recent decision by a panel of judges in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, which interpreted Title XI of the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1972’s language on discrimination to include gender based on identity, rather than biological sex.
“Although title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 was designed to prohibit discrimination in schools against one gender, the Obama administration took it upon itself to “expand” the law to redefine gender itself,” explained CR Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz regarding the Fourth Circuit Ruling. “In January 2015, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights promulgated a regulation barring schools from assigning bathroom facilities based on biological gender, demanding they instead assign them based on someone’s chosen gender. In addition to representing a facial absurdity, this opinion was lawless and a complete bastardization of a congressional statute.”
“The gravity of this new low in the ever-steep slippery slope of judicial tyranny and licentiousness cannot be overstated. ‘As Paul Judge Niemeyer, the lone dissenter observed, the court literally redefined the definition of ‘sex’ from the bench and ‘for the first time ever, holds that a public high school may not provide separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex.’”
Horowitz’s warning appears to have merit, because, whereas the ruling still only applies to the case in question, the Administration’s Friday edict takes the reasoning a step further by applying it to public school districts across the country.
As stated above, the letter does not carry the force of law, but it does carry the potential force of funding, the implications of which potentially mirror those of the Department of Justice’s recent lawsuit against the State of North Carolina, which passed a law in April that prohibited local governments from enforcing private sector multiple-use facility policies ordinances on identity, rather than biology. As a result of the DOJ’s actions, the Tar Heel State could lose billions of dollars in federal monies. Likewise, schools that do not comply with the administration’s decree could face similar lawsuits or a loss of federal funds.
“The administration’s new guidelines simply reinforce what has been abundantly clear already — that it has a political goal of forcing women to share restrooms and locker rooms with men across the nation and will spread falsehoods about federal law to achieve its aims,” says Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement.
In short, this means that, while the decree outlines some “emerging orders” such as installing privacy curtains and allowing kids to change in bathroom stalls, schools now have to allow biological males to use the same restrooms, locker rooms, and showers alongside biological females. All they need is a note from home…or else.
“It is very clear that the federal government is an education bully. It uses its 9 percent of public-school funding to direct the other 91 percent, in a manner largely unaccountable to parents and taxpayers,” Pullman told CR education research fellow at The Heartland Institute, managing editor at The Federalist, and author of the forthcoming “Coretastrophe: What Common Core Means for America’s Future,” explained to CR when asked about a related issue in February. “Federal bureaucrats will never know what is best for individual children, but they will inevitably believe they can know this and attempt to force it on families local and communities. They should have no available leverage to do so.”
Perhaps the most troubling issue about the move is that it isn’t really about bathrooms; it’s about executive power. Much like on the issue of “climate change,” the Administration has declared itself a scientific arbiter of what constitutes the very nature on man and woman. However, just like on the issue of climate change, there is still disagreement among experts on the subject.
As explained in a previous article at Conservative Review:
The American Psychiatric Association defines “gender dysphoria” as having a “marked difference between [someone’s] expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her.” Furthermore, the condition must “continue for at least six months” to reach the threshold of diagnosis.
Psychologists disagree about how to best treat this condition, which most LGBT advocates argue is a natural condition. Some say the only way to address it is to allow and encourage people to dress and act in accordance with their “expressed/experienced gender.” This includes using the restroom of the perceived gender, undergoing treatments that alter the human body, gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, and/or having government documents changed to indicate the expressed gender as fact.
There is a great deal of disagreement with this approach, however.
For example, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has long argued against this approach, saying in one article that the basic premise that one’s sexual nature is “misaligned with one’s biological sex” is a “problematic assumption” and that “gender dysphoria — the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder.”
Furthermore, research cited by Dr. Mark Yarhouse, head of Regent University’s Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity recently cited research that a vast majority of gender dysphoria resolve on their own. In his book on the subject, he also concedes that childhood cases of the condition usually resolve before adolescence.
Likewise a 2011 study found that, “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population,” and suggests that things like sex reassignment and hormone therapy are not the best means of treating the disorder.
Finally, a recent report from the American College of Pediatricians has urged educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex,” and goes on to refer to the conditioning as “child abuse.” These findings run contradictory to the actions of the Obama Administration, when one takes into account the teaching power of the law — the phenomenon that governments implicitly encourage things by making them legal, a chief example of which can be seen in the widespread acceptance of divorce as a cultural norm following the introduction of no-fault divorce laws.
If your children are currently enrolled in public school, this is what the Department of Education has in store for them.
Nonetheless, the Administration has now taken a side and elected to impose both carrots and sticks for compliance and noncompliance. This will not be put up for vote by your school board and your Parent and Teacher Association has no say in the matter. Your taxes will go to support it. The Administration has told you that the science is settled; gender is based on identity, not biology and they have the power to yank your school’s federal funding if the district doesn’t play along. (For more from the author of “How Obama’s Latest Locker Room Fiat Affects Your Family” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Male_locker_Keangnam.jpg12001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 20:31:492016-05-13 20:31:49How Obama’s Latest Locker Room Fiat Affects Your Family
It’s still true. Donald J. Trump really really happened.
Every morning faithful conservatives wake up and for a brief, fleeting moment believe life is normal. We are still in the throes of the primary. Conservatives still have a chance. And then, reality comes crashing down. Donald Trump, the ethics-free extraordinaire, is our party’s nominee. Oh, and our other choice is Hillary Clinton.
But, despondent and downtrodden is no way to go through life. On the bright side, the eye-poppingly disgusting comments from Trump’s former butler (#richpeopleproblems) about wanting to kill President Obama is the latest of your daily reminders why it was never a wise idea to hop aboard the Trump train.
(The ol’ quote about Trump hiring the “best people” never gets old, does it?)
Gallows humor. We’re going to need it this year.
Coming to terms with Trump doesn’t mean endorsing, enabling, or supporting his, or his surrogates, or former employees behavior. Like a wild dog off the leash, perhaps a treat could be thrown his way when he does something good, but defensive, cautious posture at a far away distance is best.
And while safely away from danger, some introspective thinking needs to be done. Conservatives should be honest with themselves about what went wrong. Without blaming it all on party leaders, or the poorly devised and accelerated primary process, or something beyond our control, although those are major contributing factors.
Something happened yesterday that clicked this into focus.
The Washington Post announced that Clinton has a plan, without any announced funding mechanism mind you, to provide “affordable child care,” which comes in addition to universal pre-school and paid family leave. (And, if Bernie Sanders is successful in pushing her further left, tuition-free college.)
Of course all of these policy ideas will require massive amounts of government intervention and intrusion into deeply personal areas of our lives. The policy ideas are wrong, but it is unwise to completely ignore the issues Clinton is raising.
Finding affordable child care is a very real problem working families face. In many areas of the country, child care is more expensive than college. There isn’t any financial aid available for child care, either. And, while it may be ideal for one parent to stay at home with the children, that isn’t an option for many for any number of reasons.
When I amicably asked on Twitter yesterday what Republicans would say to counter Clinton’s plan, I was met with derision by some friends, as if I were asking for my own special handout. If doing things such as ending the marriage penalty is a handout, however, sign me up.
(For what it’s worth, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio have worked on alternative reform ideas, which have been met with tepid reaction.)
But, this is the same old story.
Democrats announce a big, terrible idea that has great polling. Some Republican say, let’s do something half as bad so we don’t get beat. Conservatives say that’s unconstitutional. And Democrats win. That’s what happened with Obamacare. And immigration. And well, you name it.
Somewhere along the line, it seems many conservatives forgot how to just talk normally and help people.
“Because, Constitution! Because, principles! Because, free markets!” are ineffective and cheap arguments for or against anything. These arguments didn’t win in a GOP primary. Let that sink in.
Even self-evidently good policy requires salesmanship.
Enter Trump: Build the wall. Make America Great Again. With a no apologies, media accessible attitude.
Enter Clinton: Free stuff! Make history, elect me!
It’s sort of ironic. Trump is a remarkable salesman without any ideology. Clinton is a pretty ideologically driven candidate who lacks salesmanship. Judging from the GOP primary, in this sort of competition, the odds are in Trump’s favor.
Running on ideological will always differences be important. But, as Trump’s success demonstrates it ain’t everything. Ideology should be the underpinning of a campaign; not the alpha and the omega. Ideology should be compatible with solutions, but never divorced.
The presidential candidacies of Trump and Clinton may be a nightmare, but if it helps wake up conservatives from their tired old conversations perhaps it won’t be entirely traumatic. (For more from the author of “Making the Best out of Trump Versus Clinton” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Trump__Clinton.jpg14532115Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 20:25:472016-05-13 20:25:47Making the Best out of Trump Versus Clinton
During the 2016 Republican primary season, the Conservative Review presidential profiles became a go-to place for conservatives looking to vet the Republican candidates. As the calendar turns towards the general election, CR has added a profile of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Here’s a sample:
Clinton has been a partner, with her husband, in political life for close over forty years. Together they are one of the most powerful couples in American History. They have completed almost twelve years in the governor’s mansion in Arkansas, two terms as president, eight years in the Senate, and four as Secretary of State. They have successfully pushed the country leftward in their time in public life.
Clinton herself, is to the left of her former husband’s governing record. As she has gained power she has shed any veil of being a centrist. This is most evident in her stance on social issues. When it was the safe political play to be against gay marriage she was, now that the mainstream media has changed tune so has Clinton. In the past she said she was for making abortion “rare” she now espouses an abortion on demand position.
When given access to power, Clinton has often used it to benefit herself and her cronies and places herself above the law. When her husband became president she was central to the professional travel staff in the White House Travel office being replaced with her Arkansas associates. Her use of a private email server to exchange classified information is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
CR has looked into Clinton’s positions on a wide range of issues, including the budget, spending, debt, civil liberties, education, energy and environment, foreign policy and defense, the free market, health care and entitlements, immigration, moral issues, the second amendment, and taxes, economy and trade.
As with our primary season coverage, CR will update the profiles of Clinton and Trump as the election season progresses. CR will also write a profile of the libertarian nominee for president when the Libertarian Party selects him or her at the end of May. (For more from the author of “How Liberal Is Hillary Clinton?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/3177408973_31af61c3ab_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 01:34:282016-05-13 01:46:53How Liberal Is Hillary Clinton?
Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice have given so much money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign this time around that critics justifiably doubt the agency can handle her private email server case fairly and impartially.
In what appears to be a super-sized potential conflict of interest, Clinton, a pathological, self-serving liar who doesn’t mind if Americans die to further her political ambitions, has accepted almost $75,000 in campaign contributions in the current election cycle from employees at the Justice Department, the cabinet bureau that will eventually decide whether to prosecute the Benghazi bungler for her use of a hacker-friendly home-brew email server while top U.S. diplomat.
The server is at the heart of the scandal over Clinton’s mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, almost four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.
The fact that Mrs. Clinton destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.
This heavy team support for Hillary Clinton within the Justice Department adds to the growing expectation that she will never face justice for her willful national security breaches while serving at the State Department. After all, these DoJ employees are making it clear through their donations that they in effect want to hire Clinton as their boss. Presumably they wouldn’t want to hire her and then send her to prison.
A new Washington Free Beacon review of 2016 presidential campaign contributions reveals just how popular Mrs. Clinton is with Justice Department employees.
Clinton received $73,437 from individuals who listed “Department of Justice” as their employer. Among the 228 contributions, 12 hit the $2,700 level, the maximum amount individuals are legally allowed to give. The $73,437 is a huge improvement over Clinton’s 2008 White House run when she received 23 donations adding up to just $15,930 from DoJ employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the current election cycle, Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has received 51 donations from DoJ employees adding up to $8,900. Businessman Donald Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee, took in only two contributions from DoJ employees adding up to a meager $381.
Citizens United president David Bossie told the Washington Free Beacon he wants Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a hyper-partisan radical left-winger like her predecessor Eric Holder, to step back and appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.
“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”
“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he said. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”
It’s not like the DoJ has had a sterling reputation in the Obama era. From the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal to the gangsterish Operation Choke Point, the current DoJ is an extraordinarily politicized joke of an agency that goes after Obama’s enemies while letting the administration’s friends get away with crimes on a regular basis. The previous attorney general, the openly racist Eric Holder, barely escaped prosecution after Congress found him in contempt.
This is the same DoJ that helped to cover up ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s unlawful targeting of conservative and Tea Party nonprofits.The agency refuses to investigate civil rights violations involving white victims and turns a blind eye to vote fraud. It sent radical taxpayer-funded community organizers to Sanford, Fla., and Ferguson, Mo., to foment civil unrest after Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were killed by white men in self-defense. It works with dangerous Islamist front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to smear Americans as “Islamophobic.”
Under Obama, the Justice Department is skittish about treating criminals like criminals. The agency calls juvenile delinquents “justice-involved youth” to avoid hurting their feelings. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason said last week that the bleeding hearts at the agency no longer refer to individuals as “felons” or “convicts” after they are released from prison because doing so makes it needlessly difficult for them to reestablish themselves in society.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation, including an upcoming interview with Clinton about the emails, is reportedly ongoing. Adding to the high-stakes political drama, the Russian government is considering releasing a trove of Clinton’s emails that have come into its possession.
“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin right now between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly on Monday.
And just days ago after it was discovered that the emails of Bryan Pagliano, the State Department tech staffer who ran Clinton server’s, had gone missing, WND reports that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan raised the prospect in a Freedom of Information Act case brought by Judicial Watch that it may be necessary for Clinton to be put through the deposition process.
The news prompted WND to cheekily refer to Clinton as “Deleter of the Free World” in a headline.
Of course, Obama administration officials at the highest levels were long aware of Clinton’s cloak-and-dagger email infrastructure. The irretrievably corrupt Clintons created the system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional scrutiny, and funnel oceans of money to the international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
But getting Hillary in the prisoner’s dock won’t be easy. It may even be politically impossible.
Howard Krongard, who served as inspector general for the State Department from 2005 to 2008, predicted earlier this year that Clinton’s case would “never get to an indictment” even if the FBI referred her case to the DoJ for prosecution. He said the case would have to go through “four loyal Democratic women,” including Lynch, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who runs DoJ’s criminal division.
None of this ought to suggest the case against Mrs. Clinton is weak. Actually, it would be difficult for it be stronger or more clear-cut.
Around the time of the attack Clinton lied about the facts and blamed U.S.-based Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam movie trailer on YouTube that almost nobody had seen. She claimed back then that the video inspired the sophisticated military-style operation that she claimed materialized spontaneously outside the facility which was in Islamist-held territory.
At the military ceremony that accompanied the repatriation of the body of Tyrone Woods, a retired Navy SEAL who perished fighting off Islamists in the 2012 attack, Clinton blamed all the death and mayhem of that awful day on Youssef, who ended up going to jail as a real-life political prisoner.
She promised the dead hero’s grieving father, Charles Woods, that Youssef who was thousands of miles away from Benghazi at the time, would pay for whatever it was he had done.
“She came over … she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’” Woods recounted to talk radio host Lars Larson. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”
If there is any justice, Americans will hear about Hillary Clinton’s outrageous scapegoating of an innocent man over and over again before Election Day. (For more from the author of “HILARIOUS: DOJ That Donated Tens of Thousands to Hillary Certain to Treat Her Crimes With the Utmost of Objectivity” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24007578223_b82c58cbb9_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 01:28:522016-05-13 01:28:52HILARIOUS: DOJ That Donated Tens of Thousands to Hillary Certain to Treat Her Crimes With the Utmost of Objectivity
Alabama has become the fifth state to protect unborn children from being dismembered in the womb, as Governor Robert Bentley signed the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act” (S.B. 363) today.
The new law bans dismemberment, formally known as dilation and evacuation (or “D & E”) abortion, which accounts for 96 percent of all second-trimester abortions.
Alabama Citizens for Life National Director Cheryl Ciamarra said the new law will end a “barbaric inhumanity in our state.”
Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist who performed more than 1,200 abortions during his career, described the grisly procedure in a viral video, as well as heartrending Congressional testimony.
While performing the abortion, he would tear a child limb-from-limb, removing the larger limbs before having to “reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs.” (Read more from “Alabama Becomes Fifth State to Ban Dismemberment Abortions” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-47.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 00:42:422016-05-13 00:42:42Alabama Becomes Fifth State to Ban Dismemberment Abortions
