Left-Wing Hoax Site Snopes Lies Again for the Clintons as Even Charity Navigator Is Trapped in Their Web of Corruption

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yeah, Trump’s tax returns are a thing:

Oh, and then I received this reminder:

Yet, the bogus “myth-busting” site known as Snopes is covering for the Clintons once again, claiming that the Clinton Foundation is all above board and that Hillary’s write-offs are no big deal.

They use the newly revamped assessment of Charity Navigator, a once legitimate watchdog of charitable non-profits, that has altered its assessment of the Clinton Foundation a full 180 degrees.

As famed DC reporter Mark Tapscott observes:

A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.

Charity Navigator awarded the Clinton Foundation four-stars based on an rating algorithm that scored the controversial non-profit with a 97.5 on financial issues and 93 on accountability and transparency. The new rating represented a boost for the foundation, as Charity Navigator had previously put it on its watch list due to concerns about its finances and transparency.

Forensic accounting expert Charles Ortel has conduncted an exhaustive review of the Clinton Global Graft Initiative. His findings, in summary, are stark:

…the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date–as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.

In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants…

At this point, Snopes should just syndicate content from Media Matters, because it now has all the credibility of that Soros-funded propaganda mill.

And Charity Navigator needs to bone up on Charles Ortel’s work before they fall any further into the cesspool of Clinton corruption. (For more from the author of “Left-Wing Hoax Site Snopes Lies Again for the Clintons as Even Charity Navigator Is Trapped in Their Web of Corruption” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TSA ‘Virtual Strip Searches’ Linked to Deaths

/0 Comments/in , /by

The legal battle over the Transportation Security Administration’s installation of Advanced Imaging Technology – its “virtual strip search” machines – in airports has gone on for nearly a decade, and it’s focused mostly on privacy rights.

The feds use an X-ray type technology designed to reveal whether an airline passenger is carrying a weapon or another banned item underneath clothing.

But there have been numerous lawsuits over the images the machines create – initially an essentially nude rendering of the passenger – and how the images were handled. The agency said it altered its software so that the images now render a “stick figure” that doesn’t reveal intimate details.

But now there’s a lawsuit raising another claim: The machines are responsible for hundreds of deaths per year.

The lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Rutherford Institute against the Department of Transportation and the TSA. (Read more from “TSA ‘Virtual Strip Searches’ Linked to Deaths” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement”

/0 Comments/in , /by

As far as message discipline goes, Donald Trump may not be the wild one among our two presidential candidates.

After first tarring half of Mr. Trump’s supporters as racist bigots and other “deplorables”, her royal heinous has now gone after Bernie Sanders’ passionate backers.

Apparently, according to the one who wears custom-fitted tarpaulins, those who supported Sanders all work in Starbucks and live in their parents’ basement.

Which does raise a good point:

And they talk about Trump being off message? (For more from the author of “HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pushing Back Against the PC Madness

/0 Comments/in , /by

Things are getting so crazy these days that it’s not just religious conservatives who are pushing back against the PC madness. Even Hollywood liberals are speaking out.

But first, the latest example of PC insanity.

At the prestigious Duke University campus, where in-state tuition is close to $50,000, “The Duke Men’s Project, launched this month and hosted by the campus Women’s Center, offers a nine-week program for ‘male-identified’ students that discusses male privilege, patriarchy, ‘the language of dominance,’ rape culture, pornography, machismo and other topics.”

So, to be clear, this only applies to men who identify as men. What is not clear is if it would apply to women who identify as men – but then again, if it did, the program wouldn’t apply to them, since it’s unlikely that a woman who identified as a man would be as rotten and misogynistic and privileged as a man who identified as a man.

It’s those biological males who identify as males. Those are the really bad apples. Shame on them for being men!

Writing for FoxNews.com, Jillian Kay Melchior reports, “The student newspaper’s editorial board endorsed the new program yesterday, insisting it was ‘not a reeducation camp being administered by an oppressed group in the service of the feminization of American society.””

And why, pray tell, did they feel the need to defend themselves against such a ludicrous charge? Who would ever think that this wonderful new program sounded like “a reeducation camp being administered by an oppressed group in the service of the feminization of American society”?

According to Dipro Bhowmik, a junior who sits on the leadership team, “the goal of the Duke Men’s Project is for male students to ‘critique and analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities to create healthier ones.’”

Of course, I’m all for exposing the evils of pornography and rebuking the male abuse of women, but please. Enough with this “toxic masculinities” nonsense.

Push Back

The good news is that, with the rising tide of PC madness on our campuses and beyond, more and more people are pushing back. Charlie Nash writes that “American Psycho author Bret Easton Ellis attacked ‘PC victim culture,’ microaggressions, and campus crybabies in a long monologue of his own during the latest episode of the Bret Easton Ellis podcast.”

His words are worth quoting at length.

If you cannot read Shakespeare, or Melville, or Toni Morrison because it will trigger something traumatic in you, and you’ll be harmed by the reading of the text because you are still defining yourself through your self-victimization, then you need to see a doctor. If you feel you are experiencing microaggressions because someone asks you where you are from, or ‘can you help me with my math,’ or offers a ‘god bless you’ after you sneeze, and you feel like all of this is some kind of mass societal dis, then you need to seek help. Professional help.

Nash notes that Ellis branded the “widespread epidemic of self-victimization” and “defining yourself” by “a traumatic thing that happened to you in the past” as an illness.

And, Ellis urged, this “is something you need to resolve before you re-enter society. What you are doing to yourself is harming yourself, and seriously annoying others around you. The fact that you can’t listen to a joke, view imagery, and that you categorize everything as either sexist, or racist, or homophobic, whether it is or not, and therefore harmful to you and you just can’t take it, is a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis that we have been coddling, encouraging people to think that life should be a smooth utopia built only for them and their fragile sensibility. In essence, staying a child forever. Living in a fairy-tale.”

And remember: These are the words of the author of American Psycho, not the words of the author of, say, The Conservative Christian’s Guide to Reclaiming America.

Had they been the words of a conservative Christian author, as in my made-up title, they would be vilified and rejected in the strongest possible terms. After all, what conservative Christian could get away with referring to today’s self-absorbed, hyper-sensitive, microaggression madness with terms like “a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis”?

Nash also reports that Hollywood director Tim Burton recently “slammed political correctness in his response to criticism about the ‘lack of diversity’ in his films, claiming that he is far more offended when producers cast minority actors in their projects for the sole reason of diversity.”

The pushback is taking place on college campuses as well.

Over in Canada, “As part of an hour-long YouTube lecture on political correctness, University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is objecting to the Trudeau government’s Bill C-16, which proposes to outlaw harassment and discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.”

Peterson actually “compares the changes Bill C-16 would bring about to the policing of expression in ‘totalitarian and authoritarian political states,’” and he “argues against the existence of non-binary gender identities, or those that are not exclusively masculine or feminine, saying ‘I don’t think there’s any evidence for it.’”

How bold!

Indeed, “Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: ‘I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.’”

And what was it that caused this professor to speak out, potentially endangering his career? “Peterson told the National Post that he decided to make the video and go public with his views after receiving a memo from university HR outlining new mandatory anti-racist and anti-bias training. ‘That disturbs me because if someone asked me to take anti-bias training, I think I am agreeing that I am sufficiently racist or biased to need training.’”

You can expect more and more responses like this, since there’s only so far things can bend before they snap and break.

After all, when the naked emperor not only begins to flaunt his new “clothes” but orders everyone to celebrate his wardrobe, the gasps of shock will quickly turn to shouts of mockery.

A person can only disguise his nakedness for so long. (For more from the author of “The NY Times’ Transparent (and Hypocritical) October Surprise of Trump’s Tax Returns please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arch to Temple of Baal Arrives in New York City

/0 Comments/in , /by

A 50-foot replica of the arch forming the entrance to the Temple of Baal was installed in New York earlier this month, honoring the symbol of a pagan deity that the Islamic State destroyed in 2015. According to the New York Times, the 2,000-year-old Syrian town of Palmyra brought Muslims and Christians together for centuries. What the NYT won’t tell you is the Jewish history of the Temple of Baal and the abomination that it was for God’s people to be remotely connected to it.

Baal was a Canaanite god in Old Testament times. The Israelites grieved God by turning from Him and worshiping Baal, creating idols, participating in sexual immorality and sacrificing their children to the pagan deity. The Israelites’ unfaithfulness to God, even after He brought them out of Egypt, incensed the Lord, and on many occasions He gave them over to their enemies. It was their unfaithfulness and Baal worship that ultimately led to their captivity and displacement as a nation.

Jonathan Cahn, New York Times best-selling author of The Harbinger and well-known messianic rabbi, introduced the unveiling of the arch in New York via video on September 19. Cahn explains that, just as in ancient Israel, “harbingers,” or signs, are appearing in America, perhaps warning the nation of God’s impending judgment on the land. Also as in the case of ancient Israel, America continues to dig deeper in sin and “brazen defiance of God.”

“If America is following in the footsteps of ancient Israel away from God and to judgment, could there be a link to Baal?” Cahn questions. “Of course, no one in America would admit to worshiping Baal. But the truth is American culture is filled with other gods and idols. When a civilization turns away from God, it always ends up bringing in other gods in His place.”

Just after the unveiling, Cahn stood before the arch, and commented on the connections between ancient Israel and America. “And here, now on American soil, in back of me, is the manifesting of the sign of Baal,” adding that Baal’s presence in ancient Israel, as in America now, represented the sign of a nation that departed from its God, a nation in apostasy from God, a nation that once knew good and evil, but now calls evil “good” and good “evil,” a nation that offers its children as sacrifices and a nation that persecutes the followers of God. “And now, September, 2016,” said Cahn, “this harbinger has appeared to America.”

“Since 9/11, America has not only not returned to God — it has rebelled against Him in an ever deepening, ever intensifying and ever accelerating apostasy,” Cahn said. “It is eerily following the judgment template of the harbingers and the footsteps of ancient Israel as it headed to destruction.”

Roger Michael, Executive Director of Oxford University’s Institute for Digital archeology, discussed parallels between the violence in Palmyra, London and New York, reported the Guardian. “It is our hope that the arch, itself an icon of destruction and rebirth, will remind visitors of both the universality of suffering and the indomitable human capacity to rebuild what has been lost,” Michael said.

The ancient Israelites failed to repent when God’s warnings came, Cahn said, and vowed to rebuild. Isaiah 9:10 recorded their hard-heartedness towards repentance:

The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.

(For more from the author of “Arch to Temple of Baal Arrives in New York City” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Should Make Decision That Upholds That Congress, Not Agencies, Should Make Criminal Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the United States Supreme Court begins its new term next Monday, one of the first cases it will hear is Salman v. United States, a significant criminal case involving insider trading, one of the murkiest areas of criminal law.

In 2004, Bassam Salman, a grocery wholesaler, received valuable inside information from his brother-in-law-to-be Michael Kara, who, in turn, had received the information from his brother Maher Kara (Maher Kara married Salman’s sister in 2005), an investment banker at Citigroup.

Although there was no allegation that Salman gave any money or goods to either Michael or Maher Kara, Salman was subsequently convicted of insider trading.

To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the insider (the tipper) received some personal benefit from the person to whom the information was given (the tippee). The Salman case asks whether strengthening a family bond by giving a “gift” of inside information to a relative is a legally sufficient benefit to the tipper to sustain the tippee’s conviction for insider trading.

What Is Insider Trading?

There can be no crime without law, and only Congress can enact federal criminal law; the Supreme Court has reiterated these principles time and again. Yet there is no federal statute that clearly defines and prohibits the federal crime of insider trading.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 addresses one subspecies of the offense (the short-swing profit, a purchase and sale of stock within a six-month window by a “beneficial owner, director, or officer,” driven by nonpublic information).

Other demarcations between legal and illegal trading have not come from Congress, but rather have come from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the judiciary.

There is a federal law (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) that outlaws “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations” promulgated by the SEC. SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibits fraudulent or deceitful practices “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” Other regulations purport to flesh out the details, but they are clear as mud.

The Supreme Court has stepped in to demystify—in Congress’s stead—when insider trading is and is not a crime. In 1983, in Dirks v. SEC, the court held that insider trading by the recipient of nonpublic information is prohibited only when the corporate insider who discloses the information personally benefits from the disclosure and the recipient who trades on the information “knows or should know” that the disclosure constitutes a breach of the insider’s fiduciary duty to his corporation.

The court went on to state that “[a]bsent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders,” and therefore no crime has occurred. That leaves open the question of what exactly is and is not a personal gain or benefit to the tipper that will trigger liability. Although, the court said in dictum (a statement in a court opinion that is not necessary to resolve the legal issues in that particular case, and which, although perhaps persuasive, lacks the full force of binding precedent) in the Dirks case that one could be held liable “when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”

To clarify this concept, if an individual trades on information he innocently overhears from a CEO at a high school track meet, there is no tippee liability for insider trading because the tipper unwittingly disclosed the information without receiving a personal benefit.

While that seems an unlikely venue to get stock tips, legendary football coach Barry Switzer once benefitted from that precise scenario and was cleared of wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the classic example of insider trading occurs when a corporate employee tips insider information to a friend who then trades on that information and splits the profits with the employee. Here, the tipper received a clear, monetary benefit in exchange for providing the illicit information.

Yet, cases are often not so cut-and-dry as to what amounts to a personal benefit. Salman is expected to have far-reaching consequences on the scope of liability, depending on what the Supreme Court decides constitutes a “personal benefit” to an insider.

In 2012, a federal district court judge in New York City, Jed Rakoff, long considered a leading authority in both criminal law and securities law, wrote an opinion affirming an insider trading conviction, in which he stated that “the benefit does not need to be financial or tangible in nature; it could include, for example, maintaining a useful networking contact, improving the reputation or power within the company, obtaining future financial benefits, or just maintaining or furthering a friendship.” (Emphasis added.)

However, in 2014, in U.S. v. Newman, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which includes New York—held otherwise, proclaiming that the personal benefit requirement:

does not suggest that the Government may prove the receipt of a personal benefit by the mere fact of a friendship, particularly of a casual or social nature. If that were true, and the Government was allowed to meet its burden by proving that two individuals were alumni of the same school or attended the same church, the personal benefit requirement would be a nullity.

Newman gave the personal benefit requirement its bite back by requiring proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”

Under Newman, a tippee can no longer be held criminally liable for trading a tip received from a friend without there being a more tangible benefit passing to the tipper.

Ironically, the 9th Circuit’s opinion affirming Salman’s conviction was written by none other than Rakoff, who was sitting by designation on that court. That opinion effectively reinstituted the pre-Newman, loose personal benefit standard, which concludes that a tipper who has a friendship or familial relationship with a tippee need not receive any more tangible benefit for passing on the information in order to subject the tippee to criminal liability.

Supreme Implications

Now, it is up to the Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on either the 2nd Circuit’s more tangible personal benefit standard or the 9th Circuit’s looser standard.

The court should be reluctant to adopt the 9th Circuit’s standard. First, this definition would give prosecutors incredibly broad power, enabling them to prosecute tippees, even remote tippees, based on an intangible and somewhat amorphous “benefit” (if it can be called that) to the tipper.

As stated in an amicus brief filed on behalf of businessman Mark Cuban—who knows a thing or two about insider trading lawsuits—“any tip to a friend or relative could suffice to jail the tipper irrespective of any receipt of concrete benefit from the exchange” if the Supreme Court does not curtail the SEC’s attempt to expand the reach of insider trading law through litigation.

More fundamentally, however, while this case does not present an opportunity to the court to re-examine Dirks, which seems to be settled law, the Supreme Court should not go one step further—however opprobrious the tipper’s conduct was here, and it was—in criminalizing conduct that has not been clearly proscribed by Congress.

As stated above, the Supreme Court held as far back as 1812 in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, and several times since then, that there are no federal common law offenses and that before someone can be punished as a criminal, his conduct must “plainly and unmistakably” run afoul of a federal criminal statute.

As the court has also stated, “because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures, and not courts, should define criminal activity.”

The court deviated from this sound reasoning in Dirks, a move that has seemingly been tolerated by Congress. The court should not compound its error by going one step further, even if it seems like a small step. If Congress wishes to criminalize insider trading or expand the scope of current criminal liability, it can and should do so.

The court should send a signal to Congress in the Salman case that it needs to take back its authority to define criminal conduct; to provide greater direction to the courts, the SEC, the Department of Justice, and the public about what is and is not permissible; and to alleviate the concerns of parties who may be engaging in lawful trading, but who nonetheless fear the government may think otherwise. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Should Make Decision That Upholds That Congress, Not Agencies, Should Make Criminal Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton Is a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Just Like Her Mentor

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton may be gaining in recent presidential polls against Donald Trump, but before those Americans go to the polls for the former secretary of state, they really ought to take a look at one of her most famous mentors: Saul Alinsky.

To many in the world, the name Alinksy has become a special kind of boogeyman, a watchword for everything wrong with the modern American Left. And rightly so. Deemed the “father of community organizing,” the Chicago native and sociological theorist dedicated his life work to developing the activism framework that has left its mark on nearly every single leftist political campaign in the mid-to-late 20th century.

A new documentary from EWTN, Arcadia Films, and City of Light Studios, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” explores just how Alinsky developed his theories of community organizing. He gleaned wisdom from his experiences with the Chicago mob and communists during the Great Depression, and imparted his theories of agitation, deceit, intimidation, and confusion to liberal ideologues for decades to come.

In Alinsky’s worldview, the civil rights movement, the Catholic Church, and civic organizations were little more than vehicles to an ultimate end. Through detailed biographical storytelling, the documentary takes the viewer step-by-step from the crime-ridden streets of Chicago into the very halls of power that he was able to infiltrate and infect with his savage and diabolical tactics.

True to the film’s name, it begins with a parable of a wolf who dresses himself in sheepskin to infiltrate a herd of sheep with the intent of subjecting the lot to slaughter. In the same context, it shows the true nature of Alinsky’s work and vision that were draped in the language of helping the world’s “have-nots,” but doing so through the means of subverting the family, traditional institutions, morality, and truth itself under a mechanism dripping with the aphorisms of Marx and Machiavelli.

All throughout, scenes of violence, manipulation, infiltration, and political chaos are juxtaposed against Alinsky himself (portrayed by a reserved and morose Jim Morlino), interposing a series of short lines that offer the viewer a deeper look into the man behind the movement. This is a man to whom truth and reality were subjective stumbling blocks on the road to Marxist ideals of progress, and who would stop at nothing to impose that ideal on the American people.

“A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” is undoubtedly an overtly Catholic production, but its insight into the life of one of the 20th century’s most dangerous American thinkers is valuable to audiences of all worldviews. This is especially true given the dire implications of the film’s message in light of the current presidential election cycle and the seemingly rapid progress that the political Left has already made during the Obama years.

Many are aware of President Obama’s connection to Alinsky, as outlined in a 2009 article by Jim Geraghty at National Review. But while Obama merely studied under Alinsky’s disciples during his tenure in Chicago, Hillary Clinton learned directly from the man himself.

Alinsky’s influence on the Democratic presidential nominee was unavoidable and intrinsic to her political development. Not only did Clinton — then Rodham — write a 92-page thesis about Alinsky’s tactics at Wellesley College, letters a few years ago reveal that the organizer’s influence on the future first lady are greater than originally thought.

“Dear Saul, When is that new book coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?” a 23-year-old Hillary wrote in 1971 about Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. “I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for radicals, written by Alinky in 1946] and need some new material to throw at people.”

As Jen Kuznicki points out elsewhere at Conservative Review: “Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling.

“David Brock, in his 1996 biography, ‘The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,’ called Hillary ‘Alinsky’s daughter.’ That is an apt label,” he continues. “Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric may have pushed some Christians toward Hillary Clinton, but perhaps an honest and sober look at her inspiration will push them back. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Is a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Just Like Her Mentor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alabama Chief Justice Removed From Bench for Advising Lower Courts to Uphold Alabama Marriage Laws

/0 Comments/in , /by

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s defense of traditional marriage has cost him his seat on the bench.

Moore was suspended today without pay through the end of his term following a hearing by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ) today on six ethics violations charges.

The judiciary court ruled that Moore defied law already clearly settled by the Supreme Court’s June 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges same-sex marriage decision when he told Alabama’s probate judges six months later that they were still bound by a 2015 state court order to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

“Beyond question, at the time he issued the January 6, 2016, order, Chief Justice Roy Moore knew about Obergefell and its clear holding that the United States Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry,” the court wrote in the unanimous decision.

Things weren’t so clear, his lawyers say. At the time Moore sent the administrative orders to the probate judges, the Alabama Supreme Court had yet to consider the effect the Obergefell decision would have on an ongoing Alabama case; thus the case was, in effect, still pending.

“The 2016 Administrative Order was merely a status report of the pending case before the Alabama Supreme Court,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and representing Moore. “The order did not change the status quo. It did not create any new obligation or duty. To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the duration of his term is a miscarriage of justice and we will appeal this case to the Alabama Supreme Court. This case is far from over,” said Staver.

The COJ found Moore guilty of all six charges and suspended him through the end of his term. However, since he is 69 years old, he will be ineligible to run for office once his term ends in 2019. The order of suspension effectively removes him from the bench, which is a violation of COJ rules without a unanimous 9-0 vote, Staver said.

In a statement Friday, Moore said that the COJ “had no authority” over administrative orders to probate judges. He said the Judicial Inquiry Commission chose to listen to the LGBT community, and the decision “clearly reflects the corrupt nature of our political and legal system at our highest level.

“This was a politically motivated effort by radical homosexual and transgender groups to remove me as chief justice of the Supreme Court because of outspoken opposition to their immoral agenda. … We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.” (For more from the author of “Alabama Chief Justice Removed From Bench for Advising Lower Courts to Uphold Alabama Marriage Laws” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Gives Overwhelming Verdict About Who Won Monday’s Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

If Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump needed any convincing that a new approach to debate preparation might be in order, a Fox News poll has revealed that respondents overwhelmingly believe Democratic rival Hillary Clinton won Monday night’s debate.

The poll found Clinton’s lead over Trump moving from one percentage point to three, 43 percent to 40 percent.

However, the slight bump came amid major positive impacts shown elsewhere.

The poll found 61 percent of respondents said she won Monday’s debate, against 21 percent who said Trump won.

It also showed that Trump went down since the debate in areas such as honesty, temperament and whether respondents would be comfortable with him in the White House. Clinton rose in all areas.

Although Trump has said he won Monday’s debate and pointed to online polls seconding that conclusion, many observers have sided with the Fox News respondents.

“It clearly looked like he ran out of gas after 30 minutes, and that came through loud and clear,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“Trump needs to show a higher level [of] seriousness, so that he’s better positioned as an agent of change,” Reed said. “If he can accomplish that, he’ll win undecided voters and late-breaking voters who clearly don’t want to support Hillary Clinton.”

CNN was reporting that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie might be tasked with overseeing Trump’s preparations for his Oct. 9 rematch with Clinton. The Trump campaign and Christie have denied that.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Tuesday he is willing to help Trump prepare.

“I am happy to help,” Cruz said. “I have conveyed that to them.”

The senator also differed with those who thought Clinton won.

“I think he really went after Hillary, which was a good thing,” Cruz said. “Anyone who is swooning at Hillary’s performance last night, that’s a pretty good indication that you’re a card-carrying member of the liberal media, especially in the first half-hour. I think Donald very much had the upper hand over Hillary. Hillary was tentative and had no real answers. She was on the defensive the entire time.” (For more from the author of “New Poll Gives Overwhelming Verdict About Who Won Monday’s Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ohio Muslim Immigrant Kills Own Daughter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Police say they can’t figure out the motive behind an Ohio father’s horrific crime of violence against his own daughter, and the media won’t touch the topic, but some say the answer lies hidden in plain view.

Jamal Mansour, 63, of Rocky River, Ohio, walked into his adult daughter’s bedroom at 1:15 a.m. Tuesday and shot her twice in the head while she slept. His daughter, Tahini Mansour, 27, died about 10 hours later at a local hospital.

“We don’t have a solid motive other than an argument occurred between a father and his daughter,” said Lt. George Lichman with Rocky River Police.

Islam experts and former Muslims say the suspect’s behavior is rife with clues but don’t look for the police or media to flesh them out and share those clues with the public.

Mansour is a Muslim immigrant from Jordan and his alleged execution-style killing of his daughter bears the hallmarks of Islamic honor violence, says Daniel Akbari, a former top Shariah lawyer in Iran who defected to the U.S. several years ago and now lives in Texas. (Read more from “Ohio Muslim Immigrant Kills Own Daughter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.