Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn

A multi-state abortion provider boasting a high-end, “spa-like” experience is attempting to de-stigmatize the procedure through a crowd-funded ad campaign in Atlanta.

Carafem has designed its abortion clinic to look like a spa and offers the women who go there to abort their unborn babies “hot tea” and “comfy robes.” They gained national attention last year for an advertising campaign that some suggested “glamorized” abortion.

Carafem opened its first facility in the greater Washington metro area in spring 2015, boasting comfy chairs and hot tea for women seeking abortions.

“It was important for us to try to present an upgraded, almost spa-like feel,” Melissa S. Grant, vice president of health services for the clinic told the Washington Post.

The organization subsequently announced its capital city arrival with brash, hot pink ads saying “Abortion? Yeah, we do that,” on the D.C. metro system. Now, it hopes to bring the same advertising experience to the Peach State.

For its new location, which open in Atlanta this summer, the abortion provider plans to roll out a “Doors Open Atlanta” campaign, proffering abortion, birth control, and other services to women in the same “bold and unapologetic” hot pink motif, according to a Monday press release.

In addition, Carafem is looking for some extra scratch via Crowdsourcing in order to pay for the ads, LifeNews reports.

The abortion business said its ads have been censored three times; but now it wants to raise enough money to try again. Carafem recently launched a fundraising campaign to pay for ads in Atlanta. The ads are hot pink with emoji images and the word “abortion” printed in bold letters.

“As we just opened our doors in Atlanta and need to get the word out, we thought why not try and shake things up by advertising our services in a major conservative newspaper for a year,” the business wrote.

The message Carafem wants its advertising to convey is that abortion is safe, clean, even caring, all the while letting women know where to get abortions in a way that “normalizes and destigmatizes” the procedure.

“We don’t want to talk in hushed tones. We use the A-word.” Carafem President Christopher Purdy said. “It’s fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean, it’s caring. That’s the brand we’re trying to create.”

Pro-Life groups are up in-arms.

The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said “Even people who support abortion rights don’t necessarily see it as something to celebrate. They want to think about [abortion] as a necessary evil.” National Right to Life president, Carol Tobias, added, “Abortion is not pleasant and trying to put pretty wrappings around the procedure isn’t going to make any difference.”

Whether an abortion takes place at a run-down Gosnell-like facility or at a “high-end salon,” abortion always, 100% of the time, kills an unborn child and hurts the family involved.

(For more from the author of “Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Campaign Rocked by Secret Service Agent Book Exposing Clintons’ Dirty Laundry

Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.

I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation. And yes, to me and my family.

I want you to hear my story. It’s about the men and women risking their lives to protect this nation. And more important, it’s about how the Clintons must never again be allowed to put them or you and your children—at risk.”

– Gary Byrne, former secret service agent.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is scrambling as details emerge of a shocking “tell-all” book written by an ex-Secret Service agent, Gary Byrne, who protected the Clintons during the 1990s.

Former secret service agent Gary Byrne was posted outside Bill Clinton’s Oval Office in the 1990s, and has decided that since “the Clintons must never again be allowed to put your children at risk”, to write a tell all book titled “Crisis of Character”, exposing the Clintons’ dirty laundry.

As Drudge Report notes (whose article has shot the book to the top spot of all Amazon book sales), the secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton’s campaign. Specific details of the agent’s confessional are being held under tight embargo, although numerous pages have been disclosed in the promo to the book (see below).

“What I saw in the 1990s sickend me,” Byrne explains. “I want you to hear my story.”

His expose, scheduled to be published on June 26, just weeks before the Democratic primary, is set to rock the Clinton’s campaign and comes as Hillary finds herself within touching distance of securing the Democratic nomination.

Because I was there – in the spotlight, in the crosshairs — I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was.

In the book, Byrne provides a firsthand account of the scandals – known and unknown – and daily trials ranging from the minor to national in scale.

“Having witnessed the personal and political dysfunction of the Clinton White House – so consumed by scandal and destroying their enemies, real and imagined – Byrne came to understand that, to the Clintons, governing was an afterthought.

He now tells this story – before voters go to the polls – in the hopes that Clinton supporters will understand the real Hillary Clinton.

The book titled Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate is set to hit shelves on June 28. The Democratic convention, where Hillary could be confirmed as the nominee, will take place a month later.

I have not written a word of this book with a political agenda. Whether the Clintons were Democrats or Republicans, I saw what I saw; I heard what I heard. Politics do not change unpleasant truths. Politicians only think they do.

Many of the most shocking revelations are being withheld but below are some of the key excerpts released so far:

I witnessed firsthand the Clintons’ personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that governing became an afterthought. The First Couple wasted days obsessing over how to “kill” a forthcoming book (one alleging that Bill Clinton’s mother ran a brothel) or in squashing yet another tabloid revelation. Their machinations and their constant damage control diverted them from the nation’s real business. Good people like Leon Panetta, Betty Currie, and Evelyn Lieberman had to pick up the slack and bear it for as long as they could.

I saw how the Clinton Machine’s appalling leadership style endangered law enforcement officers, the military, and the American people in general. And with Hillary Clinton’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style—volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else hasn’t changed a bit.

…Though portrayed as the long-suffering spouse of an unfaithful husband, whose infidelities I personally observed or knew to be true, the Hillary Clinton I saw was anything but a sympathetic victim. Those loyal to her kept coming back for her volcanic eruptions.

Or when Byrne “disposed of sordid physical evidence” (because the “blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds”) to help keep Bill’s job:

I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation.

And yes, to me and my family. Only under federal subpoena—and later a ruling by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist—did I reveal to Ken Starr’s prosecutors the true story of President Bill Clinton’s false testimony and misstatements.

Or when Hillary gave Bill a black-eye:

One morning in late summer 1995, I entered the White House to assume my post just outside the Oval Office officially Secret Service Post E-6. Things were stirring, and I wanted to know why.

Everyone on post that night, Secret Service agents (SAs), Secret Service Uniformed Division (UD) officers like myself, the houseman, and the ushers couldn’t help but hear the First Couple arguing as sounds from their fracases traveled through the old building. Mrs. Clinton had a booming voice, and their yelling matches easily traversed the living quarters’ private elevator, vents, and staircase. Many housemen eased away, but the SAs and UD couldn’t leave their posts. This was especially a big argument that ended with a crash. SAs were obligated to respond and found its cause, a vase on the other side of the room. A houseman picked up the damage. The First Couple couldn’t just sweep up and toss out the remains because everything in the White House is logged and recorded, befitting its role as a national landmark and a veritable museum.

I peeked into the curator’s small, windowless ground-floor office across from the China Room and the Diplomatic Reception Room. It was cluttered with blueprints and history books on the every detail of the White House: fabrics, furniture, artifacts. Sure enough, there was a box containing a light blue vase smashed to bits. The rumors were true!

“Can I help you?”

The White House’s official curator looked up from what she was reading, clearly annoyed and already tired of people checking out the box. “Can I help you, Officer?” she said again.

“No thanks,” I said.

The president entered around nine. His arrival times fluctuated. I couldn’t believe my eyes: a black eye! I was well accustomed to his allergy-prone, puffy eyes. But this was a shiner, a real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye. I was shocked. Minutes later, I popped into the office of Betty Currie, the president’s personal secretary. Nancy Hernreich, his personal scheduler, was already there.

“What’s the black mark on the president’s face?” I asked.

I felt real tension.

“Oh, uh, he’s allergic to coffee,” said Nancy, turning toward her office.

“An allergy to coffee shows in just one eye?”

Betty smiled. She burrowed down into her work, chuckling, but looking busy. As I departed, I added, “I’m also allergic to the back of someone’s hand.”

I wanted to send a message. We knew what the mark was from, and it wasn’t right. Surely the Clintons must realize how close we are to them, I thought, how deeply we feel about our responsibilities for their safety. Didn’t they feel the same? It wasn’t just that we protected them 24/7, but we were extremely loyal. We didn’t do our job for the paychecks. Each man and woman protecting them had their reasons, but the Clintons were the focal point of every reason.

What might happen if she had sucker-punched him? Or if that vase had hit its target? If his head hit a countertop corner, my entire life’s work would have been for nothing.

Sure, seeing a president’s black eye is strange but standing at my post I couldn’t escape the sinking feeling that this didn’t make sense.

This wasn’t how it was supposed to be. I loved my job and I believed in it, but I couldn’t make sense of any of it.

It was a circus. Yet I never lost a sense of wonder and excite- ment. Even when the First Lady hollered and cursed and demanded firing thousands of people who protected her—and we spent more hours ensuring the Clintons’ protection than we spent with our own families—I loved every minute of most every day. Law enforcement — protecting others — is my passion. Protecting a president is an incredible honor. I low, I kept asking myself, did a kid from Ridley, Pennsylvania, ever get to the White House? I wanted to stay for the rest of my life.

Reality destroyed my dream—in ways I never imagined.

More damning accusations from Byrne:

On 9/11 we vowed “Never forget.” But we always somehow do. And because I was there—in the spotlight, in the crosshairs—I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was. But I haven’t forgotten.

* * *

I remember Monica, sure. But I remember Hillary, too: the shortcuts she took, the methods she employed, the yelling, the screaming, her disdain for “the little people,” Bill’s black eye—the country’s black eye.

You want to know something? I wanted to forget it all myself I needed to forget it all. d had enough of the whole damned mess— the sleepless nights, the Protective Privilege bullshit, the lawyers, C-SPAN… the cuddling up at night with a loaded pistol just in case. Satchel Paige said: “Don’t look back, something might be gaining on you.” I didn’t want to look back. I wanted to move forward, to shut the door on the Clintons and their whole sordid operation.

To never look back.

But there’s another saying: “It ain’t over t ill it’s over,” and now it’s 2016, and Hillary is running for president again. I faced a choice in 1998: Would I keep silent? Or tell the truth about what I knew, what I saw?

I spoke up. I testified truthfully.

Not everybody did. Some people’s memories got really faulty. Maybe you can’t blame them. They got scared. They had mortgages and careers. They had kids.

People who swore an oath to the Constitution and the law, people who pledged to lay down their lives for principle, people who strapped iron on their hips . . . got scared.

And they conveniently forgot things.

Byrne continues to slam a Hillary who would have been “too busy swapping gossip” with Sidney Blumenthal to hold herself accountable:

Character in leadership comes down to two questions: Would you trade places with anyone under your command? Do you hold yourself to the same level of accountability as those for whom you bear responsibility? Would Mrs. Clinton have been willing to trade places with Chris Stevens and Sean Smith?

No. She was too busy swapping gossip and classified information with Clinton loyalist Sidney Blumenthal.

Finally in a crushing afterword, Byrne exclaims:

Over a twenty-nine-year career serving my country in the military and in federal law enforcement, I’ve encountered both heroes and villains.

I’ve observed human character at its greatest heights and lowest depths. In any organization, character is defined at the top; it percolates down to the top executives of an organization, to the middle managers, and to the grunts at the front lines.

Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.

Perhaps this sums up best what America would have to look forward to… “The Clintons treat running the free world like a damn part-time job.” (For more from the author of “Hillary Campaign Rocked by Secret Service Agent Book Exposing Clintons’ Dirty Laundry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is the GOP ‘Whigging’ Out?

With the unbridled enthusiasm of Eeyore, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is attempting to herd angry constitutional conservatives, tea partiers and libertarians back into the Party fold. Good luck with that. It’s been a long time coming, but presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump looks to be the last straw for the Grand Old Party, the one that will likely and finally break the tired pachyderm’s back.

American history tells us that political parties do, on occasion, die. Today’s political drama reminds me of another party that went through a similar crisis more than 150 years ago: the Whigs.

The Whig Party was formed by Henry Clay, partly in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. The Whigs objected to Jackson’s abuses of presidential power and even called him “King Andrew”. The charge sounds kind of like today’s tea party Republicans railing against President Obama’s use of executive orders to go around Congress. And like modern Republicans, the Whigs were demonized by their opponents for supposedly supporting the interests of big business and the wealthy.

The Whigs weren’t a fringe party. They elected four presidents, and won nearly half of all gubernatorial elections in the 1840s. But it didn’t take long for internal disagreements on the issue of slavery to begin to tear the party apart. The Compromise of 1850, which addressed the expansion of slavery into new territories, infuriated abolitionist Whigs so much so that they managed to block President Millard Fillmore from getting his own party’s nomination for reelection. The split handed the presidency to Democrat Franklin Pierce.

Just four years later, the party had virtually disappeared. Some of the displaced Whigs joined the southern Democratic Party, which at the time supported slavery and states’ rights. In the north, most flocked to the fledgling Republican Party that would ultimately elect Abraham Lincoln. A few joined the short-lived American Party, but never gained any electoral success. Going from having a president in office to being virtually extinct in four years is hard to imagine, but that’s what can happen when a governing coalition so dramatically fractures.

Today, it seems like a similar thing is happening with Republicans. What, exactly, does the GOP stand for? Since Ronald Reagan, Republican rhetoric has defended free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits on government power. But the growing gap between Republican political rhetoric and their actual performance in office seems to have finally fractured that voting coalition. Should Republicanism be about limited government, and economic and personal liberty? Or will Donald Trump’s splenetic populism, the kind that embraces protectionism and the aggressive use of executive branch interventions into market decisions, represent a new political coalition?

There are a lot of reasons why the two major political parties are losing their ability to control the behavior of voters. Technology and social media have given voice to the real diversity of citizens’ opinions and preferences. Those differences were always there, but now the individual’s power to be different can more closely compete with the powerful tools available to party bosses. That means new political realignments can now happen at lightning speed.

This same dynamic has been roiling the Democratic Party as well, where 90’s relic Hillary Clinton continues to struggle against Bernie Sanders’ own brand of splenetic (socialist) populism. But the Democrats have always been better apparatchiks, falling into line behind the party’s nominee. Will they coalesce in 2016 against Donald Trump?

Liberty voters, the ones that once made up the core of the Grand Old Party, are now politically homeless. Will they migrate to the Libertarian Party, or will a new political platform for constitutional conservatism emerge?

Meanwhile, the Republicans whig out. As Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican President, once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” (For more from the author of “Is the GOP ‘Whigging’ Out?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

StemExpress Sold Baby Body Parts for 4 to 6 Times Cost, House Probe Alleges

Republicans on a special House panel investigating the market for fetal tissue released new documents that they said show the procurement company StemExpress marked up the price for body parts, organs, and other tissue from aborted babies 400 to 600 percent when selling the samples to researchers.

One example of such markups of four to six times cost is seven brains sold by StemExpress to Yale University School of Medicine for $715 each, according to the documents.

The documents also appear to show that three abortion clinics, including two Planned Parenthood affiliates, illegally granted StemExpress access to personally identifiable information protected under federal privacy law.

And, the documents suggest, the clinics used invalid patient consent forms to obtain permission to harvest body parts from aborted babies.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., chairman of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, sent two letters Wednesday to the Department of Health and Human Services requesting a “swift and full investigation” into “systemic” violations.

“There’s a business contract between StemExpress and the abortion clinics under which both sides make a profit from the baby body parts inside the young woman’s womb,” Blackburn said in a prepared statement, adding:

The contract changes the way both entities view the young woman: Her baby is now a profit center. This betrayal of a young woman’s trust should disgust us all. It takes financial advantage, obtains consent through coercion, and deceives the woman, all in violation of federal privacy laws.

StemExpress told The Daily Signal that Blackburn is making “continued unfounded accusations.”

Specifically, Blackburn says documents obtained through the panel’s investigation show StemExpress and several abortion clinics violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and federal regulations governing research involving human subjects.

HIPPA is a federal law that gives patients the right to determine where and when their private medical information is disclosed. This includes personally identifiable information such as name, age, and Social Security number, along with any present, future, or past health data.

In her letters, addressed to two officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, Blackburn said several abortion clinics provided StemExpress—which is not covered by HIPPA—with personally identifiable information so that StemExpress could fulfill orders from researchers for tissue from aborted babies.

HIPPA covers abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood, Blackburn notes.

‘Unfounded Accusations’

In a statement to The Daily Signal, a spokesman for StemExpress said the tissue procurement company is “confident there has been no violation of law and appropriate consents were made for every fetal tissue donation,” adding:

We welcome the opportunity to answer any questions from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any other agency related to Representative Blackburn’s continued unfounded accusations. StemExpress will continue to support lifesaving research.

The three abortion clinics named in the investigation are all in California: Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in San Jose, Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific in Concord (currently known as Planned Parenthood of Northern California), and Family Planning Specialists Medical Group in Oakland.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the organizations, which did not respond to phone calls before publication of this article.

Blackburn’s letters, first reported by Fox News, ask the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate potential violations of HIPAA and federal regulations pertaining to the fetal tissue market. The letters are addressed to Jocelyn Samuels, director of the Office of Civil Rights, and Jerry Menikoff, director of the Office for Human Research Protections.

In her letters, Blackburn said the Department of Health and Human Services maintains the right to impose civil money penalties on covered entities, such as Planned Parenthood, that fail to comply with the privacy rule.

In addition, Blackburn wrote, “both a covered entity that discloses, and any person who knowingly obtains, [protected health information] in violation of [HIPAA] can face criminal fines or imprisonment.”

Brain Bonuses

Evidence of the House panel’s allegations included StemExpress documents that feature compensation rates for tissue and blood procurement. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, StemExpress paid procurement technicians $10 per hour, plus what the company calls a tissue or blood bonus ranging anywhere from $10 to $75 per specimen.

“StemExpress paid the abortion clinic for each fetal tissue and each blood sample and then marked up the tissue four to six hundred percent for sale to the researcher,” Blackburn wrote.

In one case, in January 2012, StemExpress billed $5,175 to Yale University School of Medicine for seven brains priced at $715 each. The total included two charges of $85 for Fedex priority overnight shipping.

The $715 price per brain, Blackburn’s letter implies, would include the markup of 400 to 600 percent.

According to the StemExpress compensation policy, procurement technicians get a $35 bonus for procuring anywhere from one to 10 fetal brains in addition to their $10 hourly rate.

While transportation costs were included in the documents released by Blackburn’s panel, investigators are seeking to obtain accounting records from StemExpress to further clarify the price discrepancy between the procurement technician’s compensation rates and the total amount billed to research institutions such as Yale.

The Daily Signal sought comment from Yale via email, but has not received a response.

What Is Legal

The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 prohibits any person or organization from profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. However, it is legal to provide payment and accept payment to cover reasonable costs for “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

Lawmakers and pro-life activists raised questions about whether abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies such as StemExpress profit from transactions involving organs, body parts, and other tissue from aborted babies after the Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos last year.

The hidden-camera videos, produced by the center’s David Daleiden, showed officials at Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the buying and selling of baby body parts and other tissue, raising questions about whether abortion clinics and middlemen companies are profiting off these transactions.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America consistently has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared in multiple state investigations so far. In October, after facing questions about its tissue donation practices, Planned Parenthood announced it no longer would accept any reimbursement. (For more from the author of “StemExpress Sold Baby Body Parts for 4 to 6 Times Cost, House Probe Alleges” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Scrambling to Release as Many Guantanamo Prisoners as Possible

The Obama administration is running out of time and options to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, so officials are scrambling to release as many prisoners as possible and considering novel legal strategies that include allowing some men to strike plea deals by video-teleconference and sending others to foreign countries to be prosecuted.

But it looks to be little, too late to close the prison before President Barack Obama leaves office in January, denying him the chance to fulfill a campaign pledge.

There’s the difficulty in transferring prisoners from the U.S. base in Cuba, questions about the legality of plea deals and solid opposition in Congress to anything that might help Obama achieve that promise.

“The clock has struck midnight and the American people have won,” said Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who has said he would oppose any effort to move detainees to prison facilities in his state. “The president needs to admit that.”

Later this month, lawmakers are on track to extend a ban on moving detainees to U.S. soil. That would leave the president with no way to make the January 2017 deadline, barring an unexpected reversal in Congress or a politically explosive executive order. (Read more from “Obama Administration Scrambling to Release as Many Guantanamo Prisoners as Possible” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

IRS Finally Reveals List of Tea Party Groups Targeted for Extra Scrutiny

More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.

The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.

But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.

The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.

That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays. (Read more from “IRS Finally Reveals List of Tea Party Groups Targeted for Extra Scrutiny” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation’s Donations From Foreign Government

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) slammed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday.

Sanders was critical of the the foundation’s getting money from foreign governments, specifically Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation has come under criticism in the past for taking donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.

Host Jake Tapper asked Sanders, who has previously held his tongue about the Clinton Foundation, how he felt about it taking money from foreign governments which don’t respect American values while Clinton was at the State Department.

“You have not been critical of the Clinton Foundation but there are those who say that there’s something inherently wrong with an American charity, especially one with ties to a secretary of state, taking money from the Saudis and other foreign governments that don’t represent our values. Is that a fair criticism?” Tapper asked.

“Yes, it is,” Sanders said. “If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships, you don’t have a lot of civil liberties or democratic rights in Saudi Arabia. (Read more from “Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation’s Donations From Foreign Government” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bulgarian Civilian Vigilante Groups Hunting Migrants

By Chris Tomlinson. Civilians in Bulgaria have taken to hunting down migrants and handing them to police on so-called “healthy walks.”

A group of men in Bulgaria roam the countryside helping plant trees, participating in torch light parades on national holidays and tracking down illegal migrants to turn into the Bulgarian authorities. The group call themselves the “organization for the protection of Bulgarian citizens,” and were founded by Hristo Atanasov, a cook and self described patriot, Die Welt reports.

Atanasov leads the group who go out on weekends donning military fatigues to go on what they call “healthy walks” through the nearby beaches and mountains close to his home in the coastal town of Burgas. Atanasov claims that the group likes to go to the area because of the natural beauty but also because it is a major hotspot for migrants who have come across the border from neighbouring Turkey.

The self styled patriot describes the process saying that the group often spots the people smugglers first, “they run 200 to 300 metres ahead to see if the coast is clear,” he said. If the migrants see him and his men they often run away, “they think we are the police,” Atanasov remarked. (Read more from “Bulgarian Civilian Vigilante Groups Hunting Migrants” HERE)

____________________________________

Muslim Immigrant Attacks Flag-Waving American Family

By Leo Hohmann. A family in Lawrenceville, a suburb of Atlanta, said they were attacked by an unknown Muslim woman wearing a full burqa simply because they were flying an American flag for Memorial Day.

Amina Ahra, 30, was arrested on two counts of simple battery after being accused of attacking a mother and daughter at their home, reported Fox 5 News in Atlanta.

Dami Arno told police she was in the garage talking with her daughter when Ahra emerged from the woods wearing a burqa, grabbed the flag from off the mailbox and charged at them.

She told Fox 5 she still can’t believe it all happened on American soil.

The alleged attacker told police she is “from Africa,” but would give them no other information about her identity, not even a local address. (Read more from “Muslim Immigrant Attacks Flag-Waving American Family” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HS Track Athlete Was Born Male but Identifies as Female — and and Turns in Quite the Run at Alaska State Championships

Nattaphon “Ice” Wangyot, who was born male but identifies as female, recently became the first transgender athlete to compete individually for a high school state championship, the Alaska Dispatch News reported.

Wangyot, an 18-year-old senior at Haines High School, qualified and competed in the Class 3A girls’ sprints at the Alaska state meet, taking home third place in the 200-meter dash (27.3 seconds) and fifth in the 100 (13.36 seconds). Wangyot also played for the girls volleyball and basketball teams this past year, USA Today High School Sports said.

Wangyot’s participation didn’t come without controversy, as Alaska Family Action president Jim Minnery and supporters protested outside the event last Friday:

“We are here today as a voice from the community to ensure that female athletes are not denied the playing opportunities and scholarships otherwise available to them and to make the playing field even again,” Minnery said, according to the Dispatch News. “… Allowing students to play on teams of the opposite sex disproportionately impacts female students who will lose spots on track, soccer and volleyball teams to male students who identify as female.”

Fairbanks Hutchinson junior Saskia Harrison turned in a time of 14.11 seconds in the 100-meter dash, which wasn’t fast enough to make the cut — and she wasn’t particularly thrilled that Wangyot advanced. (Read more from “HS Track Athlete Was Born Male but Identifies as Female — and and Turns in Quite the Run at Alaska State Championships” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How a New Hampshire Law Will Protect Private Property From Government Seizure

The New Hampshire Legislature adopted a significant bill to protect private property on Thursday, which will reform the practice of civil asset forfeiture in the state.

The sudden move comes after a lengthy debate that nearly saw SB 522 stripped of one of its most important provisions: the elimination of the financial incentive to seize property. But lawmakers reached a deal that preserved that critical measure, and now the bill is on its way to the desk of Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, who has indicated she is likely to sign it.

Civil asset forfeiture laws allow for the seizure of property and currency suspected of involvement in a criminal act. These laws were initially ramped up in the 1980s for the narrow purpose of targeting the property and ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and criminal organizations. But in the decades since, the reach and use of forfeiture have exploded, driven in large part by deficient due process protections for property owners and a powerful financial incentive that returns forfeiture proceeds to the original seizing agency. The result: law enforcement authorities can, and do, self-finance through the forcible seizure of property.

Reforms cannot come soon enough to the Granite State, where prosecutors need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that property is tied to crime to permanently strip citizens of their cash and property. What’s more, current law requires innocent property owners to prove they did not use their property to commit a crime, or consent to its use. Once property or cash is forfeited, 45 percent of its value is returned to the seizing agency.

SB 522 would make some dramatic changes to forfeiture law in New Hampshire, including:

Requiring a criminal conviction before property may be forfeited. If Hassan signs the bill into law, New Hampshire would be the 11th state with such a requirement. There are reasonable exceptions, however, for instances when a conviction “is not possible due to the person’s death, incompetence, unavailability” or “cannot be identified.”

Shifting the burden of proof from innocent owners to the state, which must prove that a property owner “was a consenting party to the crime.”

Raising the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence
, a much higher standard that represents a middle ground between the existing and too-low “preponderance of the evidence” standard and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required in all criminal cases. Many states have lately chosen to heighten the evidentiary standards in forfeiture proceedings to “clear and convincing,” and a bill recently proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives would do the same for federal forfeiture.

Returning all forfeiture proceeds to the general fund, eliminating the financial incentive to seize property under state forfeiture law.

Unfortunately, while the state law incentive to seize property has been eliminated, an alternative route to lucrative forfeiture proceeds remains intact.

Thanks to federal “equitable sharing” programs administered by the Justice and Treasury departments, property seized by state and local law enforcement agencies can be transferred to federal officials for forfeiture under federal law. The original seizing agency may then expect to receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds, which must be spent by that agency for “law enforcement purposes.” State and local legislators have no say in how these funds are spent.

By all appearances, New Hampshire law enforcement agencies have taken full advantage of this “loophole,” receiving more than $17 million in equitable sharing revenues since 2000. Since 1999, state agencies have only generated $1.15 million via state law forfeitures. Why the tremendous disparity? The equitable sharing program promises a greater payout than state law—an 80 percent return versus the 45 percent return under current law—and state agencies in New Hampshire are likely simply following the money.

Other states, such as New Mexico, Nebraska, and Maryland, have restricted the ability of their law enforcement agencies to transfer property for federal forfeiture or receive the resulting payments. New Hampshire would be wise to follow that lead; until it does, the impact of SB 522 is likely to be seriously blunted by law enforcement agencies that have every incentive to circumvent the new law, and little compunction about doing so.

Reforms like those in SB 522 will make it far more difficult to seize property from innocent people. New Hampshire has taken a solid first step toward restoring forfeiture to its original and laudable goal: targeting the ill-gotten gains of criminals. (For more from the author of “How a New Hampshire Law Will Protect Private Property From Government Seizure” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.