How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points

The internet has been abuzz with headlines declaring, “Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong,” and “Johns Hopkins Shrinks Warn Against Kids Going Transgender.”

As reported by Ryan T. Anderson on Monday, “A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.”

How significant was this report?

“Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.”

What were the conclusions of this study? “The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that ‘some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.’”

How will gay activists respond? They will shoot the messengers. Watch and see. We’ve seen the pattern for years.

Gay activists and their allies will try to discredit an individual or a group, then when that individual or group challenges their position, they reply, “No one listens to him/her/them. They’ve been totally discredited!”

The SPLC has often been complicit in this, branding a conservative Christian organization as a hate group or classifying a conservative spokesman as a new leader of the radical right, therefore, whatever they say can be safely dismissed. After all, they’re haters and bigots!

When it comes to the authors of this important new study, they are hardly rightwing, fundamentalist, conservatives. Hardly!

One of the authors, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, “is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.”

He has taught at 8 universities (including Princeton and Stanford) and, “His full-time and part-time appointments have been in twenty-three disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics and biomedical informatics.”

The other author is even more acclaimed. Dr. Paul McHugh is “University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.”

Dr. McHugh “was elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992. From 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics,” among his many accomplishments.

These certainly sound like formidable scholars, and so their 143-page report, which, as stated, “discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies,” should be taken very seriously when it challenges many of the major talking points put forward by gay activists arguing: gays are not born that way and can possibly change; “non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse”; when compared to the general population, “non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes”; and the idea that “a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Note carefully those closing words, which are a theme of the entire study: These foundational LGBT talking points are “not supported by scientific evidence.”

I can assure you, though, that rather than interacting with the scientific evidence presented in this formidable study, the vast majority of LGBT activists and their allies will dismiss it out of hand.

They will say, Dr. McHugh is an infamous transphobe who is totally out of touch with modern science while Dr. Mayer is unqualified to write on this topic.

As I said before, watch and see.

When it comes to Dr. McHugh, he committed the cardinal sin of opposing sex-change surgery during his tenure at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which is why that surgical procedure was dropped under his leadership. But he did this based on years of interaction with those who identified as transgender, interviewing them before and after surgery, ultimately concluding that, “We psychiatrists … would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

I reached out to him in November before I appeared on the Tyra Banks show to discuss transgender children, wanting to know if his views had changed based on more current research. He replied to me on November 18, 2009: “I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of young people claiming to be ‘transgendered’ is a form of child abuse.”

Not surprisingly, there are few psychiatrists hated more by LGBT leaders than Paul McHugh.

Just within the last few years, the TransAdvocate.com website accused him of “clinging to a dangerous past”; the Huffington Post claimed that he “endangers the lives of transgender youth”; the Advocate.com website referred to the “scary science at John Hopkins University”; and a ThinkProgress.org headline declared, “Meet The Doctor Social Conservatives Depend On To Justify Anti-Transgender Hate.”

So, when it comes to Dr. McHugh, the script has already been written, and no matter what the scientific evidence states and no matter how carefully he has presented it, he will be viciously attacked and his research will be flatly rejected.

As for Dr. Mayer, again, my expectation is that he will be dismissed as unqualified, while his guilt by association with Dr. McHugh and Johns Hopkins will be used against him as well.

The good news is that, over time, truth will triumph, which is why Principle #6 in my book Outlasting the Gay Revolution was “Keep Propagating the Truth Until the Lies Are Dispelled.”

Those who want to know the truth owe it to themselves to study this new report carefully, determined to follow the truth wherever it leads. Those choosing to shoot the messengers will only hurt themselves in the end. (For more from the author of “How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Defective Detectives at FBI Missed Another Terrorist in Va. Knife Attack

The FBI has launched an investigation into an alleged ISIS-inspired knife attack in Roanoke, Virginia. Investigators are attempting to determine if the attacker may have been trying to behead his victim, reports ABC News.

The alleged attacker is 20-year-old Wasil Farooqui, a resident of the Roanoke area. Federal authorities have known about him “for some time,” according to ABC News. In the past year, he traveled to Turkey and sources say may have tried to sneak into Syria, where ISIS is actively recruiting.

On Saturday, Farooqui allegedly injured a man and woman at an apartment complex, yelling “Allah Akbar” as he attacked them with a knife. Authorities believe he may have been trying to behead the male victim.

“‘The FBI is working with the Police Department following the incident that occurred on Saturday evening,’ the head of the FBI’s Richmond field office, Special Agent In Charge Adam Lee, said in a statement. ‘While I cannot discuss details of the investigation at this time, I do want to reassure the community that we are working to determine the nature of the incident.'”

If this is indeed a terrorist attack, it could mark yet another instance of an individual on the FBI’s radar for terrorist connections carrying out an act of jihad before authorities could stop him.

In his book, “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists,” Peter Bergen identified several instances of law enforcement failing to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies and missing homegrown terrorists as a result.

As Conservative Review’s Robert Eno wrote in a review of Bergen’s book:

Bergen makes a strong case for a reliance on traditional police-work techniques to ferreting out homegrown radicals. This includes the sharing of information between agencies, something that was supposed to have changed after 9/11. Bergen explains how it hasn’t. Time and time again, Bergen shows that law enforcement is still not connecting dots, and not sharing information.

Farooqui was arrested by Roanoke County Police Saturday on charges of assault with malicious wounding.

Is this another instance of the FBI failing to “connect the dots”? (For more from the author of “Defective Detectives at FBI Missed Another Terrorist in Va. Knife Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump on Deportations: Do What Obama Has Done but ‘With More Energy’

Do what Obama is doing with deportations but “perhaps with a lot more energy.”

That, according to the Washington Post, is Republican candidate for president Donald Trump’s latest proposal for deportations of illegal immigrants.

But is that really what he said? Since Trump likes to accuse the media of twisting his words and positions, let’s take a closer look.

“What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Bill O’Reilly Monday night. “Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m going to do the same thing.”

It certainly sounds like taking Obama’s lead on deportations is Trump’s game plan.

Mr. Trump is repeating an oft cited statistic about deportations that Conservative Review’s Robert Eno debunked back in December. The claim goes that President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

That’s false, because when one accounts for deportations, which the federal government calls “removals” and also for “returns,” a word the government uses for “voluntary deportations,” one finds that the number of illegal immigrants that have actually left the country has sharply declined under President Obama’s oversight.

Immigration Aliens Removed Returned

So what has President Obama done?

Overall deportations have dropped by nearly two-thirds since 2011. As Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz wrote last December:

Since Obama began his amnesty programs in 2011, deportations have dropped to less than one-third their annual level prior to Obama’s suspension of congressional statutes. What about criminal aliens? Wasn’t the purpose of amnesty to focus just on criminal aliens? They also plummeted by almost 60%.

Trump sometimes says he wants to crack down on criminal aliens through deportations.

“The first thing we’re going to do if and when I win is we’re going to get rid of all of the bad ones,” Trump said. “We’ve got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We’re going to get them out, and the police know who they are. They’re known by law enforcement who they are. We don’t do anything. They go around killing people and hurting people, and they’re going to be out of this country so fast your head will spin. We have existing laws that allow you to do that.”

The problem is President Obama’s administration claims they already do this, using the “existing laws” Trump cited.

Mr. Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton has said the same thing, pledging to deport violent criminals and terrorists.

Now, President Obama’s administration has claimed a policy of “felons, not families” regarding their targeting of violent criminal illegal aliens for deportations. Yet the Center for Immigration Studies has noted that deportations of “criminal aliens” declined 27% from 86,923 in 2014 to 63,127 in 2015.

So when Mr. Trump says he would continue the current policy, the policy he’s talking about is deporting less criminal aliens. And he doesn’t seem to realize that.

Further, President Obama has invited more people to enter into the country illegally through his policies as well. Executive orders on amnesty aside, the Obama administration has gone as far as spend $9 million to provide attorneys at taxpayer expense to 2,600 illegal immigrant children who had surged over the border in 2014.

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he would “do the same thing” as President Obama in regards to deportations and illegal immigration is anathema to Trump’s own stated desire to crack down on criminal aliens and secure the border.

Even Democratic President Bill Clinton took a stronger position on illegal immigration in his 1995 State of the Union address than Obama would ever consider.

President Bill Clinton deported four times as many illegal immigrants as President Obama. If Mr. Trump is going to follow a Democrat’s lead on deportations, shouldn’t he talk about his opponent Hillary Clinton’s own husband’s policies? (For more from the author of “Trump on Deportations: Do What Obama Has Done but ‘With More Energy'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion

In defense of Donald Trump’s suggestion that Muslim immigration be restricted until we better understand the nature of the Jihadist terror threat, the following is offered up by our long-suffering Summer Intern @BiffSpackle:

151230-islam-7-reasons-010 (1)

151230-islam-7-reasons-020 (1)

Democrats, progressives, and other miscreants: please feel free to answer any or all of these questions in the comments section.

P.S., Keep up-to-date with anti-Jihad news by visiting some of the Fabulous 50 Award Winners for Anti-Jihad Blogging. (For more from the author of “7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System

For several weeks, Donald Trump has been warning that the 2016 presidential elections could be “rigged.” Despite significant criticism from some Republicans and many Democrats, he continued that line of attack in his first major ad release of the general election.

The “rigged” claim is common on both sides of the aisle — and sometimes it’s even accurate, like the e-mail scandal that proved the Democratic National Committee intentionally set up the Democratic presidential primary for Hillary Clinton. Likewise, President Barack Obama may have won re-election in 2012 thanks to his IRS’ targeting of Tea Party activists.

Democrats used similar terms language quite judiciously after the 2000 election, and apparently in the mind of Secretary of State John Kerry, he lost the 2004 election thanks to voter fraud.

Whether Trump is serious about his rigging claim or not, it’s certainly a valid concern in light his opponent’s e-mail scandals and Clinton Foundation donor questions. Most people would be in jail but Clinton is well on her way to victory in November, helped by Obama himself.

Indeed, according to Obama, on August 4 that Trump’s claims about a “rigged” 2016 election, especially in Pennsylvania, are “ridiculous.”

“If Mr Trump is suggesting a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country … that’s ridiculous,” the president said. “It doesn’t make sense and I don’t think anyone would take that seriously.”

The New York Times apparently agrees, as does a prominent Vanity Fair writer and several other leading voices. They’ve all declared cries of rigged elections to be outside the bounds of decent speech.

But that wasn’t the case when it was convenient for the current resident of the White House. As highlighted in a neat montage by Grabien, the same man who describes rigging of an election to be “ridiculous” once decried advantages given to a special few with regards to income and power in politics. Obama also decried “massive campaign checks,” people being “pushed away from participating in our system,” and more.

Perhaps the greatest example of Obama’s hypocrisy is his attack on the U.S. Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union address. Obama warned that “foreign enemies” might be able to buy domestic influence — ironically some of the same concerns conservatives have today as Saudi Arabia and other nations have contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Six-and-a-half years ago, Obama was concerned about corruption in politics caused by money. Yet today, he considers such concerns to be inappropriate. To quote his former adviser David Axelrod in the Grabien clip, “the delegitimization of our institutions” by Trump is “dangerous.”

But sometimes institutions need to be attacked. Axelrod said “it is a very irresponsible thing to” delegitimize “the investigative justice system,” but what are self-serving candidates and actual patriots supposed to do when the FBI allows Clinton to skate free, possibly right into the White House?

In reality, the solution to concerns by Trump today and 2010’s Obama is the same: Reduce the power of politics and politicians.

As Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) pointed out two years ago, so-called “campaign finance reform” is a big weapon that both parties use to help their allies and to keep themselves in power. And right now, that’s what our system of politics incentivizes — politicians getting re-elected, and corporations, unions, and others using re-election to grease the proverbial skids.

If both parties were serious about really reducing the rigging of power, they would keep the U.S. federal government within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

Once this happens, what incentive is there to buy an election? The politicians cannot help the special interests, and the politicians themselves would find far less value in elected office.

Is the system rigged against the non-rich? Yup. But that’s mostly thanks to bipartisan liberal policies like bank bailouts, auto bailouts, tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, and special interests like the pre-2015 Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

PEACE PRIZE! Hillary Approved Massive Arms Sale to Arab State Only After Clinton Foundation Bribe Donation

Yesterday Judicial Watch released emails showing that a Crown Prince of Bahrain was able to secure a meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundation — after being rejected by official State Department channels. Today, the International Business Times follows up on that report by revealing that the timing of this meeting lined up with a sudden, and large, increase in arms sales to Bahrain. Furthermore, this increase came in spite of Bahrain being engaged in massive human rights abuses and suppression of peaceful civilian protests. Finally, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers destroyed the emails documenting this meeting without turning them over to the State Department. These were among the emails destroyed as allegedly “personal.”

Now, Bahrain is an important regional ally of the United States. The US 5th Fleet, also called NAVCENT as it is the fleet permanently assigned to US Central Command, is based out of Bahrain’s harbors. Bahrain would thus ordinarily enjoy some US military arms sales, as well as occasional access to high level State Department officials. However, in this case the State Department had already turned down the request for a meeting when it came through official channels. So, Crown Prince Salman contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask them to get him a meeting anyway.

And they did.

Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band personally contacted Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman, Huma Abedin, to request that she arrange the meeting in spite of official refusal. Band described Crown Prince Salman as a “Good friend of ours,” and he certainly was that. The Judicial Watch release details that Salman arranged more than thirty million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. From the perspective of the State Department, he was just another Arab prince. From the perspective of the Clinton Foundation, he was a good friend who needed special treatment. He got it. (For more from the author of “PEACE PRIZE! Hillary Approved Massive Arms Sale to Arab State Only After Clinton Foundation Bribe Donation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes

A Chicago restaurant abruptly closed this week, with ownership blaming the “rapidly changing labor market” and a 27 percent increase in base minimum wage costs over the last two years as culprits for the collapse.

Cantina 1910, a farm-to-table Mexican restaurant located in Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood, opened in September 2015.

Former Cantina 1910 employees said they were shocked to find out late Sunday evening of the closing, DNAinfo reported.

“We are unable to further raise prices in this competitive restaurant market in order to sustain the labor costs necessary to operate Cantina 1910,” Mark Robertson and Mike Sullivan, Cantina 1910’s owners, said in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal.

In December 2014, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to raise the city’s minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $13 an hour by 2019. The minimum wage for nontipped employees went up to $10.50 an hour on July 1.

“Unfortunately, the rapidly changing labor market for the hospitality industry has resulted in immediate, substantial increases in payroll expenses that we could not absorb through price increases,” the restaurant’s owners said. “In the last two years, we have seen a 27 percent increase in the base minimum wage, a 60 percent increase in kitchen wages, and a national shortage of skilled culinary workers.”

The owners say they “do not see a path forward” with mandatory paid sick leave and minimum wage set to increase in 2017. They stated:

As we look down the road, we are facing a Dec. 1 change in federal labor regulations that will nearly double required salaries for managers to qualify as exempt, a 2017 mandatory sick leave requirement and another minimum wage increase. Coupled with increasing Chicago and Cook County taxes and fees that disproportionately impact commercial properties and businesses, we are operating in an environment in which we do not see a path forward.

Raising the minimum wage was a “much needed” and “an essential step in making sure that hard work pays off for all of our residents,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat and President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, said in a July 2015 statement.

Employment in the Chicago area’s leisure and hospitality sector sunk to a five-year low, according to government data, after a $1.75 an hour minimum wage hike went into effect in July 2015, Investor’s Business Daily’s Jed Graham wrote this past January.

“The law of demand states that when prices rise, customers buy fewer goods or services,” James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, says. “Cantina 1910’s closing is another demonstration that this economic law applies to businesses too.

“Chicago raised mandatory starting wages in the city, but the restaurant could not afford to stay in business at those prices. So it closed and all its employees lost their jobs. Heritage Foundation analysis finds that if Illinois mandated $15/hour starting wages this would cost over 300,000 jobs statewide.” (For more from the author of “Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Next Steps on the Road to Brexit

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union on June 23 was a milestone in the history of the United Kingdom, and of the defense of British freedom and sovereignty. But it was also just the start of securing Britain’s independence. It is one thing to vote to stand on your own two feet, it is another thing to do it.

Since the vote, Britain has put in place a new government, led by Prime Minister Theresa May, with many prominent leaders of the “leave” campaign—including former London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Defense Secretary Liam Fox—in key positions, with Johnson taking the foreign secretary job.

Fox’s position, as the head of the new ministry for international trade, is particularly significant. Ever since it joined the EU in 1973, Britain hasn’t been able to negotiate its own trade treaties. When Britain leaves the EU, it will recover that right.

It’s vital that Britain rebuild the necessary negotiating expertise, and equally vital that this job be held by an outward-looking and senior figure in the governing Conservative Party, who, like Fox, fully backed Britain’s exit from the EU.

So far, prominent government officials or business leaders in at least 27 nations—including eight of the 10 largest economies in the world—have backed negotiating a trade deal with Britain. And the British economy, far from collapsing in the aftermath of the vote, has seen unemployment fall and sales surge.

But though Britain has voted to leave the EU, it has yet to take the necessary first formal step: to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, and commence formal negotiations on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal. It’s now possible that Article 50 might not be invoked until mid-2017, a worrying delay.

Then, as Britain negotiates, it will need to repeal the British laws that brought Britain into the EU in the first place. Finally, it will have to establish a mechanism to review the entire body of EU law that now operates in Britain. There’s so much of this that Parliament will have to find a way to streamline the process—conducting a line-by-line review would take an eternity.

Then there are a host of vital questions for particular sectors of the economy. The British government has already announced that it will continue to pay farming and scientific subsidies until 2020, but what happens after that is still unclear. Similarly, there is the issue of what should happen to the EU citizens who were legally employed in Britain on June 23, and the reciprocal question about the rights of British subjects who were working on, or who retired to, the Continent.

Beyond all these questions is a final, vital one: What kind of relationship should Britain seek to have with the EU after it leaves? Some Brexit supporters want to stay in the European Economic Area, which would allow Britain to keep its current access to the EU’s single market.

Others, however, point out that being in the European Economic Area means being subject to the EU’s rules, contributing to the EU’s budget, and allowing free movement of labor from the EU. In other words, it means keeping most of the things that British voters rejected on June 23. The alternative, therefore, is for Britain to become completely independent, and to negotiate a trade deal with the EU from outside the economic area.

In short, many uncertainties remain. But believers in free markets and free peoples have been thinking about these problems for years. Indeed, in 2013, the Institute of Economic Affairs, a leading free-market think tank in London, held a competition to find the best plan for Britain after Brexit.

We are delighted to welcome the joint authors of one of the prize-winning essays from the Institute of Economic Affairs’ competition, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rory Broomfield of the Freedom Association and its Better Off Out campaign, to The Heritage Foundation to present an updated edition of their plan, “Cutting the Gordian Knot: A Road Map for British Exit from the European Union,” on Wednesday, Aug. 24, at 1 p.m.

Joining the authors will be Marian L. Tupy, of the Cato Institute, who will comment on the plan, and Victoria Coates, national security adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who will offer Capitol Hill’s perspective on Brexit and the future of Anglo-American relations after June 23.

Please join us on Wednesday for a look, from both British and American perspectives, at the next steps in achieving Britain’s independence from the EU and making Brexit a reality. (For more from the author of “The Next Steps on the Road to Brexit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Abedin Emails Reveal Most Damning Evidence Against Clinton’s State Department Yet

Among the 725 pages of new State Department documents released by Judicial Watch Monday were previously unreleased email exchanges that further expose how Hillary Clinton’s top aides and her State Department engaged in pay-for-play politics with the Clinton Foundation.

The press release from Judicial Watch includes 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges that were not previously turned over to the State Department. The documents reveal that Clinton’s right-hand woman Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the Secretary of State.”

The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”

Examples abound of times Abedin acted as a go-between for Clinton Foundation and the State Department. In one instance she and Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band set up a meeting for the Crown Prince of Bahrain after he was declined a meeting with Clinton via the “normal channels” of the State Department process. Crown Prince Salman had donated between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Another time, Band asked Abedin to secure a visa for members of the Woverhampton (UK) Football Club when one member was having a difficulty because of a “criminal charge.” According to Judicial Watch, “Band was acting at the behest of millionaire Hollywood sports entertainment executive and president of the Wasserman Foundation Casey Wasserman. Wasserman has donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation through the Wasserman Foundation.”

Those are only two of multiple recorded examples of pay-for-play politics found in Judicial Watch’s report.

“These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There needs to be a serious, independent investigation to determine whether Clinton and others broke the law.”

Fitton went live on Facebook Monday afternoon to discuss these revelations and the imminent court-ordered release of 14,900 more previously undisclosed Clinton emails.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated—even under oath—that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents her lawyers turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails, nearly 30,000 total. Judicial Watch claims Abedin’s emails and the soon-to-be-released 14,900 additional emails are “at odds with [Clinton’s] official campaign statement suggesting all ‘work or potentially work-related emails’ were provided to the State Department.”

House Republicans are currently urging the Justice Department to pursue allegations of perjury against Sec. Clinton. Clinton could be convicted of perjury should the DOJ find she intentionally misled Congress under oath.

Even if she evades conviction again, how will the American people respond to these revelations with 78 days until the election? (For more from the author of “New Abedin Emails Reveal Most Damning Evidence Against Clinton’s State Department Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LIE-FEST 2016: Clinton Spokesman Denies Huma Abedin Edited Islamonazi Magazine She Edited

When in doubt, assume your audience is stupid and lie to them. It worked for Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner, the two people closest to Huma. So why not give it a try? That seems to be the reasoning here.

Top Hillary Clinton confidante Huma Abedin played no formal role in a radical Muslim journal — even though she was listed as an editor on the hate-filled periodical’s masthead for a dozen years, a campaign rep claimed Sunday.

“My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said hours after The Post broke the bombshell story. “She did not play a role in editing at the publication.”

Merrill said Abedin was just a figurehead and not actually on staff at the Saudi-based and -funded Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, which featured radically anti-feminist views and backed strict Islamic laws roundly criticized for oppressing women…

…Her brother, who was an associate editor, and a sister, also employed as an assistant editor, are listed as staff members.

Abedin’s Pakistani mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, remains editor-in-chief…

So, despite being listed for a dozen years as an editor, Huma Abedin never actually edited the magazine. So why was her name on there? Did she happen to know that her name was on there?

Is the Journal in the habit of listing people’s names as editors who don’t edit it. And how does someone no one has heard of get a position as a figurehead anyway?

These lies are positively Clintonesque in their clumsiness and implausibility. (For more from the author of “LIE-FEST 2016: Clinton Spokesman Denies Huma Abedin Edited Islamonazi Magazine She Edited” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.