FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can’t remember certain details on her emails and on many issues she remains evasive. On the other hand, for some observers, FBI director James Comey has clarified recent actions in regard to the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Comey released documents concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails on September 2, the afternoon before the Labor Day weekend, as Paul Ryan observed, the time when they were least likely to command attention. Comey defended the action and told reporters the FBI released the documents when they were ready. Those suggesting the FBI was being “political” or part of “some fix,” he wrote in a memo, “either don’t know us, or they are full of baloney (and maybe some of both).”

The FBI director also said that the decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and “there really wasn’t a prosecutable case.” Comey referred disparagingly to “all the chest-beating by people no longer in government.” That may be a reference to former Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano, who described the FBI interview with Clinton as “very troubling.”

Napolitano counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have the material it needed. “This is the FBI’s own fault,” Napolitano wrote. “This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials. Someone restrained the FBI.”

Further, “the FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them – particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.”

For the judge, “it is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI’s failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it.”

The FBI’s release of the document on the Friday before Labor Day did not escape media coverage. On the other hand, the old-line establishment media has been slow to recognize James Comey’s history with the Clintons.

As Christopher Andersen noted in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, after Bill Clinton left the White House, the goal was to get Hillary back in. The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that she discussed any pardon.

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson noted, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.” Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen found it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

Hillary’s cleanup hitter is stepping up to the plate again, according to Andrew Napolitano. By his count, Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t remember a full thirty-nine times. She claimed she used a single electronic device but she actually used thirteen. When Congress began requesting information, her staffers smashed the devices with a hammer and a critical laptop was supposedly lost in the mail.

For Napolitano, destruction of the thirteen Blackberries was “obstruction of justice,” but nobody was charged. The only explanation, as the judge sees it, is that FBI bosses “blindly followed what they were told to do – exonerate Hillary Clinton.” (For more from the author of “FORMER JUDGE: James Comey Was Determined “To Exonerate Hillary Clinton” and Shred the Rule of Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Republican Party Chairman Calls For “Honorable” Conduct, Implies Senator Lisa Murkowski Dishonorable and Selfish

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Late last week, Alaska Republican Party Chairman Tuckerman Babcock sent out a memo to members of the State Central Committee urging those who intend to support Joe Miller for US Senate to resign.

At issue is the following party rule: “No appointed or elected Republican party officers shall promote or be engaged in any activity that promotes the candidacy of any person for partisan political office other than a Republican running on a Republican ticket.”

Babcock made his point no less than four times, stating in clear and unambiguous terms, “the honorable course is to resign your party office.”

At first glance, it all seems straightforward, but when one looks at the facts of the case it becomes more difficult.

Lisa Murkowski lost the 2010 Republican primary to Joe Miller, then proceeded to run against Republican nominee Joe Miller, all the while maintaining her seat on the Republican State Central Committee. She was never disciplined, never censured, and never vacated her seat.

Chairman Babcock went on to suggest that those who don’t voluntarily step down are not only dishonorable, but also selfish.

If this is the case, then apparently the party Chairman is suggesting Lisa Murkowski is both dishonorable and selfish, and to top it all off her record in the United States Senate stands in stark contrast to the Alaska Republican Party platform whose stated mission is “to elect and appoint to public office Alaskans with integrity committed to enacting solutions consistent with these [Republican Party] principles.”

In essence, the Chairman is advocating that an obscure party rule be used to subvert the party’s stated mission in the promotion of a candidate who has systematically disregard party rules and undermined party principles.

So are we to conclude that the Alaska Republican Party Chairman would have party officers exhibit honor by supporting dishonor?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Frantic Murkowski Spokesman Contradicts Senator, Tells Alaska Press Pro-Abortion Senator “Remains Pro-Life”

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Citizens for Joe Miller Press Release
September 13, 2016, Anchorage, Alaska

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has a long record of support for abortion “rights” and federal funding for Planned Parenthood, is apparently pushing the line that she is, and has been, a pro-life senator. Alaska Dispatch News reported on Monday that the Incumbent Senator’s spokesman said Murkowski “remains pro-life.”

“This is typical Murkowski, but a staggering assertion nonetheless,” said Joe Miller. “It’s a clear indication that the Murkowski campaign is in a panic over the loss of Republican support. But it also poignantly illustrates that Alaskans can’t trust anything she says. It’s all politics all the time. She has no principles.”

Early in her tenure in the US Senate, Murkowski voted for a Sense of the Senate Amendment that affirmed:

“It is the sense of the Senate that – (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned.”

Murkowski has consistently stood in opposition to Ronald Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which bans taxpayer dollars from flowing to foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortion.

The Senator has also been a strong advocate for federal funding of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

But that’s not all, she has even defended Roe v. Wade on the Alaskan airwaves and accused Republicans of a “War on Women.”

During the last session of Congress, Murkowski received an 80 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, while her Republican colleagues like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earned a 0 percent.

There’s a reason Alaska Right to Life declined to endorse Murkowski during her 2004 run against Tony Knowles, and has subsequently backed Joe Miller.

But now that she’s in a tough re-election fight she’s throwing her liberal allies under the bus, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of pro-life Republicans. It’s not going to work.

Miller concluded, “Lisa Murkowski is a creature of Washington who governs one way and talks another. I think Alaskans are getting wise to the fact that she is playing both sides, but loyal to neither. As we saw in 2010, she’ll do or say anything she thinks will get her the desired political outcome – which is of course re-election.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the right to life, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton: I Didn’t Think Pneumonia Diagnosis Would Be a Big Deal; Obama Senior Staffer Attacks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper on Monday night that she didn’t think that her pneumonia diagnosis would be a “big deal.”

Clinton nearly collapsed on Sunday as she was leaving a September 11 memorial event in New York City. Her campaign released a statement over an hour later saying that she was feeling overheated, but then her campaign later announced that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier.

David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns, criticized Clinton on Monday on Twitter for her campaign not disclosing the diagnosis on Friday.

Cooper asked Clinton about Axelrod’s criticism and why she told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) about her pneumonia on Sunday morning, but didn’t tell the press or public.

“Well, I just didn’t think it was going to be that big a deal. I know Chuck said today he didn’t tell anybody. It’s just the kind of thing that if it happens to you and you’re a busy, active person, you keep moving forward,” Clinton said. (Read more from “Clinton: I Didn’t Think Pneumonia Diagnosis Would Be a Big Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memo to the Washington Post: The Bible Does Reject ‘Transgender’ Behavior

/0 Comments/in , , /by

With the op-ed “Where in the Bible does it say you can’t be transgender? Nowhere” (Aug. 26), the Washington Post apparently feels no embarrassment from publishing such a poorly executed attempt at exegesis of the biblical text (this from 3 weeks ago; it’s hard to keep up with nonsense). I had already responded on Aug. 15 to a badly done New York Times op-ed that claimed that the Bible depicts God as transgendered and affirms gender fluidity. The WashPost op-ed arrives at a similar ideological objective (i.e., claiming that the Bible is not opposed to transgenderism) but from a different angle. Rather than make the case that the Bible endorses transgenderism it attempts to argue that “there is not a single verse in scripture that discusses transgender identities.”

The author is a certain Eliel Cruz who is identified as “a bisexual Christian writer” and “executive director of Faith in America” (a organization which, according to his bio, is “dedicated to ending religious based bigotry towards LGBT people”). I see no evidence that he has any academic expertise in the field of biblical studies (just the kind of person the Post is eager to get?). His three arguments are as follows.

Cross-Dressing or Transgenderism: What’s the Difference?

Cruz claims that the reference in Deuteronomy 22:5 women who wear men’s clothes and men who wear women’s clothes as “an abomination (abhorrent, detestable) to Yahweh your God” is about cross-dressing and not transgenderism.

In the ancient Near East, this is a distinction without much of a difference. Almost certainly at least some of these figures (probably most of the men) were connected with the indictment of the so-called qedeshim: literally, “cult figures” or self-named “sacred ones,” connected with idolatrous cult shrines (Deut 23:17-18). These men thought themselves possessed by an androgynous deity. As self-perceived women in male bodies they attempted to erase their masculine identity with feminine dress, manners, occupations, and sometimes even castration.

Comparable Mesopotamian figures were known as the assinu, kurgarru, and kulu’u. A later manifestation were the Greco-Roman figures known as the galli, connected with the Great Mother Cybele. In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Judges thru 2 Kings) they were condemned for having committed an “abomination” (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). The biblical writers rejected any presumption that these birth-males were females.

Centuries later the apostle Paul referred to the malakoi (“soft men”; a Greek term, the Latin equivalent of which was molles), men who deliberately feminized themselves, sometimes to attract male sex partners, through dress, mannerisms, hairstyle, and at times even castration. This is a more generic term and necessitates no cultic connection (though in some cases there was such a connection). Paul listed such figures among those who, without repentance, would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Binary Significance

Cruz then claims that Genesis 1:27, “male and female he created them,” carries no binary implications. He cites the use of “and” in the phrase “the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1) and in the reference to God as “the alpha and the omega” (Rev 1:8) as including “everything in between.”

Yet the understanding of the phrase “male and female” as implying a sexual binary is all too obvious. In the few times that this exact phrase is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible it always indicates a sexual pair: Gen 5:2 (genealogy fulfilling command to “be fruitful and multiply,” similar to 1:27) and 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16 (animals going into the ark “two by two”).

According to Mark 10:5-9 (parallel in Matt 19:4-6), Jesus cited “male and female he created them” in Gen 1:27 alongside Gen 2:24 (“For this reason a man shall … be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh”) in order to establish a principle about duality of number in sexual relations. In short, Jesus predicated a limitation of two persons to a sexual union on the foundation of a divinely designed complementary sexual pair.

A century before Jesus the Jewish sectarian group known as the Essenes likewise applied the same principle from Gen 1:27, this time in connection with the duality of number in the Noah’s ark narrative (“two by two … male and female”), to reject polygamy among their adherents, calling the male-female requirement for sexual relations “the foundation of creation.” Jesus went further in applying the principle to a rejection of divorce/remarriage for any cause.

So Jesus clearly saw binary significance to the phrase “male and female.” His citation of Gen 2:24 confirms this, when he includes a reference to “the two” (man and woman) becoming “one flesh.” Mention of “the two” is missing from the Hebrew text of Gen 2:24 but all the other versions (Greek Septuagint translation, Aramaic Targums, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch) pick it up as obviously implied in the original.

Birth Sex, Gender and Intersex

Cruz also appeals to a distinction between birth sex and self-constructed “gender.” Yet he ignores the fact that biblical authors reject the idea that a self-constructed “gender” that differs from birth sex is in any sense true.

Cruz appeals to the “intersex” also, even though this is a separate issue from so-called “transgenderism.” The appeal to “intersex individuals” is akin to an appeal to conjoined twins as a basis for rejecting a standard of monogamy. It makes as a basis for imploding the entire standard an extraordinarily rare exception, where something goes developmentally wrong in nature’s processes (e.g., an inhibition of testosterone production or sensitivity, or an XXY in an essentially male child). The overwhelming percentage of the tiny subset of the population often categorized as “intersex” do not in fact straddle equally between two sexes but are marked predominantly as one sex or the other in terms of the possession (or lack) of a mostly functioning X chromosome.

When Jesus discusses briefly “eunuchs (eunouchoi) who were born so from the womb of their mother” (Matt 19:12) he rejects neither the binary male-female foundation for marriage nor the principle of duality of number secondarily derived from the foundation that he had just established (19:3-9). On the contrary, he presumes that if “born eunuchs” cannot enter the covenant of marriage as “men” they must remain celibate.

It is lamentable that the Washington Post is more interested in propaganda for the “transgender” cause than in credible scholarship. If they don’t like what the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have to say, then they should just say so rather than attempt to distort the witness of these texts in order to service their tainted ideological objectives. When the ends justify the means, all trust is lost in the integrity of the alleged journalism. (For more from the author of “Memo to the Washington Post: The Bible Does Reject ‘Transgender’ Behavior” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Washington, DC dinner, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine butchered the Bible and made one of the most twisted arguments for same-sex “marriage” that you’ll ever hear. Yet the very article laying out his arguments described him as a “devout” Roman Catholic. How can this be?

Putting aside the obvious question of how Kaine could serve on a presidential ticket with the radically pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton — indeed, he has already been challenged for “saying he is both a ‘traditional Catholic’ and a strong supporter of abortion” — Kaine raised further eyebrows when suggesting that the Catholic Church could one day change its position on same-sex “marriage,” just as he has done.

In support of his viewpoint, he cited Pope Francis’s oft-quoted comment about gay Catholics (“Who am I to judge?”), failing to realize that the Pope was not sanctioning homosexual acts and relationships but rather saying, “If someone is same-sex attracted and wants to be part of the Church, who am I to judge?”

This is very different from saying, “If two men are in love and want to have a romantic and sexual relationship, who am I to judge?”

But I am not a Catholic, nor can I predict where the Roman Catholic Church will be in 5 or 50 years. What I can say with certainty is that Sen. Kaine’s use of Genesis 1 to buttress his support of LGBT activism amounts to scriptural malpractrice.

He said, “I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, ‘It is very good.’”

And, he added, “Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Seriously? Kaine is going to Genesis 1 to argue for same-sex “marriage,” along with the larger LGBT agenda?

Genesis 1 and the Natural Family

Allow me to give a helpful hint to the senator: Sir, although you will find no support for your position anywhere in the Bible, the worst place you can go to argue your case is Genesis.

It is in Genesis 1 that we see the importance of gender distinctions, as God creates humankind as male and female — not as male, female, and an infinite number of variations, including agender, bigender, and third gender, along with multi-gender options like ambigender, bigender, blurgender, collgender, conflictgender, cosmicgender, crystagender, deliciagender, duragender, demiflux, domgender, fissgender, gemelgender, gendercluster, genderfluid, gendersea, genderfuzz, genderfractal, genderspiral, genderswirl, gendervex, gyaragender, libragender, ogligender, pangender, polygender and trigender.

Is this what Kaine was referring when he spoke of “the beautiful diversity of the human family” that we should celebrate? Genesis 1 states the exact opposite.

It is also in Genesis 1 that God blesses His human creation with the words, “be fruitful and multiply,” and it is only heterosexuals, by design, who can do this. That’s why, to this moment, no homosexual couple has ever been blessed by God with the ability to procreate by themselves.

The Bible and the Natural Family

This sets the pattern for the rest of the Bible, where the only marital relationships blessed by God, without exception, are heterosexual, with the male and female being uniquely designed for one another biologically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Accordingly, it is based on Genesis 1 that Paul explains in Romans 1 that homosexual acts are contrary to nature — meaning, contrary to God’s intended, natural plan for men and women.

And it is based on Genesis 1 that Jesus explains in Matthew 19 that marriage, as intended by God from the beginning, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Does Sen. Kaine now have insight into Genesis 1 that not only escaped his own Catholic Church, but Jesus and Paul as well?

The Fall of Man

As for Kaine’s argument that when the Creator “surveyed the entire world, including mankind [He] said, ‘It is very good’,” — meaning that homosexuality and bisexuality and more are all good — he seems to have forgotten that “very good” was God’s description of His creation before the fall, when sin entered the world.

After the fall, His assessment changed dramatically to this: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

So much for the “very good” assessment applying to human nature today!

Porneia

As expressed by Jesus, “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:18-19).

And note carefully that the Greek word for sexual immorality, porneia, is used in the plural here, referring to all sexual acts outside of marriage, which Jesus defined as the union of one man and one woman (see Matthew 19:4-6).

So, the very thing that Sen. Kaine wants to celebrate, the very “diversity” that he claims God established in creation, is the precise opposite of what God intended for His creation, as stated clearly in Genesis 1 and reaffirmed throughout the rest of the Bible, from Moses to Jesus to Paul.

Mrs. Clinton’s running mate would do well to submit his thinking to the Scriptures rather than twisting the Scriptures to fit his thinking. It is the senator who must change, not the Word of God. (For more from the author of “‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

PANIC: The Clinton Camp Freaks Out

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Even The Washington Post noted there were “no questions about her emails,” Topic A of the news cycle. Clinton’s reckless mishandling of classified material — reinforced by her 39 memory “lapses” in her FBI interview — should disqualify her from office. And Americans get it.

The media elites are in a panic. They witnessed the meltdown of their candidate in broad daylight and can feel that shiver up their spine — except that this time, it is not the delight of victory they are feeling, but the dread of defeat.

They watched her spar unsuccessfully over this issue with Clinton Global Initiative member and NBC morning news anchor Matt Lauer during Wednesday night’s national security forum, and blamed her poor performance on — Matt Lauer.

The Washington Post is now essentially an arm of the Democratic National Committee. It has done this with deep investigative dive into the penetralia of the Trump empire and no equivalent reporting about the Clinton emails, the Clinton Foundation’s corrupt pay-to-play scheme or the nonstop lies from Clinton herself.

NBC and CBS have jumped on the bandwagon, highlighting Clinton’s latest desperate claim that Trump is the favored candidate of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
American voters just aren’t that stupid, but these news organizations wouldn’t know anything about that. That’s why they are called the media elites.

On Thursday, The Washington Post editorial board took the occasion of Libertarian spoiler Gary JohnsonGary JohnsonThe media elites feel that shiver up the spine — and it’s not victory Fox Business host blames pot for Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe Schwarzenegger: Put Libertarians in debates MORE’s ignorance on the Syrian civil war as an opportunity to trash Trump.

“Gary Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe was bad. But Trump’s consistent ignorance is worse,” a lead editorial trumpeted.

The Post found Johnson, whom they called “clueless,” nevertheless to be “refreshing” when compared to Trump, “who in a televised national security forum Wednesday offered a staggering array of ignorant and mendacious assertions — and acknowledged no regrets about them.”

Let’s see. According to the Post, Trump repeated “his false claims to have opposed the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya.”

Really? The only time Trump ever said he might support a U.S. war in Iraq was with radio shock-jock Howard Stern in 2002. Here is how that exchange went:

“Are you for invading Iraq?” Stern asked. “Yeah [pause] … I guess so,” Trump replied.

Anyone who listens to the audio of that exchange will not recognize the bold colors of the Trump they know. Instead, they heard a man who clearly hadn’t given the Iraq war that much thought (after all, he was a private businessman at the time). Trump added, “You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Even so, that was enough for the Post, NBC News, and other media elites to say Trump “lied” when he said he opposed the 2003 Iraq War.

Not exactly a “gotcha” moment.

Then there’s this. Trump once again asserted in Wednesday night’s forum that the Bush administration should have left local Iraqis in charge of the country but kept control of “various sections where they have the oil.”

The Post sneered at “the jaw-dropping imbecility of this idea.” I guess they have forgotten the widespread media reporting in the run-up and aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war, claiming that President George W. Bush was waging a “war for oil.”

“No Blood for Oil,” protesters shouted, bursting into congressional hearings.

Post columnist Mary McGrory went further. “We’re starting a war not just for oil or for Ariel Sharon, but because we can win it.”

Of course, in Europe and the Arab world, “everyone knew” Iraq was a war for oil, Post columnist David Ignatius reminded readers at the time.

I can recall being invited to a French television debate in Paris on Oct. 25, 2004. I was the only Republican guest on a round table of Americans to discuss the 2004 presidential elections. Asked about the allegations that Iraq was a “war for oil,” I said, “Of course, it was.” I then added, “But it was a war for oil fought by [then French President Jacques] Chirac to preserve $100 billion in contracts for [French oil companies] Elf and Total.”

Trump went on to say that regardless of the decision over going to war, the United States should not have left Iraq precipitously, announcing that decision ahead of time so our enemies so hunker down and wait us out. “And the way they got out really caused ISIS, if you think about it,” Trump told Larry King on Russia Today (RT).

Predictably, the Post didn’t put that comment in context of Trump’s view of the 2003 war, but only reported it because he said it on RT.

I have already “fact-checked” Trump’s claim that Clinton and Obama were “founders of ISIS” and found it to be true not just because the precipitous U.S. withdrawal created a security vacuum for ISIS to exploit, but because it was the policy of the U.S. government at the time to reinforce and arm the groups that morphed into ISIS, as a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012 shows.

Of course, The Washington Post and the media elites dismissed Trump’s claim with a predictable sneer.

The American people have understood the media’s bold double-standard when it comes to the truth. Hillary Clinton’s pathological lying is okay, but anything they don’t like spoken by Trump is not.

Now the elite media is waking up to the fact that they no longer control the narrative, and they are in a panic. (For more from the author of “PANIC: The Clinton Camp Freaks Out” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

10 Pictures of Hillary Clinton Wobbling and Then Collapsing Today That Legacy Media Will Never Show You

/0 Comments/in , , /by

They now claim it’s “pneumonia”, but Hillary has had a longstanding and persistent cough that has defied treatment and couldn’t possibly be a months-long case of walking pneumonia.

In short, Hillary is very ill. She can’t stand up without supporting herself using railings, stools, tables, chairs, her mysterious Epipen-equipped handler, and — of course — Huma Abedin.

Her latest health scare involved collapsing into her wheelchair lift-equipped van, nearly knocking herself out.

Of course, the media are doing their level best to cover it up.

Via Mike Cernovich, I’ve come across two separate videos that show Hillary wobbling twice, unable to support herself and finally collapsing. The snapshots are quite telling:

160911-hillary-sick-010

160911-hillary-sick-012

160911-hillary-sick-014

160911-hillary-sick-030

Here’s another angle:

160911-hillary-sick-100

160911-hillary-sick-120

160911-hillary-sick-160

160911-hillary-sick-165

160911-hillary-sick-170

As Bill Clinton has admitted, Hillary’s health problems are “very serious.”

His wife appears to have little to no muscular strength, exceedingly poor balance and coordination, and — worst of all — a pathological disease called “Liar-itis”. (For more from the author of “10 Pictures of Hillary Clinton Wobbling and Then Collapsing Today That Legacy Media Will Never Show You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Carson Reminds Interviewer What Really Matters When Asked Question on Race

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson had a lesson for Fox News host Chris Wallace about what is really important in the 2016 presidential race after Wallace asked a question about race.

“Do you worry that you’re being used as a prop for black voters and that supporting Donald Trump will end up hurting your credibility in the black community?” Wallace asked Carson during his appearance on Fox News Sunday.

“It’s not about me. I said a long time ago, it’s not about me, it’s about our nation,” the soft-spoken Carson shot back.

Pointing out the hypocrisy from those who criticize Trump, Carson reminded Wallace that in 1995, former President Bill Clinton used his State of the Union address to focus on illegal immigration.

“He said, illegal aliens are creating big problems for us and we’re going to put a lot more border patrol people on and secure our borders and we’re not going to have people able to work who come in illegally. We’re going to cut off their welfare benefits and we’re going to deport people in record numbers,” Carson said.

“You know, he says basically the same thing, but when he says it, wow, great, standing ovation, this is a great president. But when Trump says it, it’s hate speech. What hypocrisy! What incredible hypocrisy,” Carson added.

Earlier in the interview, Carson noted that historically, the Republican Party has ceded inner cities to the Democrats.

“Donald Trump is changing that narrative and is really starting to talk about this in a very serious way,” Carson said, noting that in his personal discussions with Trump, the billionaire “becomes animated during the discussions … this is a subject about which he cares deeply.”

Trump’s focus is on changing the political dynamics, Carson said.

“And what is going to be accomplished is something that many in the Democratic Party fear, and this is an alternative — an alternative to, you know, promises that are not kept,” he said.

Carson then recited a litany of the problems facing urban centers, from poor schools to high crime, to unstable families with few jobs and even less hope.

During the interview, Wallace played a clip of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attacking Trump’s outreach efforts to black voters.

“It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, ‘What do you have to lose?’ Because the answer is everything,” Clinton said in the clip.

Wallace asked Carson to comment.

” … it’s really the Democratic Party that has the explaining to do. They’ve been in charge of our cities for a long time,” Carson responded.

“The city I grew up in, Detroit, was once the most prosperous city in the United States — some people say in the world. From there, it went to the largest bankruptcy. That was not a coincidence. And we see that in our large cities across the nation under Democratic control. That is a problem,” Carson said.

“And when that is happening, what Donald Trump is saying, why would you continue down that same pathway? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, expecting a different result. The result will not be different,” Carson concluded. (For more from the author of “Carson Reminds Interviewer What Really Matters When Asked Question on Race” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Joe Miller Announces Run Against Lisa Murkowski, Will Be on Alaska Ballot

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Joe Miller Press Release
Anchorage, Alaska 
 
Joe Miller Files to Challenge Murkowski for US Senate Seat

Anchorage, Alaska, September 6, 2016  –  At the urging of disenfranchised voters across the state of Alaska, 2010 Republican Nominee Joe Miller today filed his paperwork to run for United States Senate. 

“Alaskans deserve a real choice,” said Miller. “The choice between a Democrat, a Democrat-backed independent, and a Republican-In-Name-Only – who has been one of Barack Obama’s chief enablers – is no choice at all.” 

With a near-historic low of 15.4 percent turnout and only 7.7 percent of Alaska’s registered voters casting a vote for our incumbent senator in the primary, it is obvious that Alaskan voters wanted another choice. 

Due to Libertarian candidate Cean Stevens’ withdrawal from the race and a unanimous vote of the Alaska Libertarian Party’s board of directors, Joe Miller will appear on the November ballot as the Alaska Libertarian Party Nominee. Miller seeks to be the first third-party nominee to win a federal seat in decades. 

Murkowski is the most liberal “Republican” up for re-election having voted with Pres. Obama 72 percent of the time during the last session of Congress, second only to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.  

“The Conservative Voice for Alaska,” as Murkowski dubbed herself during this year’s primary election, ranks near the bottom of the American Conservative Union scorecard for GOP senators; was given an “F” grade by the Conservative Review for her voting record, and scores just 36 percent with the Heritage Action Committee ratings this session of Congress (34 percent lifetime), well below the 58 percent average for Republicans. 

By way of comparison, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who won the Alaskan presidential primary in the spring, scored 97 percent for his senate votes with Heritage Action, while Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, earned a 100 percent score. 

Alaska deserves representation that will confront the corruption of Washington and reverse the disastrous, big government policies of the Obama era, not facilitate them. From encroaching federal tyranny and the surveillance state, to illegal immigration and economically devastating trade deals; from confirming activists judges and pushing globalist treaties, to using our military as an experiment in social engineering and undermining religious liberty; from systematically trampling on the Constitutional rights of the weakest and most vulnerable among us, to burdening our children and grandchildren with intergenerational debt; Lisa Murkowski has failed Alaska and America. It’s time for a change.

If elected, Miller pledges to caucus with the Republican Party, but be a voice for reform on Capitol Hill and within the Last Frontier. 

Miller stated, “I am grateful to Cean Stevens and the Alaska Libertarian Party for their vote of confidence. It is humbling. They could not have been more gracious and helpful. This is an historic opportunity for liberty-loving Alaskans to lead this nation to a post-partisan future of limited constitutional government. I’m calling on all Alaskans of good will to join us in this effort. Together we can make history!” 

You may donate to Joe Miller’s campaign HERE.

——-
Joe Miller is a limited government constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the right to life, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.