Hillary Says Americans Will Have to Change Their Personal and Religious Beliefs

Hillary Clinton said that Americans will have to change their religious convictions and cultural codes so they can pass laws. Convictions and belief systems of citizens should not stand in her way. Cultural codes and religious beliefs have to change, Hillary said. She said the same thing in April of last year at the the sixth annual Women in the World Summit.

Instead of worrying about Fascism by Trump, people might want to look to the real and substantiated Fascism of Mrs. Clinton.

Americans have to change their beliefs because she says so? She will tell us what to think?

She was mostly referring to abortion but she can extend that to anything. She’s now the thought police.

In addition, Tim Kaine who claims to be personally against abortion, agreed to repeal the Hyde Amendment in exchange for the VP position. (Read more from “Hillary Says Americans Will Have to Change Their Personal and Religious Beliefs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is How Facebook ‘Accidentally’ Blocked DNC Email Leak Scandal

Once again, the impartiality of Facebook’s news feature is being called into question. This time, the social network claims it “accidentally” obstructed all links to the leaked Democratic National Committee emails published by Wikileaks just ahead of the party’s convention.

This past Friday morning, the infamous publisher of anonymous leaks released nearly 20,000 internal emails between members of the formal governing body of the Democratic Party. The news, where it was seen, provoked outrage, especially among supporters of Bernie Sanders, who was shown to have received unfair treatment by officially impartial party operators.

While social media outlets have helped facilitate the spread of uncovered information in the past, Facebook is no trusted ally of Wikileaks.

“@Facebook is blocking #DNCLeak email links,” Wikileaks tweeted Saturday evening, following other individual reports of Facebook suppressing the documents hours earlier.“Monday is the Democratic National Convention.”

In a reply about three hours later, Twitter user @SwiftOnSecurity said,“@wikileaks Facebook has an automated system for detecting spam/malicious links, that sometimes have false positives. /cc @alexstamos”

Then, without elaborating, Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos replied to both tweets: “It’s been fixed,” Stamos said.

Wikileaks later tweeted that Facebook explained it all away as an“accident.”

A Facebook representative attempted to clarify, telling Gizmodo, “Like other services, our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe. We quickly corrected this error on Saturday evening.”

But tech blogs aren’t just letting this go. The Next Web said Facebook’s correction “is great — but also not really the point,” adding that there seems to be a “very tight reign on what’s allowed on Facebook.”

Complaining about Facebook is nothing new, but this episode of newswire censorship amounts to more than ignored demands for a Dislike button.

More recently, Facebook took down and re-uploaded a Facebook Live video showing the immediate aftermath of the police shooting death of Philando Castile — an anomaly the site chalked up to a “technical glitch,” TechCrunch reported.

One of the more peculiar cases of Facebook post policing occurred in November 2015, when U.K. student Roua Naboulsi had a lengthy status update removed. Her criticism of the selective sentimentality over the terrorist mass shooting attack in Paris, France, asking why the same response didn’t come for brown-skinned victims of terror, garnered 9,000 shares and 12,000 likes before Facebook took it down, RT reported.

In a twist, Facebook also faced harsh criticism for what it refused to censor earlier this month; it shared a graphic Instagram video of victims in the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France, proving that as egregious as Facebook’s latest censorship campaign may be, it is merely yet another expression of the same pattern. (For more from the author of “This Is How Facebook ‘Accidentally’ Blocked DNC Email Leak Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Information on Khizr Khan Sheds Light on His Opposition to Trump

Featured at the Democratic National Convention as an ardent critic of Donald Trump, Khizr Khan — the father of a Muslim-American U.S. soldier killed in Iraq — has been hailed as a hero as he continues to speak out against the Republican presidential nominee.

However, details about Khan’s background are emerging that might at least partially explain the motivation behind his dislike of Trump, the Washington Times reports.

According to his website, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies.

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21.

In addition to complaints about the pay-to-play nature of these visas, there have also been instances where immigrant investors are scammed out of their money.

While there is no indication that Khan has been involved in any shady business dealings, some individuals might see Trump’s stance on immigration as a threat to such lawyers, who undoubtedly stand to profit from our current immigration system.

Furthermore, Khan’s background in Islamic law has raised several questions pertaining to his ideological motivations. Writing in 1983 for the Houston Journal of International Law, Khan said that all judicial systems must be subordinate to Sharia law, otherwise known as Islamic law.

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims,” wrote Khan in his work, “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law.”

In other words, all legal systems and juridical works should be open to reconsideration by Muslims and must be subordinate to the law of Islam, including the U.S. Constitution.

To make matters worse, Khan credits Said Ramadan — the head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major figure within the Muslim Brotherhood — as a contributor to his writings.

Considering this background, it is interesting that he would question Trump’s support for, or knowledge of, the Constitution. (For more from the author of “New Information on Khizr Khan Sheds Light on His Opposition to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gingrich: ‘How Come Hillary Doesn’t Owe the Whole Country an Apology?’

Newt Gingrich reacted to heavy negative media coverage of Donald Trump in recent days while giving Hillary Clinton a pass for “deliberately lying” during her interview on Fox News Sunday, saying it showed a double standard.

“Anybody watching this campaign knows that at least 80 percent of the elite media is in the tank for Hillary,” Gingrich said.

“Now she’s lying about 50-some thousand emails. She’s lying about national security. Why shouldn’t she apologize? If Donald Trump owes anybody an apology, how come Hillary doesn’t owe the whole country an apology?”

Gingrich said Trump would be better off apologizing to the Khans and getting it behind him, “but he’s a stubborn guy” and he has a point, which is that Khizr Khan “went to a political convention and said some very nasty things” about Trump.

“So, Trump’s stubborn. But he didn’t delete 33,000 emails. Trump didn’t send out secret information. Trump didn’t lie about the FBI. Hillary did all that stuff.” (Read more from “Gingrich: ‘How Come Hillary Doesn’t Owe the Whole Country an Apology?'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Will Not Endorse Two Major Republicans for Reelection

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has not yet decided whether he will endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan in his bid for re-election.

During an interview, Trump said, “I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country. We need…very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet…”

His statement seemed to intentionally mimic Ryan himself who once said he was “just not ready” to endorse Trump.

In the Wisconsin election scheduled for August 9, Ryan is fighting to retain his seat in the House against his opponent, Paul Nehlen.

Trump has commended Nehlen for running “a very good campaign,” but says that, as for endorsing Ryan, he is “giving it very serious consideration.”

The decision by Trump to withhold his support from Ryan has been called “an extraordinary breach of political decorum,” and is further evidence the Republican Party still lacks unity.

Ryan withheld his endorsement of Trump until June, when he was named the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

A few weeks prior to Ryan announcing his endorsement, Ryan spoke to CNN’s Jake Tapper and said he was not ready to give Trump his support.

The two men have found themselves on opposite sides of several issues recently.

Ryan criticized Trump for remarks he made about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in service to his country.

Calling Captain Khan a brave example of the sacrifice made by many Muslim Americans, Ryan said, “His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

Ryan’s spokesman Zack Roday issued a statement which said, “Neither Speaker Ryan nor anyone on his team has ever asked for Donald Trump’s endorsement. And we are confident in a victory next week regardless.”

Another top Republican is also lacking a Trump endorsement.

Senator John McCain, R-Ariz, issued a statement Monday, in which he too rebuked Trump for his remarks about the Khans.

Responding to McCain’s statement, Trump said, “I haven’t endorsed John McCain.”

Trump asserts he takes issue with McCain because of his failure to do more for veterans. Trump said, “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets…. They’re not being treated fairly.”

McCain has not responded to Trump’s remarks. (For more from the author of “Trump Will Not Endorse Two Major Republicans for Reelection” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report

The Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran in January at the same time Tehran was releasing four jailed Americans, payment that a top congressional Republican is calling “ransom.”

The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional sources, reported that the administration procured the money from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The money was stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in an unmarked cargo plane.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement that the administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old failed arms deal signed before the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Journal reported.

The settlement came at the same time as formal implementation of the historic nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other world powers.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Obama said at the time, without revealing the $400 million payment. (Read more from “Obama Paid Iran $400 Million Ransom for American Hostages: Report” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Careless’ Purple Heart Remarks Put Trump in Hot Water With Veterans

Republican nominee for president Donald Trump has upset several United States military veterans with comments he made Tuesday, seemingly joking about earning a Purple Heart.

Speaking at a rally in Virginia, Mr. Trump announced that a veteran had given him his Purple Heart as a gift. Trump said “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.”

The Purple Heart is a United States military decoration awarded in the name of the president to those wounded or killed while serving with the U.S. military.

Trump’s comments, which seem to make light of the sacrifice involved in earning that decoration, have upset several veterans who did not take kindly to Mr. Trump’s remarks.

One veteran took special offense at the fact that Mr. Trump had the opportunity to join the armed forces repeatedly and yet deferred the draft five times.

“Obviously he didn’t ‘always want a purple heart’ or he wouldn’t have deferred his draft multiple times over and over rather than heading into the service when his country needed him,” Mohammed M. Shaker, told Conservative Review in reference to Trump’s comments.

Shaker is the chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Tampa Bay and a veteran of OIF 09-10 with the 82nd Airborne Division. He served as a specialist, combat medic.

“Here’s the thing,” Shaker said. “It isn’t fun getting a purple heart. Nobody wants a purple heart. Purple hearts are awarded posthumously and awarded to servicemen whom have lost life, limb, or eye sight. Even mental capacity.”

“Sure it’s easy some dude gave him a purple heart and I can respect that but that doesn’t mean other veterans and their families see his comments as a matter of being funny,” Shaker continued. “If he wanted one that badly they cost about $35 at Amazon or any Army Navy store.”

Conservative writer and one-time speculative independent candidate for president David French, who is also an Iraq War veteran and Bronze Star recipient, had a more cynical take on Trump’s comments. He suggested that Mr. Trump was not aware of what it meant to earn the Purple Heart.

Trump’s comments about the Purple Heart follow a controversy that emerged over the weekend in which Mr. Trump criticized the Muslim parents of a decorated American soldier that was killed in Iraq after they spoke at the Democratic National Convention and condemned Mr. Trump’s negative rhetoric concerning Muslim-Americans.

For a candidate who repeatedly assures voters that he’ll take care of veterans and who brags about all the money he’s raised for veterans’ groups, comments like those made Tuesday run the risk of alienating veterans and voters who strongly support them.

In the 2008 presidential election, 54% of veterans and those that were currently serving in the military at the time voted for the Republican candidate. In 2012, 59% of those voters went to the Republican ticket.

Donald Trump is currently under-performing in the polls with demographics Republican candidates historically need to win. He’s on track to be the first Republican candidate to lose white college graduates in 60 years. His favorability is underwater with women, with Latino voters, and he is losing Catholics. He cannot expect to win the election if he loses veterans and active military personnel as well.

So what can he do to improve his standing with veterans? Shaker suggested that Mr. Trump should use a little more tact when he speaks rather than always trying to be the entertainer and the showman. “If I was in the position to actually say something, I would say to use a little more tact when referring to something like the Purple Heart, especially so carelessly,” he told Conservative Review.

“He may see it as funny and so many his supporters in that room,” he added. “But the guy in the wheelchair probably doesn’t think it’s funny.” (For more from the author of “‘Careless’ Purple Heart Remarks Put Trump in Hot Water With Veterans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rock Bottom: Establishment Money and Lies Beat Conservative Warrior in Kansas

It’s official: conservatives have no place in the Republican Party.

Not only has every incumbent RINO been reelected in this “year of the outsider.” Not only has almost every open seat gone to the yes-men for K Street and GOP leadership. One of the few brave conservative incumbents in the House has just been defeated by a shill for the big government lobbyists who lied to voters and ran as a conservative. Thus, the only incumbent to be defeated this year was Tim Huelskamp, R-Ky. (A, 91%) in Kansas’s First District. You read that right: the only incumbent to go down in this glorious “populist” revolution is one of the fiercest fighters against this rigged political system.

While everyone is a big hero now and ridicules John Boehner as a failure, Huelskamp was literally the first member to stand up to him. Now the lobbyists know how to pick our lock and will pick off the few remaining members who dare to defy those in the party who want to do nothing more than play interference for Democrats.

So much for the revolution.

You can read more about this race in my post from last week.

Folks, at some point we need to stop exemplifying the definition of insanity. What we are doing is not working. The party runs candidates with tons of money who lie about who they are and smear our people as political insiders who are anything but true conservatives. The waters are so muddied that the candidate with the most money and lobbyist support wins.

We must be reminded of the admonition of Haggai:

“You have sown much and you bring in little. You eat without being satiated. You drink without getting your fill. You dress, and it has no warmth. And he who profits, profits into a bundle with holes.” [Haggai 1:6]

It’s real simple: we either reform the primary system back to representative conventions where money and lobbyists are blunted by grassroots activists or we start a third party.

This current system is so rigged against principled constitutionalists that even when the voters agree with us on the issues, we have nothing to show for it this year but a candidate at the top who is tied with Hillary in several red states and not a single conservative winning down ballot.

If 28 years of failure since Reagan has not proven that conservatives have no future in this party, tonight’s election should serve as a wakeup call. (For more from the author of “Rock Bottom: Establishment Money and Lies Beat Conservative Warrior in Kansas” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Push Leadership to Deny Obama His Last Lame-Duck Session

While lawmakers are away from Capitol Hill on August recess, the two largest conservative caucuses in Congress are working to keep a lame-duck spending bill from getting off the ground after the elections.

Before Congress recessed, the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee gathered enough signatures to force GOP leadership into scheduling a conference to discuss the party’s plan for funding the federal government, The Daily Signal has learned.

That moves coincides with a shift in conservative strategy on government funding. Conservatives aren’t trying to reduce spending anymore this year. They’re trying to buy time.

“Are we going to reduce the deficit, yes or no?” Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., asked in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The answer is no and the American people aren’t happy with that. So now we just need to do damage control.”

Reducing government spending remains the long-term goal for conservatives, Brat said. But for now, their immediate concern is preventing any new increases before the year ends.

That requires convincing the GOP conference to abandon a stalled appropriations process and to adopt instead a continuing resolution, a measure that would lock in government spending at current levels until next March.

“[Republican Study Committee Chairman] Bill Flores and a number of us have called for a special conference on the [continuing resolution] issue,” Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal. “When we get back, we’re going to push for a longer [continuing resolution] that gets us to next session.”

Conservatives won’t have much time to make their case when Congress returns to session Sept. 6. To avoid a shutdown, lawmakers must reach a deal before the government’s spending authority expires at the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

But by reaching a permanent deal now, conservatives hope to avoid a last-minute omnibus bill later during the lame-duck session, which follows the Nov. 8 elections and precedes the swearing-in of the new president and Congress in January.

There are significant trade-offs, though. Conservatives would have to surrender and abandon their long-standing budget battle with leadership.

Since last January, spending hawks have tried to torpedo the $1.07 trillion Obama-Boehner budget deal backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The continuing resolution currently pushed by members of the Freedom Caucus would set top-line spending $30 billion below that level.

But that relatively small amount is worth it, Jordan told The Daily Signal, because while conservatives loath higher spending, “experience and recent history” have taught them to fear the lame duck more.

“Many members are willing to tolerate the spending level that we don’t think is right,” Jordan said, “but we can only tolerate that if we can avoid the lame duck, if we can get the right time frame.”

Part of every congressional life cycle, the lame-duck session occurs after the November election but before newly elected lawmakers arrive in Washington. Unaccountable to their constituents, outgoing politicians often use the window to help pass controversial legislation.

If Congress votes on an omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session, conservatives fear, liberals will try to slip policy riders on controversial subjects into the must-pass piece of legislation.

The session, for instance, represents the last best chance for President Barack Obama to advance his marquee trade agreement, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. The White House indicated in June that it plans to run a two-minute drill on trade during the lame duck.

“There is a pathway forward here,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, the White House’s ambassador on trade matters, told The New York Times. “And what we’re trying to do right now is just maximize the likelihood that we’ll be able to walk down that path successfully.”

As Obama’s exit from the White House approaches, anxiety over the lame-duck session has increased exponentially.

“The session happens every time there’s an election,” a senior Republican aide told The Daily Signal. “But what are Obama and Reid going to try and get though now that it’s their last time around?”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will retire Jan. 3 after 30 years in the Senate.

If Congress passes a continuing resolution now, conservatives argue, there won’t be any pressure to pass an omnibus spending bill later and no legislative vehicle for amendments by Democrats.

The conservative strategy already has gained some traction among Senate Republicans.

“I’m not a fan of kicking things into a lame-duck session,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas told reporters before Congress adjourned for recess. “If you held a gun to my head and made me choose the length of the [continuing resolution] as the last option, I’d say let’s kick this over into the first part of next year.”

House leadership, however, has been hesitant to get on board.

Ryan has made funding the government according to regular order a top priority during his short tenure as House speaker. Congress should pass individual spending bills for specific government programs, the Wisconsin representative argues, rather than a one-and-done omnibus package.

But with only 17 legislative days before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, many on Capitol Hill see a continuing resolution as inevitable. And Democrats are already fighting to defeat any continuing resolution that puts spending levels on autopilot until next March.

“We would be very strongly opposed to that. It wouldn’t happen,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the third-ranking Senate Democrat, told Politico. “We’re going to work and get a good omnibus bill.”

Conservatives say House leadership has been unresponsive so far to their pleas for a continuing resolution. A senior leadership aide told The Daily Signal that “no decisions have been made” about embracing a continuing resolution.

The longer Republicans wait to vote on a continuing resolution, Brat said, the more likely it is that Congress will make a last-minute deal in December.

“Do we want leadership negotiating right before Christmas like they have these last two years?” the Virginia Republican asked, “when we bust the spending caps again, increase the deficit even more, and lose all conservative policy riders?”

“That’s the last thing we want and that’s why we want a [continuing resolution] going into March,” Brat concluded.

The conservative effort to end the lame-duck session isn’t anything new. A group of 75 conservative organizations sent an April 14 letter to Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging them to take steps to avoid a lame duck.

That effort hasn’t always been warmly received.

“What has the Freedom Caucus been fighting about—on not doing the budget all year—if they’re going to turn around and cave on a [$1.07 trillion] level at the last minute,” a senior Republican staffer told The Daily Signal.

More establishment Republicans complain that major legislative business wouldn’t be necessary in a lame-duck session if conservatives would have gotten on board with higher spending earlier on.

Things won’t “magically” look better for conservatives next year anyway, the staffer predicted, suggesting Democrats could win the Senate and the White House on Nov. 8.

“Don’t they realize they could be negotiating with a Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer and a President Clinton? What then?” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Push Leadership to Deny Obama His Last Lame-Duck Session” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Another 4 Pinocchio Lie for Hillary Clinton

After officially becoming the Democratic Party nominee for president, Hillary Clinton made a rare media appearance, going on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace for an exclusive post-Democratic National Convention interview. During the interview, Clinton made some comments about her email server that raised eyebrows and inspired a Washington Post fact-check.

As the topic of Hillary Clinton’s email server came up in the interview, Wallace played video of Clinton saying “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials. I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”

At the four minute mark in the interview, Clinton responds to that video by telling Chris Wallace that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

The problem is that isn’t what Director Comey said. In his statement on the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email server, Director Comey described Hillary Clinton’s and her colleague’s actions as “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Additionally, Comey revealed that “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

The Washington Post awarded Clinton’s claim FOUR Pinocchios, indicating Clinton egregiously contorted the facts to her favor.

Hillary Clinton’s decision to appear on Fox News comes after a very patriotic Democratic Convention in which American flag-waving delegates shouted down anti-war protesters with chants of “USA!” and the Democrats paraded military officials on stage to sing Clinton’s praises and denounce the Republican nominee.

Some believe that Clinton is making a play for national-security-first Republicans who are uncomfortable with Donald Trump as commander-in-chief. Appearing on Fox News immediately after the DNC could be read as an overture to some of those voters.

But should Sec. Clinton intend to win those voters over, perhaps it would be best for her not to lie about that time she endangered national security by holding classified information on a private email server in violation of State Department protocol and federal law. (For more from the author of “Another 4 Pinocchio Lie for Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.