CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.

The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Vice President Joe Biden told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that “we’re sending a message” to Putin and that “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact” . . .

Retired Admiral James Stavridis told NBC News’ Cynthia McFadden that the U.S. should attack Russia’s ability to censor its internal internet traffic and expose the financial dealings of Putin and his associates. (Read more from “CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , , /by

These are precarious times to be a Republican.

It is inarguably true that America is in desperate need of a conservative president. Voters have waited and waited, and the havoc Trump has wreaked on the party on his path to the nomination may take a while to heal. This was not the 2016 we deserved. It is, however, the one we got.

But why is everyone so scared of a Clinton presidency? Put simply: The reason everyone is so afraid of Hillary is because Congress sucks.

With polls looking unfavorable for Donald Trump, the sense of dread at having to face four years under Hillary’s watch is compounded by the knowledge that these will be another four years of unmitigated defeat and progressive disaster. Clinton will undoubtedly consolidate more power and tip the delicately balanced scales of checks and balances ever more toward the executive branch. After all, that is what progressives do — it’s in their nature to transform institutions and centralize power.

To a large extent, they have succeeded. Americans cannot help look at the presidency as the strongest and most decisive force in government. The founders, of course, had no such intent when they established our system of checks and balances. Congress was created to be the motor of the republic, to set legislative priorities, rein in the president, and reflect most directly the will of the people. But through eons of feebleness and inactivity, its muscle has atrophied.

It didn’t have to be this way. Congressional cowardice and the entire legislative culture of surrender forces Republicans to look at 2016 as their last hope of rebellion. No one can fathom a scenario in which we lose the presidency and still take part in setting the national agenda. If this was a real possibility on the minds of lawmakers, the aura of doom surrounding November 8 would not be quite so palpable.

The American people — despite the demographics, despite the media, despite presidential elections that are increasingly more personality based — have given Republicans control of the house 18 of the last 22 years. Americans clearly want a check on government.

Shortly after his decision not to go to bat to defend Trump’s politically toxic comments about women in 2005, Speaker Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 51%) held a conference call urging his members to “do what’s best for you in your district.” Politico quoted a source on the call who described the backlash Ryan faced from some congressmen unprepared to cede the race and unable to stomach the notion of spending another presidential term playing defense as saying: “A lot of these guys feel like there is a moral imperative to beating Hillary Clinton.”

In the 115th Congress, elected Republicans once again have a chance to lead. As several recent polls indicate — in light of the favorability of a President Clinton — come 2017, voters will take their cue from leadership as to how brutal a loss this will be. Are we in for another term of untrammeled progressivism and an opposition party eager to show a liberal media and Washington insiders it can be “reasonable” and “bipartisan”? Or will we get the conservative fighters the country deserves? Fighters that can halt the liberal Clinton agenda. Don’t forget, our nation did see conservative reforms during the last Clinton administration when Republicans asserted themselves as a check on the executive.

What will truly make America great again is reviving the most important branch of government, the only one directly tethered to will of the people.

The internet response to recent polling is filled with the terror of another liberal epoch. Republicans must stop being guided by the less awful of two fears.

I’ll say it again: Hillary is especially dangerous because Congress is especially gutless.

Please, GOP: Prove me wrong. (For more from the author of “Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

People of God, Let Us Change the World Rather Than Be Changed by the World

/0 Comments/in , /by

In front of our eyes, America is descending into vulgarity, lewdness, crudeness and profanity. In front of our eyes, things which should not be spoken of in private are being shouted across the airwaves, and there seems to be almost no way to escape the bombardment of filth.

At times like this, those of us who love and fear the Lord need to be careful that we too don’t descend into this trashiness, paying careful attention lest we become desensitized and hardened along with the rest of the culture.

I don’t know if it can be demonstrated statistically, but many people believe that President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky had a negative effect on the nation as a whole, in particular, among young people, who learned that one particular sexual act did not constitute “having sex.”

Today, with the daily attacks on Donald Trump’s past and the daily reminders of Bill Clinton’s past, with websites blasting out the most salacious headlines and with newscasters shamelessly talking about shameful things — all this by the minute and by the hour — we run the risk of being polluted by the world’s corruption without even knowing it, just like a non-smoker comes out of a smoke-filled room smelling like smoke but doesn’t even realize it.

This is a time to remember the words of Jacob (James) who wrote, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (Jas. 1:27).

By all means, let us “visit orphans and widows in their affliction,” and by all means, let us keep ourselves “unstained from the world.”

Last week, I posted a video expressing my grief and sadness over professing Christians who minimized so-called “locker room” talk, referring specifically to the horrific sexual comments made by Donald Trump back in 2005.

But my focus was not on Trump. My focus was on Christians saying, “It’s no big deal. All of us do things like that.” There were even Christian women who said, “Hey, I hear that from my husband and sons.” Seriously? No big deal? The kind of stuff most men and boys engage in? What kind of rubbish is that?

Followers of Jesus claiming that crass, despicable, crude, degrading talk about women is no big deal, even for themselves? Followers of Jesus calling me self-righteous and a liar if I don’t admit to engaging in similar talk? What kind of deception are they living in?

In response to my video, one individual wrote, “I guess Dr. Brown never says or minimizes anything inappropriate! Maybe Dr. Brown takes the opposite side of this issue to generate controversy for his Youtube Channel.” Another wrote, “Dr. Brown, I’m sure you have said even worst, and you don’t fool anybody; you’re no better.” What kind of world are these people living in?

It’s true that I’ve been following Jesus for the last 45 years, but my teen years were anything but holy, to the point that I was shooting heroin at the age of 15 and even broke into a doctor’s office to steal drugs for fun. I hung around with some pretty despicable and even dangerous people, and I had a miserably foul mouth.

But even then, the level of “locker room” talk heard on that tape was not something I engaged in (maybe because I wasn’t a star with that kind of access to women, even though I was filthy?).

Either way, the past is not the issue, not for me, not for you, not for Trump, not for Clinton, as long as we have asked God and people for forgiveness, as long as we have made things right, and as long as we are putting the past behind us by living new, transformed lives.

The issue, then, is how we are living today. The issue is what we think about, what we talk about, and what we do today. The issue is the purity of our hearts and the purity of our lips and the purity of our actions — and make no mistake about it, we are called to purity. And purity is downright beautiful.

This is how the Lord calls us to live (and this is just one relevant passage out of many; I encourage you to read it slowly, out loud, several times over):

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light…. (Eph. 5:1-8)

Yes, we used to be darkness, but now, in Jesus, we are light. Let us walk as children of light!

As sons and daughters of God through faith in Jesus the Messiah, we have been given wonderful promises by God, but with those promises comes responsibility. That’s why Paul wrote, “Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Cor. 7:1, NIV).

As the world around us is plunging into sexual anarchy and madness, let us swim against this polluting tide, determining, with God’s help, that rather than the world changing us, we will change the world. (For more from the author of “People of God, Let Us Change the World Rather Than Be Changed by the World” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Did Sports Become So Politicized?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Colin Kaepernick makes his first start of the season at quarterback Sunday when the San Francisco 49ers take on the Buffalo Bills in Orchard Park, New York. This early-season QB change wouldn’t normally make so much news—but Kaepernick is no ordinary football player.

During the NFL preseason, Kaepernick ignited a controversy when he refused to stand for the national anthem. Players in other professional and amateur leagues followed suit, drawing cheers among some fans and gears from others.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick explained. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Last month, I sat down with David Bozell, president of ForAmerica, to explore how sports became so politicized. Watch our interview and let us know what you think in the comments below. (For more from the author of “How Did Sports Become So Politicized?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Abortionist: ‘I Provide Abortions Because I’m a Christian’

/0 Comments/in , /by

October 16, 2016 marks the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood’s founding by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Her self-described goal was to exterminate blacks and sterilize “idiots,” “morons” and the “feeble-minded.” In one revealing letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Sanger described how to handle the issue of black extermination:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

One of her more famous quotes makes the stomach churn:

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Perhaps there are those who still feel that way. Is it possible that there are abortionists who feel that they perform an act of mercy when they kill babies? The following story concerns an abortionist who believes just that.

Dr. Sarah Wallett

There are times in life when, as a Christian, we read or hear something sinful so couched in a mist of Christian ideology that our knee-jerk reaction is one of revulsion. The juxtaposition of faith and sin causes a gut-wrenching and heartsick effect and we want to correct the misunderstanding of Christian faith immediately. Such is my reaction to the story of Dr. Sarah Wallett, a self-proclaimed Christian who performs abortions because she believes “it is the most important thing that I will ever do.”

In early August, Dr. Wallett wrote in her jarring column at Refinery29 that her Christian faith is precisely why she kills unborn children. For an abortion provider to claim that ripping an unborn baby limb from limb is Christ-like is repulsive and couldn’t be further from the truth.

She described her childhood in a Christian home where her family attended church regularly, said prayers before meals and where she was taught “that it was my duty to help people in need and leave the world a better place than I found it,” and added, “The patients I see every day are so clearly people in need — and the medical care I provide them is both life-changing and, in many circumstances, life-saving.”

It calls into question the Christian teaching she actually received — where did she learn that murder was a Christ-like attribute?

She then offered up a list of complaints about the stigma she faces as an abortion provider (“there are no positive images of abortion providers or the value in the work that we do”), legislators who work to revise abortion laws (their “sole goal is clearly to make this work more difficult … create laws that interfere with the medical care I provide, because they do not like the work that I do”) and her concern about abortion laws in other states (“similar to the horrific one in Texas”).

She blasted the laws in her state of Tennessee that “do nothing to keep my patients safe,” such as OB-GYNs like Dr. Wallett having admitting privileges in a local hospital, working in an ambulatory center or providing patients with information about abortion and requiring them to have two visits to the health center prior to having an abortion. Dr. Wallett wrote that “many of these laws, in fact, harm the same women they’re supposedly intended to help,” although it isn’t clear how having access to a hospital or receiving medical information harms the patients.

The abortion provider claimed over and over again that she implements her faith throughout her work of taking tiny human lives — providing compassion and empathy to her patients who have chosen to have an abortion and feel the need to justify it to her, “a task no one should ever have to do.” “My faith teaches me to withhold judgment and to extend acceptance to all,” Dr. Wallett said as she described patients who suffered through the experience of having friends and family beg them not to have an abortion.

One can only imagine the scene of loved ones imploring a pregnant woman to choose life, that they would adopt her baby. But she ended up in the office of a compassionate and accepting killer.

Her patients also have strong faith, she said, and “[g]ood, moral women have abortions every day,” adding that it’s her duty to provide a positive “counterpoint” to the shame and misinformation pregnant women experience and hear that causes pain.

What kind of upbringing was this? How can anyone look at Scripture and believe that God would have us murder the most innocent and vulnerable among us?

The closest analogy from Scripture regarding killing one’s young is the child sacrifice to the pagan deity Molech, which was practiced by the Ammonites and later, the Israelites (1 Kings 11:1-8). God called this practice an “abomination,” and forbid the Israelites to observe the barbaric ritual. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:21). Any Israelite who practiced the child sacrifice was to be put to death (Lev. 20:2).

On the contrary, the Bible is replete with scriptures telling us how much he loved and wanted us before we were born. God called us and named us when we were still in our mother’s womb (Is. 49:1). He formed us with purpose (Ps. 139:13). The Lord says children are an inheritance and a reward (Ps. 127:3). He also tells us that while a mother may not have compassion on the baby in her womb, He will never forget him or her (Is. 49:15).

Slaughtering innocent unborn children has nothing to do with Christianity. It goes against all biblical teaching of protecting human life and the most vulnerable among us. It directly violates the sixth Commandment: “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13).

If Dr. Wallett takes pleasure in her work of taking innocent lives, she will answer to God for that. But she cannot tie abortion to the Christian faith in any logical or truthful way. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Abortionist: ‘I Provide Abortions Because I’m a Christian'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UNESCO, Which Obama Wants US to Fund, Calls Israel ‘Occupying Power’ and Rewrites Jewish History

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the fact that the membership of UNESCO brought this situation upon itself, the Obama administration has repeatedly asked Congress to change the law to allow the U.S. to renew funding, offering a number of highly dubious assertions on how U.S. interests were being undermined by the failure to provide funding.

Congress has rightly refused.

Part of this resistance is UNESCO’s history of controversial actions and anti-Israel bias, including approving a Palestinian request to add the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the pilgrimage route to the Palestinian World Heritage list over the objections of the U.S. and Israel.

This week, UNESCO doubled down on its efforts to appease Palestinian complaints by adopting a resolution that condemns Israel on its policies regarding Jerusalem and deliberately downplays Jewish history with the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Specifically, the resolution repeatedly refers to Israel as the “occupying power” and accuses Israel of a long list of offenses.

Although the resolution acknowledges that the Old City of Jerusalem is sacred to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it refers to the “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif” only as Muslim holy sites and ignores the historical and religious connections of these sites to the Jewish people.

Only six Western nations—Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the U.K., and the U.S.—voted against the resolution.

Israel has suspended all professional activities with the organization. As noted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “To say that Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the pyramids. By this absurd decision, UNESCO has lost what little legitimacy it had left.”

The U.S. should join Israel and cease its cooperation with UNESCO until the resolution is reversed.

Beyond UNESCO’s controversial decisions, the resistance to funding UNESCO in Congress is based on a bigger concern—that Palestinian membership in the U.N. and its specialized agencies prior to formal recognition of Israel by the Palestinians and a negotiated peace threatens U.S. and Israeli interests.

Additionally, allowing funding for UNESCO would encourage other U.N. organizations to similarly grant membership to the Palestinians. As noted by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Brad Sherman, D-Calif., the funding prohibition is: “vital in successfully derailing attempts … to seek de facto recognition of a Palestinian state from the U.N. via the granting of membership to ‘Palestine’ in U.N. agencies, including UNESCO. … ”

Unfortunately, because the U.S. remains a member of UNESCO but is legally prohibited from providing funding, it is accumulating debts to the organization. This is not in our interests.

But changing the law to allow funding for UNESCO would undermine more significant U.S. interests by rewarding Palestinian efforts to avoid a negotiated peace with and recognition of Israel, accepting UNESCO’s support for that position, and encouraging other U.N. organizations to follow suit.

The next administration should act responsibly and withdraw the U.S. from UNESCO. (For more from the author of “UNESCO, Which Obama Wants US to Fund, Calls Israel ‘Occupying Power’ and Rewrites Jewish History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Abortion Stands Legally Today

/0 Comments/in , /by

As giant abortion provider Planned Parenthood celebrates its 100th anniversary this week, pro-lifers led by The Stream are commemorating #100forlife to remember all who have died due to abortion.

It comes forty-three years after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade — permitting abortions during the three trimesters of pregnancy, and allowing greater regulatory power by states during the second and third trimesters. To come up with this odd, three-tier ruling, the court relied upon a tortured interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, finding in the “penumbras” of the Constitution a right to privacy fundamental to the concept of liberty.

While abortion remains legal in the U.S., the laws governing it have changed significantly in recent years. Some of those modifications are state laws that impose additional requirements before having an abortion, or restrictions on when or how an abortion may be procured. Most of the laws came as the focus of the pro-life movement expanded from abortion center protests and sidewalk counseling to include passing state and federal legislation.

The movement was emboldened to take this route by Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, in which the Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on partial-birth abortions.

These laws, which added new requirements and regulations for abortions, have successfully resulted in the shutdown of abortion centers. Five states now have only one abortion facility. According to the abortion rights research organization Guttmacher Institute, in the late 1980s, there was a high of 705 centers nationwide. By 2011, that number had dropped to 583, and others have closed since.

The laws may also be contributing to a decrease in the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Institute reported a high of 1,590,750 abortions in 1988. That number has declined almost every year since then, to 1,058,490 in 2011, equivalent to the level in the mid-1970s shortly after abortion was legalized.

Significant Supreme Court Victories That Reversed the Abortion Trend
Since Roe v. Wade, there have been several Supreme Court decisions that struck down or upheld state laws regulating abortion — overall, in balance favorable to the pro-life movement. In the 1980 decision Harris v. McRae, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life.

Nine years later, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court upheld Missouri’s ban on the use of public facilities and employees for abortions, and the state’s requirement that doctors test for fetal viability at 24 weeks.

A Supreme Court case in 1992 dealt the biggest blow to Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court backed off from the convoluted, messy Roe precedent prohibiting states from regulating abortion during the first trimester. It permitted states to implement laws requiring such things as pre-abortion counseling, waiting limits and parental consent, so long as the requirements did not impose an “undue burden” on women.

A Legal Setback in 2016

Despite years of strides, the pro-life movement suffered a significant defeat in June when the high court struck down two abortion center regulations in Texas. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the court invalidated laws that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and held abortion facilities to the standards of outpatient surgical centers. The court held that the onerousness of the regulations outweighed the state’s interest in regulating health.

Will the Generally Pro-life Trend Continue?

The Supreme Court ultimately has the final say, rightly or wrongly, on abortion laws. Whether pro-life advocates will be able to continue the trend of stripping away parts of Roe v. Wade depends on the future makeup of the Court. If Democrat Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will appoint left-leaning justices who will make up a majority of the court and strike down pro-life laws. If Republican Donald Trump wins the election, he has promised to appoint mostly right-leaning justices who will have the opposite effect. (For more from the author of “Where Abortion Stands Legally Today” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Limbaugh: Still Voting for Trump; Must Defeat Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Each passing day, this presidential election becomes more distasteful, but that doesn’t relieve me of my duty to do what I believe is right.

During the primaries, there were 17 GOP candidates, and I chose the one I believed would be the best for America. Now my realistic choices have been narrowed to two candidates — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — one of whom will be the next president.

What does this mean for me? Well, some people on the right faced with this binary choice have concluded they can’t in good conscience vote for Trump, no matter how bad Clinton is. Some acknowledge that Clinton is terrible but believe that Trump could do more damage to conservatism and thus the nation in the long run — even more than a Clinton presidency at this precarious moment in our nation’s history.

I confess that I momentarily weighed all the possible scenarios, but I could never remotely convince myself that a Trump presidency would be worse for the nation than a Clinton one. I have not changed my mind despite the recent charges against Trump.

We are used to seeing Republicans beating one another up during the primaries, and the most recent three cycles — 2008, 2012 and 2016 — involved extremely vicious infighting in some cases. As a frequenter of Twitter, I have witnessed this firsthand. This year’s primary was hands down the worst, but that’s not the only way this year is different. In the previous two cycles, there was some residual discontentment, but most eventually united around the GOP nominee, notwithstanding lingering rumors that millions of evangelicals sat out the 2012 election.

The fighting among the never-Trumpers, the Trumpers and the never-Hillarys is approaching a fever pitch, with mutual accusations of abject immorality.

As the election gets closer, I see the horrors of a Clinton presidency in increasingly clearer relief. I acknowledge that this may cause me to rationalize some of my earlier distaste for some things about Trump, but I have to remember that my vote for Trump isn’t an endorsement of everything he’s done. I’m not saying I no longer have reservations about him or his policies. I do.

My decision to vote for Trump isn’t a contradiction of my position during the Clinton impeachment that character matters or that private conduct is relevant in the election of public officials. Nor am I betraying my Christian values to vote for a candidate who, in almost any scenario I can imagine, would be better for America than Clinton. People suggesting that Christians voting for Trump have sold their souls are ignoring the moral implications of not voting for Trump and thereby enabling Clinton’s destruction of our nation. Now that, my conscience wouldn’t tolerate, though I don’t judge those who disagree with me on this.

If I were voting for Trump in a vacuum, this would be different. But Clinton isn’t a vacuum. She’s more like a vulture lying in wait to end the republic as we know it. Accuse me of hyperbole or alarmism if you must, but I genuinely fear Clinton could do irreversible damage to the country. And millions agree with me.

Some say, “Look at what you are condoning if you vote for Trump.” And I say, “I’m condoning nothing, but if you want to use that metric, look at what you’re condoning if you don’t try to do everything you can to prevent another Obama-Clinton term.” Evangelicals withdrawing their support for Trump need to consider what they’re abetting by not doing everything in their power to prevent Clinton’s election. In my view, we can’t pretend we have other choices and wash our hands of responsibility by sitting this out. Nor does acknowledging that God is in control absolve us, as Christians, from doing our part.

If you want to know what we’d be in for with Clinton, consider what she’s done and how she’s wholly escaped accountability for all of it. In every respect, she is worse than the worst allegations against Trump, including the treatment of women.

Look at what happens when Democrats are in control. The Justice Department and IRS have been politicized. If recent reports about the outrage of FBI agents over Director James Comey’s refusal to indict Clinton for her email felonies are even 25 percent true, this is incredible. Clinton won’t even get a wrist slap. Consider also the Clinton Foundation corruption, as well as the WikiLeaks bombshells and the media collusion in ignoring them.

Fear a Trump presidency if you choose, but in electing Clinton, America would be ratifying her egregious misconduct, her self-serving corruption and President Obama’s agenda on steroids. It would be giving her a mandate from hell.

It’s not just about Supreme Court appointments, though more liberal activists would enable an unprecedented assault on our liberties and the Constitution. A Clinton presidency would result in more babies destroyed in the womb; more encroachments on the Second Amendment; further degradation of the military; open borders and all that entails; the continued disaster of Obamacare and possibly worse with single-payer, which has always been Clinton’s dream; higher taxes and dramatically increased regulations; ongoing economic malaise; more government dependency; continuing escalation of racial tensions; a further breakdown in law and order, with more violence in the streets and an ongoing war on cops; the acceleration of the dangerous national debt and of the insolvency of our entitlement programs; an escalation of the war on business; more demonization of the so-called wealthy; further deterioration of our vital relationship with Israel; more domestic and foreign terrorism; furt! her proliferation of the Islamic State group; the sucking of more revenue and human resources into environmental and globalist projects; a possible IRS vendetta against Clinton’s Republican and conservative opponents; nightmares from Iran; and more hostility to the energy industry, making us less energy-independent.

We’ve already seen the one-sidedness that allows Clinton to escape scrutiny and accountability, and she’s not in power. Imagine if she were. Could a Clinton presidency finally succeed in suppressing the dissent of political opponents — including through the so-called Fairness Doctrine, designed to emasculate conservative talk radio?

In short, if Clinton were to win, in all likelihood, she would consummate Obama’s crusade to fundamentally transform America into something the Framers and most of us never envisioned and couldn’t tolerate. Suffice it to say that I am not going to be shamed on moral grounds for fighting to prevent this calamity. (For more from the author of “Limbaugh: Still Voting for Trump; Must Defeat Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Drop the Act and Hand Over Your Catholic Card, Tim Kaine

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, D-Va. (F, 0%) proved once again that the only “ism” he’s interested in defending is progressivism.

Kaine appeared on ABC’s “The View” Thursday, where he was asked to comment on this week’s Wikileaks email dump that exposed the anti-Catholic views of top Clinton campaign officials, as well as the active role of progressive think tanks in promoting antipathy for traditional Church teachings on marriage, contraception, and abortion.

But instead of taking the opportunity to address the content of the emails, Kaine, a self-professed Catholic, pointed the finger at Russia:

“First thing on the WikiLeaks … I mean, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence has said that this is hacking that Russians are behind it, the Russian government is behind it. So, anybody that would hack to try to destabilize an election, you can’t automatically assume that everything in all of these documents … are even real.”

Unlike the Virginia senator, Catholic officials did not hesitate to condemn the contents of the leaked emails — as well as the Clinton campaign’s refusal to do so — the Catholic Herald reported.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput called the emails “contemptuously anti-Catholic.” On Thursday, the diocesan website posted a column by Archbishop Chaput: “About Those Unthinking, Backward Catholics.”

“Of course it would be wonderful for the Clinton campaign to repudiate the content of these ugly WikiLeaks emails,” he writes. “All of us backward-thinking Catholics who actually believe what Scripture and the Church teach would be so very grateful.”’

Louisville Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, also released a statement in which he called the Clinton campaign emails “troubling both for the wellbeing of faith communities and the good of our country”:

“I encourage my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, and all people of good will, to be good stewards of the precious rights we have inherited as citizens of this country. We also expect public officials to respect the rights of people to live their faith without interference from the state. When faith communities lose this right, the very idea of what it means to be an American is lost.”

Speaking on “The View” Thursday, Kaine made his case for why voters should trust the Clinton-Kaine ticket despite the leaks:

“The best way to tell about the character of somebody in public life, in my view, is to look and see, do they have a passion that showed up before they were in public life? Something that animates and drives them. And then, have they held onto that passion throughout their life?”

He went on to say that Hillary Clinton has proven herself trustworthy for the Oval Office by displaying a life-long passion for “empowering families and kids.”

Well, we all know about Hillary’s so-called “pro-family” track record, and it’s certainly not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Like Clinton, Kaine has proven time and time again that he, too, holds a “public and private position” when it comes to policy. And judging by his own standards, Kaine’s passion for pushing the progressive Leftist agenda is far stronger than his so-called Catholic values. (For more from the author of “Drop the Act and Hand Over Your Catholic Card, Tim Kaine” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Revenge for Snub? Trump Accuser’s Kin Says Her Claim Is a Grab for Fame

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two more women accused Republican nominee Donald Trump of sexual assault Friday, with a relative of one of them saying that the allegation was “an attempt to regain the spotlight.”

Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s NBC reality show “The Apprentice,” said the real estate mogul kissed her and groped her after meeting at a Beverly Hills hotel in 2007 to discuss a potential job. Zervos, accompanied at a Los Angeles press conference by attorney Gloria Allred, said she was later offered a lower-paying job at a Trump golf course . . .

Late Friday, the Trump campaign released a statement purporting to be from statement in which a cousin of Zervos said he was “shocked and bewildered” by her account.

John Barry of Mission Viejo, Calif., said in the statement that Zervos spoke glowingly of Trump until the real estate mogul rebuffed an invitation to visit her restaurant during the primary campaign.

“I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump,” Barry said. “That’s not how she talked about him before.” (Read more from “Revenge for Snub? Trump Accuser’s Kin Says Her Claim Is a Grab for Fame” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.