Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans

WikiLeaks flooded the internet with thousands of leaked emails by Clinton campaign head, John Podesta, exposing serious issues about Hillary Clinton and her team.

The leaked emails caught Clinton using completely different positions depending on whether she was talking to potential supporters in private settings or public campaign stops. On a wide range of important issues, such as immigration, hydraulic fracturing, and trade, Hillary argued two different sides a revelation that adds to the existing doubt about Clinton’s trustworthiness.

In addition, Clinton’s team criticized ordinary Americans for their race, religion, and for living in the South.

Other emails showed CNN contributor and new DNC head Donna Brazile sent a debate question to the Clinton campaign prior to a CNN town hall.

In total, the emails expose Clinton’s duplicitous nature, provide evidence that she will say anything to get elected, and proves that she really meant it when she called Americans a “basket of deplorables.”

I had the opportunity to debate these topics on Fox Business Network’s “Risk & Reward” with guest host Liz MacDonald and Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty in ISIS Bomb Plot

No matter how much the other side yaks about screening, you know (and they know) that there is no way to screen the Islamic terrorist wannabes from the huge flow of Syrians, Iraqis, Somalis, Uzbeks, Burmese Muslims etc. being admitted to the US now at an accelerated pace.

Here is a (then) teenager we welcomed to America who hates us and planned to kill many of you who shop in Houston area malls. Before being admitted to the US, I bet this punk was asked by some US State Department worker—do you have any animosity toward America and, like any good Muslim, lied!

From CBS News:

HOUSTON — An Iraqi refugee who authorities say wanted to set off bombs at two Houston malls pleaded guilty Monday to trying to help the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan admitted as part of his plea deal that he pledged his loyalty to ISIS in November 2014 and almost immediately trained to use tactical weapons, including an AK-47. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison when he is sentenced Jan. 17 on a charge of attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

(Read more from “Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty in ISIS Bomb Plot” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jill Stein on Latest WikiLeaks Reveal: How Much More Evidence Does Government Need to Press Charges Against Hillary Clinton?

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is calling on the federal government to press charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in light of the latest WikiLeaks release.

“#PodestaEmail10 show HRC kept 55K emails from Congress. How much more evidence does the govt need to press charges?” Stein tweeted on Monday.

Stein also highlighted the hypocrisy that members of corporate media–who have spent months speculating “that Trump would try to silence critical journalism”– have offered no defense of the WikiLeaks releases, which have exposed the cozy relationship between members of corporate media and the Clinton campaign, and have revealed the failure of some “journalists” to critically cover the Clinton campaign.

Glenn Greenwald has said that the releases have revealed “serious impropriety” of the media’s collusion with the Clinton campaign– such as Donna Brazile’s decision to feed Clinton’s campaign with a question in advance for a town hall as Clinton was trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

(Read more from “Jill Stein on Latest WikiLeaks Reveal: How Much More Evidence Does Government Need to Press Charges Against Hillary Clinton?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week

Over 30 parties celebrating abortion were held all over the country Saturday night in tandem with a concert in Cleveland. Hosted by “All Access,” a coalition of groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the parties gathered attendees in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even remote places like Sioux Falls, S.D.

The Cleveland event was headlined by Sia, a Grammy-nominated singer whose song “Cheap Thrills” dominated the Billboard Hot 100 this summer. Leslie Jones, a comedian who starred in this year’s “Ghostbusters” revival, and Jessica Williams, a former correspondent on “The Daily Show,” also performed at the event. Despite the big names, however, the venue wasn’t packed:

The photo above was posted 40 minutes before the start of the concert. And while the venue filled out more by the start of the concert, it was by no means packed:

All Access tries hard to portray abortion as a matter of routine health care, as well as a social and religious good. On the All Access website, a rabbi argues that denying abortion rights “rob us of our religious dignity” and restrict women’s “full agency over their own bodies.” Some of the smaller parties around the country got creative in celebrating abortion: The All Access party in South Bend, Ind., featured 200 flags citing reasons why abortion is a social good.

Supporters used the hashtag #Access4All, along with #BeBoldEndHyde, referencing the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds being used by Medicaid to pay for abortions (in most cases). For the first time this year, the Democratic Party platform included language to repeal the Hyde Amendment, further deepening the political divide over abortion.

Ignoring the obvious, one supporter maintained, per the South Bend Tribune, “Abortion shouldn’t be politicized and separated out as a controversial issue.” (For more from the author of “These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Super PAC Set to Release Pro-Trump Ad Pitting Michelle Obama Against Hillary Clinton

First lady Michelle Obama’s past words will come back to haunt her this week with the release of a new campaign ad bought by a super PAC that is backing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The ad, to be aired in Orlando and Tampa, Fla., uses Obama’s quote from 2007 about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who was facing Obama’s husband in the Democratic primary.

“If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House,” Obama says.

The statement appeared to be a reference to former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs, although Barack Obama denied it at the time.

Make America Number 1, the superPAC that paid for the ad, is hoping it will cause women in the key battleground state of Florida to rethink voting for Clinton.

Clinton leads Trump by 15 points among female voters in the Sunshine State — 54 percent to 39 percent — according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

Throughout the course of the election, Trump has struggled to win over many female voters. His efforts were hurt by a recent leaked tape of his lewd comments followed by sexual harassment accusations from several women.

Although Trump apologized for the remarks and denied the women’s claims, his poll numbers with female voters have dropped.

Make America Number 1 is looking to help give him a boost in this area with its ad featuring the first lady.

Michelle Obama has emerged as one of Clinton’s strongest advocates on the campaign trail, giving powerful speeches attacking Trump and how he treats women.

The White House last week gave a subtle warning to Trump not to respond in kind to Obama.

“I can’t think of a bolder way for Donald Trump to lose even more standing than he already has than by engaging the first lady of the United States,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

With this new ad, though, Obama isn’t attacked at all. Instead, her words are used to attack Clinton.

Super PACs are restricted by law from directly communicating and coordinating with a campaign, but they have no limits on how much money they can raise.

The commercial initially debuted as an ad on Facebook, where Make America Number 1 spent $72,000 trying to reach and win over women voters in nine major battleground states.

Hogan Gidley, a spokesman for Make America Number 1, said the group now will spend about $400,000 to get the commercial on network television. (For more from the author of “Super PAC Set to Release Pro-Trump Ad Pitting Michelle Obama Against Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ivanka Trump Breaks Lengthy Silence on Leaked 2005 Video of Her Father

Ivanka Trump has been a loyal and diligent worker in her father’s effort to win the White House.

But the 34-year-old wife and mother had to pause briefly when a 2005 video showed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump making vulgar comments about women. For more than a week, she had no reaction to the video.

Then, Monday, she released a statement in an interview with Fast Company.

“My father’s comments were clearly inappropriate and offensive, and I’m glad that he acknowledged this fact with an immediate apology to my family and the American people,” she said in a statement.

The statement mirrored words of Trump’s wife, Melania, who issued a statement the day after the video surfaced.

“The words my husband used are unacceptable and offensive to me,” Melania Trump’s statement said. “This does not represent the man that I know. He has the heart and mind of a leader.”

“I hope people will accept his apology, as I have, and focus on the important issues facing our nation and the world,” the statement concluded.

In the Fast Company interview, Ivanka Trump said that despite an onslaught of allegations claiming her father groped or was otherwise inappropriate with women, she stands by his denials that the accusers are wrong.

“The greatest comfort I have is the fact that I know my father,” she said.

”Most of the people who write about him don’t. I do. So that gives me an ability to shrug off the things that I read about him that are wrong,” she added.

Ivanka Trump is not only in the spotlight as the leading female in the Trump entourage, but she is also an entrepreneur who must market herself to America.

“She wants to be the brand of glamorous millennials,” Donald Trump critic Jennifer Rubin commented to Fast Company. “But what young woman wants to be reminded every time she puts on a pair of Ivanka shoes of her father boasting about sexual assault?”

However, for all of Ivanka Trump’s business savvy, nothing has broken the bonds of family.

“Ivanka’s brand has always been built on a really carefully balancing act,” says Rajiv Menon, a cultural analyst with the branding consultancy TruthCo. “She’s really demonstrated a sense of drive, a sense of ingenuity, and really established something strong with her apparel brand and larger public presence. But with all of that, she’s never really lost her sense of family loyalty.”

“And as the campaign has continued, she’s maintained that balancing act — but as the campaign has also mutated and turned into what we see now with the tape that was released … that balancing act becomes a lot more precarious. It becomes much more of a liability for her.”

However, the public understands that family comes first.

“Any child or parent is going to defend their parent or their child,” said leadership consultant Gregg Ward. “That’s her right.”

In fact, were she to turn on her father, it might backfire.

“She would lose points if she didn’t stand by her father,” said Larry Chiagouris, a marketing professor at Pace University. (For more from the author of “Ivanka Trump Breaks Lengthy Silence on Leaked 2005 Video of Her Father” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fmr. DOJ Election Attorney Says 4 Million Dead People Voting – DOJ Doesn’t Care

Video Transcript:

Donald Trump has caught some flack for saying that voter fraud happens today.

TRUMP: Get out and vote. But they even want to try and rig the election at the polling booths where so many cities are corrupt and you see that. And voter fraud is all too common. Then they criticize us for saying that.

President Obama on Tuesday told Trump to stop “whining” about voter fraud.

OBAMA: So, I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. It happens to be based on no facts. Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found.

Well, this “expert” and former voting section attorney at the Department of Justice argues there are 4 million dead or ineligible voters.

STEVE DOOCY: J. Christian, you’ve handled some dead people voting cases in the past haven’t you?

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS: Yeah, I filed six in just the last year against Philadelphia. Broward Country, Florida, is pending. Places where the voter rolls are corrupted. And you know, we had one case where — in Texas, there was somebody on the voter rolls who died in 1944. Dead people are voting and it’s something that this administration isn’t doing anything about.

DOOCY: Why is that?

ADAMS: They must like it. They must like who they are voting for. Look, when I was at the Justice Department in the Bush administration, we enforced a law called Motor Voter that forced states and local election officials to clean up their voter rolls of dead people. When I was there, we shut it down after the Obama inauguration. We would not bring cases because these people are opposed to cleaning the voter rolls. Why is that? Now we have 4 million, 4 million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. That’s too many and it’s going to affect the election.

(For more from the author of “Fmr. DOJ Election Attorney Says 4 Million Dead People Voting – DOJ Doesn’t Care” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Hillary Packs the Supreme Court, Democracy Is Dead. We Should Give It a Decent Burial.

If you want a young person to have a hopeful, patriotic view of the U.S. government, you probably shouldn’t set his first trip to Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As I wrote back in 2008:

The first time I ever saw our nation’s capital was on the March for Life, way back in high school on a bus the Knights of Columbus rented to take us down there. Those vast, wedding cake buildings that represent the authority of the U.S. government, adorned with flags, bronze statues, bas-reliefs and grand inscriptions… it all seemed such a miserable sham. Those structures built out of butter cream looked to me like whited sepulchers. The Supreme Court on whose steps we stood seemed a structure built of bones, and the city a fortress defending a vast and soulless regime of death. And so it stands today.

When that essay appeared, the question of unborn children’s rights was still a live one, resting on the faithfulness of Republican presidents. Today, if the upcoming election hands the White House to Hillary Clinton, and if Senate Republicans fail to fight her doggedly like wildcats on every Supreme Court appointment, the issue is dead and gone. It goes in the medical waste dumpster along with the Court’s 58 million victims.

A Clinton court menaces the rest of us who escaped the womb intact. Chief Justice Mark Tushnet (or his chemical equivalent) would indeed treat Christians and conservatives as “losers in the culture war” who deserve no more consideration than defeated Japanese or Germans — as the Harvard Law professor and plausible SCOTUS appointee wrote back in March.

The left already uses the Supreme Court as a permanent Constitutional Convention, in which five progressives use the battered text of our founding document like the letters in a ransom note — clipping and pasting as they like, to yield the meaning they want. A Clinton court would switch from scissors to a shredder.

Our Constitutional right to spend our own money and time to influence elections — imagine that! I thought the First Amendment was just for flag-burning and porn! — hangs by a thread, on the decision in Citizens United which Hillary has pledged to overturn. So does the future of free journalism, if you remember the left’s dogged attempts to imprison the likes of David Daleiden and James O’Keefe.

Our basic human right, marked out in the Second Amendment, to defend ourselves by owning private firearms is dangling dangerously on a similar narrow vote on the Court, in another decision Clinton opposes.

Our religious freedom is already in Clinton’s gunsights. She never admits our “free exercise of religion,” but only “freedom of worship,” in language crafted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to cover the narrow privilege that Orthodox monks have, a few times a week, to offer quiet services in places like Istanbul — though they’d face jail time if they criticized Islam. Combine this with Obama administration threats to church groups’ tax exemptions, California’s attacks on Christian colleges, Hillary’s demand that Christians’ “beliefs must be changed” to accommodate abortion and the Clinton campaign’s attempt to blow up the “medieval dictatorship” that is the Catholic church, and you know exactly what to expect:

The rights of orthodox churches and believers will be pared down relentlessly, while churches that cooperate with progressivism will rake in federal contracts — until we really do have something like the two-tier Chinese system: in Column A will be the approved “patriotic” churches, and in Column B the faithfully Christian ones, which the state persecutes at will.

We Face Rule by Decree, Like Natives in a Colony

Keep in mind that we’re not facing a Democratic president who will pass evil or foolish laws on any of these subjects. No, we face someone who will appoint lifelong judges who will rule us by decree. None of these issues — unborn life, free speech, gun rights, or religious liberty — will be settled by the Congress and the Executive via the democratic process, in a law subject to repeal. They will be carved in stone by the god-like fingers of five philosopher kings, hoisted far out of reach of mere peons like you and me. For our lifetimes, and perhaps for our children’s, they will be dogmas enshrined on altars. Democracy will be dead.

What will we tell our kids once that has happened? When we have to inform them that their Christian school has been taxed into bankruptcy and is closing; that we cannot protect them from home invasions by coddled illegal immigrants; that the faith we are sharing with them is condemned by their own government; that there are certain subjects on which they are not even free to speak — how will we explain that? Or the fact that they can’t even vote on it? It’s a conversation you might need to have very soon, so it’s time to start thinking about which words you’ll use.

When I was young, democracy still seemed vital. At age 11, I became a pro-life activist, ringing doorbells and collecting signatures for the Right-to-Life Party candidate for New York City mayor — radio host Barry Farber. No he didn’t win, but he out-polled the liberal, pro-choice Republican Roy Goodman, coming in second. Taking part in that action sparked my faith that in America, the people could have a voice. It set me on track to a lifetime of activism — volunteering for pro-life Senate candidates and later for Ronald Reagan, then to editorship of the pro-life, conservative paper at Yale, and finally, to The Stream.

If I had a child in the America ruled by Hillary’s appointees, would I encourage him to emulate my actions? It might not even be fair. It would surely damage his future, as being a baptized Christian used to haunt Soviet citizens as a black mark throughout their lives.

In fact, I think we will have to teach resistance. We aren’t called to give the next generation “success tips” but the Truth — as my Irish Catholic mother passed along to me when I was only eight. Again, from 2008:

I cannot forget the actual day in 1973, when Harry Blackmun (moved to change his mind on the subject by a Rockefeller Foundation report on U.S. “overpopulation”) issued the farrago of logical fallacies [Roe v. Wade] which still makes [first-year] law students blush. I saw something about it on the news. Only eight years old, I needed the story explained to me, and asked my mother. She tried her best:

“Well, the government just decided that if a woman is going to have a baby, and she doesn’t want one, now she doesn’t have to.”

“So what can she do?”

“Now she can go to a doctor, and he’ll take out the baby.”

“Won’t it be alive?”

“No. The doctor will make sure it’s dead.”

“They’re allowed to do that?”

“Yes, John. Now they are.”

“In America? Really?”

It’s a question I still ask myself.

(For more from the author of “If Hillary Packs the Supreme Court, Democracy Is Dead. We Should Give It a Decent Burial.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You

The Stream is winding down its coverage of Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary with a roundup of the best social media posts about the anniversary and The Stream‘s own #100forLife campaign against it.

Planned Parenthood and its supporters tweeted with #100YearsStrong, and many pro-lifers borrowed it to engage in some intense debates. One writer from Teen Vogue (where she ran an interview of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards) engaged us back. While some became a bit agitated, such as one Planned Parenthood supporter who said she would “slit her wrists” before voting for Republicans, for the most part the banter remained respectful.

Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.

Do not be deceived.

She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.

Writing for the left-leaning Washington Post, Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, declared that “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty.” He began his October 13 column with these two sobering paragraphs:

In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.”

Thiessen is not overstating the case, and in light of one recent court case and one pending bill, both in California and both with potential to go to the Supreme Court, the real dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency can hardly be exaggerated.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic.

Yes, under the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, this is the law; the Ninth Circuit upheld it.

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well. She has made this abundantly, unequivocally clear for many years, without wavering, and she is the most favored Planned Parenthood candidate in history.

As I wrote previously, if you vote for Hillary Clinton, you will have the blood of the unborn on your hands.

And note also the extreme hypocrisy of this ruling, since abortion clinics are not required to refer their clients to local pro-life pregnancy centers. They are not even required to show the mother an ultrasound of her baby, since that would allegedly infringe on her rights.

God forbid that you remind her that she has a baby in her womb.

In an email announcing the Ninth Court’s ruling, Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel, said, “It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say — under threat of severe punishment — is even more unjust and dangerous.”

The ADF is considering appealing the ruling, which, as stated, could ultimately make it to the Supreme Court, but with Hillary as president, you know how the court will rule.

Do you want to facilitate this by helping to elect her to the highest office in the land? Do you want to be one of the people who helped empower her to be president?

This brings me to a major bill in California, SB 1146 which “would officially label private Christian colleges with Christian values, morality, and even dorm policies which conflict with the LGBT agenda as ‘discriminatory,’ and make the colleges liable to state (and federal) lawsuits as well as vicious attacks by activists. . . . The goal is to make Christian colleges surrender their belief systems and force the LGBT agenda onto every facet of education. California is the first state in the US to attempt this outrageous action. If it passes there, it will surely spread to other states.”

This is the exact kind of legislation that Hillary Clinton would promote and celebrate, fully backed by her handpicked Supreme Court justices.

This would also be harmony with her oft-quoted phrase that “gay rights are human rights,” and therefore any group or denomination or nation that opposes the goals of LGBT activism is guilty of opposing human rights. And let’s not forget the pressure Hillary Clinton put on African nations in her 2011 speech in which she made clear that nations across the continent would need to change their policies regarding homosexuality.

Not surprisingly, there was a major backlash to her speech, with John Nagenda, a senior adviser to Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, stating, “Homosexuality here is taboo, it’s something anathema to Africans, and I can say that this idea of Clinton’s, of Obama’s, is something that will be seen as abhorrent in every country on the continent that I can think of.”

Can you imagine the kind of pressure Hillary Clinton would put on American Christians who remain opposed to same-sex “marriage” and LGBT activism in our children’s schools? After all, if she took it upon herself to tell sovereign African nations what to do, what would she seek to impose on her own country as president? And I haven’t even mentioned the open disdain expressed towards conservative Christians in her campaign’s recently released emails.

So I’ll say it again: Do not be deceived. We already know how a Hillary Clinton administration would view people like you and me.

I do understand that many of you cannot find it in yourself to vote for Donald Trump, but whatever you do, do not vote for Hillary Clinton, and please encourage your conservative Christian friends not to vote for her either. To do so is to hand her the tape to gag your mouths and the rope to fasten your hands.

You have been forewarned. (For more from the author of “Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oh the Irony: Hillary Gets a ‘Law and Order’ Endorsement

This week, “Law & Order: SVU” star Mariska Hargitay endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president.

In a guest piece for women’s fashion magazine Elle, the actress, best known for her character, Detective Olivia Benson, explains how a Clinton presidency would best meet the needs of American women:

“As for where I stand, I’m with her. I stand with Hillary, enthusiastically and with all conviction.”

And while many voters have come to accept that both presidential nominees are less than ideal, it seems ironic that Hargitay, whose TV persona mirrors her real-life work helping victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse, would offer such a hearty affirmation.

“We need a President—and an administration—who will not only keep these issues at the forefront of domestic and international policy, but also will hold out a vision for a future free from these crimes. Whether it is arguing for change in how campuses address the epidemic of sexual assault, drawing attention to the use of rape as a weapon of war, or advocating for the criminal justice system to do all that it can to ensure victims of sexual assault have full access to all the tools at law enforcement’s disposal […] And after a lifetime dedicated to working for the rights of women and girls, her vision and her plan are informed, hard-won, and comprehensive.”

An interesting choice of words for a candidate whose husband has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault, and whose campaign site went out of its way to delete the phrase, “you have the right to be believed” in a message to victims of sexual assault on college campuses.

And as for the “lifetime dedicated to working for the rights of women and girls” claim, Hillary and her supporters can say it all they want (and, they do), but that doesn’t line up with her thick-as-thieves partnership with abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Nor does it explain her conscious defense of a child rapist. What would Det. Olivia Benson think of that?

Mariska Hargitay ends her piece with a special shout-out to Clinton, shrewdly alluding to GOP rival Donald Trump’s assertions that he would bring “law and order” to America:

“And yes, Hillary, in case you were wondering, this makes you the ‘Law & Order’ candidate.”

But like Olivia Benson, Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending the citizens and laws of this nation is the work of fiction. Though the narrative she has presented throughout this campaign has appealed to many, her track record shows that it’s all an act. (For more from the author of “Oh the Irony: Hillary Gets a ‘Law and Order’ Endorsement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.