Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies across the country have rescued 82 girls and arrested 239 alleged pimps and traffickers as part a cross-agency effort to crack down on sex traffickers. An international effort rescued 41 children in Canada, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines.

It is the 10th annual operation by Operation Cross Country, which began expanding internationally this past year with the launch of a Canadian branch, Northern Spotlight.

“Operation Cross Country aims to shine a spotlight into the darkest corners of our society that seek to prey on the most vulnerable of our population,” said FBI Director James Comey in a press release issued by the FBI. “As part of this effort, we are not only looking to root out those who engage in the trafficking of minors, but through our Office for Victim Assistance, we offer a lifeline to minors to help them escape from a virtual prison no person ever deserves.”

The release outlines the scope of the operation, which the FBI says “has yielded more than 6,000 child identifications and locations,”

Operation Cross Country X is the largest ever in the history of the initiative, with 55 FBI field offices and 74 Child Exploitation Task Forces representing more than 400 law enforcement organizations taking part in the operation. In addition, several dozen operations across Canada, and approximately 10 operations took place in six cities across Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines.

A FBI spokesperson told The Stream that because Operation Cross Country is focused on rescuing children from trafficking, the agency did not have a readily available number as to how many adults were rescued during the stings.

State By State

Here is a non-exhaustive list of how many people were rescued and/or arrested in several states and cities:

According to The Spokesman-Review, Operation Cross Country saved 67 women and five girls from sex trafficking in Washington State. Fourteen people were arrested.

In Kansas, 26 people were arrested and five minors were rescued. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw “nearly 70 people” arrested on trafficking-related charges, and 15 were arrested in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area.

Nine children were rescued in Colorado and Wyoming. Nine pimps and 32 “customers” were arrested, according to The Denver Post. Dozens of people were arrested and several minors rescued in Florida, and in Mississippi, almost 30 people were arrested.

The Houston, Texas, area saw three minors rescued and “three traffickers and their associates” arrested, according to Fox4 in Beaumont, Texas. The outlet reported that one teenager “was … reunited with her family.”

Complexity in Helping Rescued Girls and Women

Shared Hope International seeks to end sex trafficking. Senior Director Samantha Vardaman told The Stream that “In the U.S., girls who are recovered from a sex trafficking situation might receive services depending on which state they are in, how they are recovered (e.g., through [law enforcement] arrest vs. child protective services), and whether they cooperate in some cases.”

“Shared Hope is working to correct the inconsistencies and develop more integrated systems of services across the nation through our JuST Response project,” said Vardaman.

Vardaman also addressed a common problem in sex trafficking, where girls and women manipulated or forced into becoming part of a trafficker’s recruitment team. This can end with a trafficked woman being listed as a sex offender or some other type of law violator.

“In the U.S., the largest problem for survivors is the criminal record many of them have after having been trafficked. Nearly all adult women are arrested at some point, and far too many minors still are arrested. In fact, it is still legal in 31 states in the nation to arrest a minor for prostitution,” she explained.

“This is in direct contradiction to the federal law and often in contradiction with their own state laws! Any child used in a commercial sex act is a victim of sex trafficking,” she explained. “Advocates have pressed FBI to institute a meaningful screening mechanism when encountering adult women to determine if they are, in fact, sex trafficking victims or were minors when they first were exploited in prostitution.” (For more from the author of “Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many years ago, while participating in an Operation Rescue sit-in at an abortion clinic near Washington, D.C., I was struck by the make-up of the pro-abortion protesters. They were largely a mix of atheists, Satanists and gays, and they proudly identified as such. What a coalition!

I remember asking myself, “Why would homosexuals be so adamant about this — adamant enough to show up early in the morning to protest our event — when, for the most part, it’s not relevant to their lives, since they’re not having babies?”

To this day, colleagues of mine who share the gospel outside abortion clinics and offer pro-life alternatives are accosted by this same unholy coalition, often led by aggressive LGBT protesters. Why?

Just this week, after I posted some pro-life tweets in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, the two men who immediately challenged my views were a gay pastor and a Satanist.

Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

I had tweeted, “I urge every Hillary supporter to take time to study late term abortion. She aggressively supports this barbarism. Don’t be partner to it.”

The gay pastor argued that, while not being pro-abortion himself, late-term abortions were only done for the life and health of the mother.

The problem with that, of course, is twofold; First, it does not reduce the barbarity of the procedure; second, “the life and health of the mother” can be twisted to mean almost anything, allowing late-term abortions for things like alleged “mental duress.”

So, this gay pastor’s defense of this horrific procedure was baseless. But it was not surprising, given the moral compromise he already lives in as a practicing homosexual who pastors a “gay-affirming” church.

In similar fashion, Harry Knox, a prominent gay activist, moved from leading the religion branch of the Human Rights Campaign to heading up the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice. No surprise!

As for the Satanist, he was more direct in his tweets, using mild profanity in attacking me before affirming a woman’s right to choose. This too was no surprise.

Now, I’m fully aware that many women agonize over their decisions to abort and that some of the decisions are gut wrenching and heartbreaking, perhaps even more so with late-term abortions.

Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by a demented pro-life activist, actually performed baptisms on some of the aborted babies, dressing them up and joining together with the families in what must surely have been one of the most perverted and macabre religious scenes imaginable. He even gave the babies funerals.

Kill the baby, baptize the baby, bury the baby. How sick!

But this leads me back to the question of why, undoubtedly, the vast majority of Satanists, atheists and gays are pro-abortion.

I’m sure that there are, in fact, pro-life atheists and gays, although they must be a small minority in their communities. And I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any?) pro-life Satanists.

So, the question again is: Why?

The Anti-Life

I believe the answer is primarily twofold: First, these people reject biblical morality; second, these people reject the God of life.

As for the first point, it’s obvious that most of these pro-abortionists would not be moved by a scriptural presentation of the pro-life position. It would either be rejected with scorn, as in, “Who cares what your dumb book says?” Or, in the case of those who profess some kind of biblical faith (like the aforementioned gay pastor), it would be met with a reinterpretation of the clear biblical witness, just as other passages must be reinterpreted in order to justify the sinful practices in their lives.

As for the second point, just ask yourself, on average, who has bigger families, Bible-affirming Christians (and Jews who affirm the Hebrew Scriptures), or atheists, Satanists and gays? Who puts more emphasis on babies and children? Who opposes euthanasia more vigorously?

You see, the battle over abortion is not merely a social and political battle. It is also a spiritual battle, which is why I will flatly and unashamedly rebuke professing Christians — especially fellow-leaders — who are strongly “pro-choice.” In reality, they are anti-life.

By all means, let us address holistically the many problems surrounding abortion — including problems of poverty, education, childcare, adoption, family structure, sexual abuse and more — and let us truly be pro-life, from conception until old age and death.

But let us not join together with the forces of darkness that promote abortion on demand until the last day of pregnancy. To do so is to join forces with a coalition from hell. And you can quote me on that. (For more from the author of “Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Only minutes into Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace broached one of the most controversial issues splitting Republicans and Democrats: abortion — and specifically, partial-birth abortion. While Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton quickly dismissed Republican nominee Donald Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion as “scare rhetoric,” the facts are against her.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Where do Trump and Clinton Stand?

After asking each candidate their stance on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationally in 1973, Wallace turned to Clinton. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late term partial birth abortions. Why?”

Clinton’s answer was couched with claims that the government shouldn’t make such “personal” decisions for mothers. She also said that Roe v. Wade allows regulations on partial-birth abortion, though she admitted to opposing a ban on the practice as a senator. Here’s her full answer:

Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

Trump responded that he thinks the practice of partial-birth abortions is “terrible.”

If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Clinton and Supporters Deny Realities of Partial-Birth Abortion

Clinton immediately attempted to discount Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion. “Well that is not what happens in these cases,” She said. “And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.”

Viewers’ reactions on Twitter reveal that many people bought Clinton’s “scare rhetoric” narrative, believing was Trump was either lying or grossly misinformed when saying that abortions could still take place at nine months.

The social media-driven news outlet @nowthisnews tweeted, “No, Trump, you can’t rip the baby out of the womb.’” User @LoriSums alleged that “No one is taking full-term babies out of womb and sacrificing them.”

Others on Twitter like @shondarimes and @JillFilipovic claimed that Trump had “accidentally” described a C-section.

These people who are denying the reality of partial-birth abortion are either misinformed themselves or actively trying hide the reality.

Abortion Doctor Describes Partial-Birth Abortions

Inconveniently for them, a Dr. Amna Dermish of Texas, an abortion provider, was caught on tape almost exactly one year ago describing the process of pulling a baby out of the womb and harvesting its organs up to 22 weeks into the pregnancy — and her clinic only stops there “because of the ban” Texas has in place. The process she describes is identical to partial-birth abortion.

Here’s what she said to the investigator from the Center for Medical Progress, who posed as an organ buyer. The video itself is below.

Dermish assures the potential organ buyer, “My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact.” She uses laminaria sticks to slowly dilate the cervix and prompt labor.

Then, in an uncut sequence, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Dermish walks the organ buyer through the method she uses for infants older than 18 weeks.

She uses ultrasound guidance to convert a second-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation.

“With a further gestation, I will sometimes do that [deliver breech] if it’s a cephalic [head-first] presentation, just cause it’s easier to get … convert to breech, grab the spine.”

This is a textbook description of partial-birth abortion, which is illegal. The baby is alive and mostly outside of the mother’s body when it is killed.

For an even more detailed and medically verified explanation of this exact procedure, click here. As a side note, the “20-weekers” that Dermish describes aborting in the video below — the “specimens” that are more difficult to keep “intact” — are capable of feeling pain even more acutely than adults.

Democrats’ Extreme Positions on Abortion

Here are a few other facts Clinton supporters should look into before denying the reality of nine-month or partial-birth abortions, courtesy of The Federalist on Thursday:

The Democratic Party is on record as supporting abortions up to nine months

The Democratic Party has fought to protect the right to have an abortion based on gender, race and disability discrimination

Though partial-birth abortion is currently illegal, Democrats have previously advocated for its legalization.

So, it is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who are incorrect on the facts. To summarize:

Yes, you can rip a baby out of the womb. At the time of the undercover video above, Dermish said her Austin, Texas clinic alone did it 25 times a day. No, dismembering a baby with a sopher clamp as its heart beats inside the womb is not the same as a C-section. Yes, abortion up to nine months is federally legal because of Roe v. Wade. And yes, partial-birth abortions are real. They are technically illegal. And they happen — not as rarely as Democrats would like us to believe. (For more from the author of “Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?

/1 Comment/in , /by

Americans are still recovering from the whiplash of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric concerning women during the final presidential debate Wednesday evening.

Clinton’s anti-women, anti-family politics were on full display during the final pre-election showdown, masquerading before millions of viewers as “women’s empowerment” and “feminism.” But in the end, instead of brandishing her womanly strength, the Democratic nominee abandoned her campaign slogan, “Stronger Together,” and whipped out her woman card.

Prior to the event, Clinton tweeted this inspiring statement to her supporters:

Her message was clear: Women need to stand up to men like Donald Trump and show them that they won’t be pushed around.

But as with all things “progressive,” over the course of the evening, Clinton laid out her case for female victimhood instead. Her long list of grievances included the fact that states are restricting women’s “right” to an abortion by defunding Planned Parenthood, and the fact that the so-called wage gap is a roadblock in the fight for women’s equality.

And of course, she addressed Trump’s lewd comments about groping women:

“Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like.”

Donald Trump’s poor track record with women shouldn’t be ignored or diminished. But while Trump absolutely does belittle women (and everyone, for that matter), Hillary belittles women as well — but in a much deeper sense. Laying aside the fact that she has received millions from countries that do actively persecute women, the way she undermines women’s dignity is far subtler, and far more dangerous.

Hillary capitalizes on the emotions of American voters in order to convince them of their ultimate dependency on Big Government. Her vision for America is beyond belittling — it’s a direct assault on the dignity of women and all people.

Everything about Clinton’s rhetoric Wednesday said that women need to be rescued from men like Trump. And though they are “strong,” their strength is ultimately dependent on Big Government handouts and Planned Parenthood.

So, do women need to be empowered, or are they already powerful?

Why should women be forced to pay for other women’s abortions? Why should they be forced to welcome in millions of migrants who hail from countries where actual abuse of women is the norm? (We see the consequences, on a regular basis, throughout Europe.)

That seems like a hefty price to pay for “empowerment.”

If there’s one thing the former secretary of state has shown the American people during this election season, it’s that she hates accountability. But anyone who truly supports women should hold her accountable for victimizing women, patronizing them, and yes, bullying them into compliance. Trump may be an unapologetic bully, but Clinton is a sneaky, hypocritical bully with a much more damaging message. (For more from the author of “Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge has stopped President Obama’s policy forcing public schools to allow boys in the girls’ locker room.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the Obama administration’s request to lift an injunction against enforcement of the transgender bathroom policy put forth by the Department of Education.

In response to 13 state attorney generals, Judge O’Connor issued the nationwide injunction in August. The Justice Department requested the injunction at least be limited to the 13 objecting states, but O’Connor ruled late Tuesday against the Obama administration.

“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy,” O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled. “A geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”

The Justice Department vowed to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans if it did not prevail. (Read more from “Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment’

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a wide-ranging interview with Texas Observer, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards says that her “proudest moment” at America’s largest abortion company was when she found out the federal government’s birth control and abortifacient mandate was about to become federal policy. Asked by the liberal magazine to name her proudest moment, she answered:

Definitely the day President Obama called to say he was about to announce that birth control would be covered for all women under their insurance plans, because it had been a hard-fought battle, long before I came to Planned Parenthood. We were fighting to make sure that insurance companies covered it and pharmacies would fill prescriptions. The fact that now, I believe, for your generation, all women will be able to get it without a fight, and they’ll be able to get the best birth control, is an enormously important moment. It was a win for the movement.

Elsewhere in the interview, Richards said that her movement is “fighting these issues in the Supreme Court for some employers who are completely unwilling to allow their employees to get access to birth control….” After the establishment of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services created a “contraceptive mandate” requiring almost every organization to include contraception coverage in its insurance plan. Religious groups were not given an exception, and the administration vigorously fought in the courts to force religious groups to comply.

The Mandate Against Religious Groups

The mandate’s backers have said it is an important way for women to gain access to contraceptive measures. Though Richards doesn’t say so, almost all these groups are Christian ministries or businesses, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, Franciscan and Oklahoma Wesleyan universities, the Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh and the Hobby Lobby business. Most have sued the Obama administration, saying they have no intention of preventing women from accessing birth control. They argue they simply do not wish to participate in insuring their employees’ use of birth control and abortifacients.

Many of the contraceptives that are required to be insured also double as abortion-inducing drugs and devices — products that end the life of unborn children. This is one reason mandate supporters and opponents, as many who back the mandate claim that human life is not created until after implantation in the womb. Catholic organizations object to contraception of any sort, in keeping with Catholic teaching.

The mandate has faced legal difficulties since it was first announced in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the mandate partially unconstitutional in its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, and earlier this year ordered lower courts to reconsider how the mandate could be worked without requiring religious non-profits with moral objections to cover the products.

The face of the mandate’s non-profit opponents is the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that provides care to the elderly poor. Represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nuns have received enormous support from Members of Congress, including two Democrats. In an exclusive interview earlier this year,a spokesperson for the order told The Stream that the Obama administration has admitted women can easily access contraceptives and abortifacients without involving the nuns, priests and others opposed to the mandate. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

University Threatens to ‘Silence’ Professor Protesting Genderless Pronouns

/0 Comments/in , /by

A psychology professor at the University of Toronto who is protesting a law that would force him to use certain pronouns for transgender and other gender nonconforming individuals says the school is trying to “silence” him.

“The university, yesterday, basically told me to silence myself,” Jordan Peterson told The Daily Signal. “That’s the second warning letter.”

Peterson has been a vocal opponent of a measure before Canada’s Parliament known as C-16, which would amend the nation’s human rights and criminal codes to make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity and gender expression.

If passed, failure to refer to a person by the preferred pronoun or refusing to hire someone based on gender identity could qualify as discrimination and be punishable by law.

In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Peterson said he has no problem with addressing people “as whatever gender they appear to be presenting themselves as.”

Peterson, a clinical psychologist, is a tenured professor.

“If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be called ‘she,’ I don’t give a damn,” he said. “If someone’s going through a fair bit of work to manifest themselves as a female or manifest themselves as a male, I’m not going to make an issue of it.”

What Peterson takes issue with, however, is the Canadian government potentially forcing him to speak in a manner that reflects a particular ideology, such as using the genderless pronouns “zie” or “hir.”

“The law should be very careful when it mandates what people have to say,” Peterson said, adding:

That’s the fundamental issue here. The mistake of this legislation is, it’s an attempt to force people to utter certain words that are not of their choosing. There’s a big difference between being required to not say something, and being required to say something. It’s a different category of law. One is closing your mouth. The other one is putting a hand inside you and forcing you to be a puppet.

As part of his opposition to C-16, which currently is in committee, Peterson got involved in free speech rallies, published a video series online, and wrote articles explaining his stance.

Some students and other members of the University of Toronto community took immediate offense to Peterson’s remarks, telling school leaders they found his comments “unacceptable, emotionally disturbing, and painful.”

Some fear for their safety because of his perspective, two university officials said in a letter to Peterson. David Cameron, dean of the Faculty of Arts & Science, and Sioban Nelson, vice-provost for faculty and academic life, wrote:

Some members of the university community report that the statements and the invective that has followed in the ensuing commentary and debates on social media have caused them to fear for their safety on the university campus.

The university first warned Peterson to stop making “discriminatory” remarks in an Oct. 3 letter from Susanne Ferber, chairwoman of the Department of Psychology, who wrote:

Concerns have been raised by members of the University of Toronto community regarding statements you have made publicly regarding transgendered persons in a recent YouTube presentation. I wish to remind you that in your activities as a University of Toronto faculty member you are expected to comply with applicable human rights law.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the University of Toronto, but did not receive a response by deadline.

The letter signed by Cameron and Nelson, dated Oct. 18, informs Peterson:

The impact of your behavior runs the risk of undermining your ability to conduct essential components of your job as a faculty member and we urge you to consider your obligations as a faculty member to act in a manner that is consistent with the law and with university policy.

Peterson’s tenure status provides “some protection” from being fired, he said, “but the limits of that can always be tested.”

The university officials object to what they call Peterson’s “discriminatory intentions”—that, as a matter of principle, he has said he’d refuse to comply with rules or laws dictating pronoun usage.

“You should also be aware that many members of the university community are concerned and distressed about the declarations of your discriminatory intentions,” Cameron and Nelson write.

The letter also cites the Ontario Human Rights Code, which already bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression. The university is located in Toronto, the capital of Ontario.

“Depending on the context, if personal pronouns are being used, the refusal by a teacher or colleague to use the personal pronoun that is an expression of the person’s gender identity can constitute discrimination,” they add.

Peterson said he doesn’t intend to stop speaking out on the issue, and warned that political correctness is spiraling out of control, particularly in the U.S.

“This has also happened in New York City, where you can be fined $250,000 for misgendering someone,” he said.

Under the New York City policy, landlords, employers, and businesses face civil penalties up to $125,000 per violation and up to $250,000 “for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

Peterson said he was discouraged by the thought of losing his job, and possibly losing his license to practice psychology. He said the situation has been hard for his family to bear.

On principle, however, Peterson told The Daily Signal he refuses to be silenced, and knows that as a result, he stands a real chance of losing his job and livelihood:

I think the university will send me a third warning letter, because I think they’re getting the documentation in order, and then I think there’s a reasonable probability that they’ll take action against me. And I think there’s a nontrivial possibility that I’ll be held up in front of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. I’m obviously prognosticating with regards to something I can’t predict, but the university did yesterday tell me to silence myself, and I didn’t expect them to do that.

(For more from the author of “University Threatens to ‘Silence’ Professor Protesting Genderless Pronouns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.