Undercover: Steven Crowder Infiltrates Socialist Student Protest and It Is Absolutely Terrifying

So, what exactly does a “Students Against Sweatshops” conference entail? Conservative comedian Steven Crowder went undercover — for science — to find out.

The results? Just … just watch and see for yourself.

Today’s college students don’t identify as socialists, but rather as “anarchist-communists.”

Do not confuse “intersecting identities.” You can be “sexuality queer” but NOT “gender queer” and if you get that wrong, well, you’re naturally a BIGOT.

And, of course, a “conference” is really code for paid union protests where the unions don’t actually show up and just use these college students to promote their far-left agenda and do their dirty work for them.

If this is the best our universities have to offer, we’re doomed. (For more from the author of “Undercover: Steven Crowder Infiltrates Socialist Student Protest and It Is Absolutely Terrifying” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murkowski Insider, KTVA’s John Tracy, Fails to Declare Conflict of Interest in PFD Grab

Former Murkowski media consultant John Tracy this week took on the topic of Bill Walker’s PFD grab on his weekly television spot “Reality Check,” defending the embattled governor and suggesting that Alaskans opposed the governor’s legally dubious executive action are being unreasonable.

It’s time to “reality check” John Tracy.

Tracy suggests it is ordinary Alaskans who don’t want to just hand their money over to an outsized, wasteful and confiscatory government who are being unreasonable, not the government that is deficit spending at a reported $360,000 an hour.

He even goes so far as to invoke the Alaska Constitution as justification for confiscating the common property of all Alaskans for the benefit of a few.

But the section cited explicitly states: “the fund should provide a means of conserving a portion of the state’s revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans.”

What Tracy never begins to explain is how diverting those resources to some Alaskans now, without fixing the underlying problem, serves the interests of all Alaskans now, much less benefits “all generations of Alaskans.”

He further compounds his error by suggesting the PFD is an “entitlement,” rather than just compensation for private property taken by the State of Alaska, our mineral rights.

At first blush it would appear Tracy is just another arrogant elitist blowhard, but when one scratches below the surface something else altogether emerges.

John Tracy’s high-sounding rhetoric about Governor Walker’s knowing the difference between politics and governing – read, being a statesman –  is nothing more than a manipulative ploy to cover for his bosses.

The truth is, Tracy is being paid big bucks by KTVA to say what he says. KTVA is owned by GCI, whose President and CEO Ron Duncan co-Chairs the Alaska’s Future campaign, a special interest cabal comprised of major corporations, unions, and corrupt politicians pushing to take ordinary Alaskans’ PFD to solve the State’s fiscal woes.

Duncan has gone so far as to blackmail our politicians by threatening to pull as much as $220 million in planned capital improvements off the table if the State government doesn’t comply with their demands.

John Tracy further has counted Senator Lisa Murkowski among his major clients, who has for years favored the PFD grab, dating all the way back to her days in the State legislature before her father appointed her to the United States Senate.

Even over the objections of a whopping 83% of Alaskans, Murkowski co-sponsored and voted for legislation to take your PFD, a measure her father backed strongly as governor of Alaska.

Earlier this year, Senator Murkowski reiterated her support for an all-options-on-the-table approach to the State’s budget shortfall, including your PFD.

John Tracy is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he owes Alaskans a full accounting of his rather substantial conflicts of interest. Because maybe, just maybe, his opinions are shrouded in self-interest.

In the interest of full disclosure, Restoring Liberty publisher Joe Miller drafted the Recall Walker petition application that is circulating around the state.

Here’s hoping the mainstream media catches up to speed on full disclosure.

________________________________________

For more on KTVA’s questionable reporting, click HERE.

Did Jeb Bush Just Let Slip Who He’s Voting for in Presidential Election?

When asked who he will vote for in the November presidential election, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has intimated on several occasions that he may cast his vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

At a luncheon hosted by the Manhattan Institute on Wednesday, Bush suggested he may choose Johnson over Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

A source at the luncheon told the New York Daily News, “There was an old man talking to Jeb across the table and said, ‘I can’t bring myself to vote for Hillary and Trump,’ and Jeb looked at him and mouthed the word ‘Johnson,’ silently.”

During his speech at the event, Bush reportedly made a comment referring to Johnson as the president.

According to a source, Bush jokingly said, “If I did get a call several weeks after the election, what would I tell President Johnson — I mean, President whoever.”

In an email to the Daily News, Kristy Campbell, spokesperson for Bush, made it clear he had not chosen a candidate to support.

“Nothing has changed since the Governor wrote [a Washington Post] op-ed a couple months ago saying he couldn’t support Hillary or Trump. He has said he would consider voting for the Libertarian ticket. No decision/update though,” Campbell wrote.

Johnson, who according to the latest Real Clear Politics analysis is drawing about 7 percent support in the most recent presidential polls, has been in the news recently for his responses to questions on foreign issues.

The former governor of New Mexico recently appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” where he was asked, “What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?”

Johnson responded, “And what is Aleppo?”

The host asked if he was joking to which Johnson answered, “No.”

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Wednesday, Johnson was asked to name his favorite foreign leader.

Johnson wanted to name the former Mexican President Vicente Fox, but was unable to grasp the name.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson told Matthews. (For more from the author of “Did Jeb Bush Just Let Slip Who He’s Voting for in Presidential Election?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

City Obama Buried in Refugees Is Fighting Back

The latest flashpoint in the growing backlash against refugee resettlement is Fargo, North Dakota, where the city commission is demanding a full accounting of the program’s costs.

“Surprisingly, that’s never been done before,” said a Fargo city commissioner, Dave Piepkorn, who spoke with WND this week and can be seen discussing his plan in the video above.

Fargo, like many other small cities that have received large numbers of refugees, has been divided by the issue. There have been protests against refugees and counter protests in favor of them, followed by biting blogs and news reports on both sides.

Fargo was thrust into the spotlight on Sept. 18 when it was revealed that the Somali refugee who attacked mall shoppers in St. Cloud, Minnesota, was originally resettled here.

“When we have one Muslim terrorist who tries to kill innocent people in St. Cloud, which is two hours from here, that raised my alarm,” said Piepkorn, who is leading the fight to expose the costs of refugee resettlement on his community. (Read more from “City Obama Buried in Refugees Is Fighting Back” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate

Immediately after the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ended Monday night, liberal media pundits began gloating abuot how poorly Trump performed. Many Republicans piled on. I felt like we had watched two different debates.

Were they right? No.

Trump’s Higher Hurdle

Trump had to jump higher hurdles than Clinton to get a favorable report from the mainstream media, who favor Clinton and see the world the way she does. He faced other disadvantages.

The moderator, Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, is being called “the third debater” by HeatStreet for his biased role. He asked six follow-up questions of Trump but none of Clinton. Holt asked Clinton nothing about her emails, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. Instead, he “grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.”

Holt’s fact-checking follow-ups were directed at Trump, not Clinton. Todd Starnes, a contributor to The Stream, tweeted, “Lester Holt should’ve moderated — instead of auditioning to be Hillary’s press secretary.” (For other examples of the media’s unfair use of fact-checking against Trump, see The Washington Times‘ article “Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism.”)

Journalists evaluating the debate kept up the claim that Trump made many mistakes and false claims. Compared to Clinton, he is vulnerable to this criticism. Clinton is a lawyer, with years of experience nitpicking details, which showed when she got bogged down on details several times during the debate. In contrast, Trump is a creative innovator, who has focused on the big picture throughout his entire career.

Now, it is true that Trump made a few mistakes, but his misstatements were generally not material. One “error” some jumped on was his saying Clinton has “been fighting ISIS [her] entire adult life.”

Yes, ISIS began in 1999, when Clinton was 52. She hasn’t been fighting ISIS her entire adult life. But as a public figure, she has always been a strong supporter of aggressive military action against such groups. Trump exaggerated to make a point about her consistent support for military intervention. It’s called “hyperbole” and it’s a legitimate way of making a point. Nevertheless, some “fact-checkers” declared that Trump was wrong again.

Clinton Performed Even Worse

What the media is leaving out is that Clinton performed even worse than Trump. Equally missing is any praise for the clever things Trump said.

Stylistically, Clinton was a disaster. It may not be fair to judge candidates on this, but style does influence voters — remember the Nixon-Kennedy debate. She marched out in a glaringly bright red pantsuit, the type of outfit she is ridiculed for, since the harsh colors are unforgiving to her body shape. She reverted to her nasally, harsh “schoolmarm” voice throughout the length of the debate, perhaps to keep from coughing.

She came across as arrogant and condescending, unlikable, particularly when she gloated while boasting about her accomplishments. Since few voters know anything about her tenure as secretary of state other than the Benghazi terror attack and her email scandal, the bragging felt fake.

Trump cleverly interjected short comments while Clinton was speaking, refuting her. Even if a critic disagrees with him, the critic should credit him with an effective debating strategy. Of course, his critics complain that he only did that because she’s a woman — though if Clinton had done the same to him they would have been silent.

Professional political observers can argue about who did better in the debate. I think Trump did better than Clinton, but liberal journalists usually think Clinton did better than Trump. The real test is what effect the debates have on undecided voters, and that is something we won’t know for a long time. (For more from the author of “No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gowdy Says Lies Show Sufficient Intent to Prosecute Clinton in Email Scandal

With the FBI investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server having revealed careless conduct, flouting of the rules for handling sensitive documents, and attempts to cover up the scandal, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., wanted to know on Wednesday what — exactly — the FBI’s standard would have been to have prosecuted Clinton for breaking the law.

“What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution?” Gowdy asked FBI Director James Comey during a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday.

Comey, as he has before, said that he would have to be able to prove intent. On Wednesday, he replied to Gowdy that he would have had to be able to prove Clinton knew what she did was wrong when she did it.

“But the way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve done,” Gowdy said. “That is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong, that they lied about it.”

The congressman made it clear he believed intent had been demonstrated.

” … you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department, such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information, whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices, whether or not the person knew that a frequent e-mailer to her had been hacked, and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that your e-mail or someone who’s been e-mailing with you prolifically had been hacked, and whether or not — and I think you would agree with this, Director — false exculpatory statements are gold in a courtroom. I would rather have a false exculpatory statement than a confession. I would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that that is a lie, such as that I neither sent nor received classified information. Such as that I turned over all of my work related e-mails. All of that to me goes to the issue of intent,” Gowdy said.

He told Comey he was “real careful not to criticize you” but was highly unhappy with the results of the FBI’s work.

“That is not the FBI that I used to work with,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy had also expressed his frustration during Fox and Friends when he noted that rules seemed to have been bent severely in the investigation, as typified by the multiple roles played by Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, who was given immunity by the FBI.

“Cheryl Mills, one day she’s a target, one day she’s a witness, and then the next day, she’s sitting in Secretary Clinton’s interview as a lawyer. And I’ll just tell you, as somebody that did this for a living, that is unprecedented,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy was not alone in being skeptical.

“It seems clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server,” said Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va.. “The FBI, however, declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable bases.”

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said he was certain the decision not to prosecute Clinton was made before she was interviewed. Comey denied that assertion. (For more from the author of “Gowdy Says Lies Show Sufficient Intent to Prosecute Clinton in Email Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Shows Miller Within Single Digits Of Murkowski

Anchorage, Alaska. September 28, 2016 — A new poll released this week finds Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller within single digits of incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.

The People’s Pundit Daily tracking poll surveyed 317 likely Alaskan voters and found Murkowski with 38 percent, to Miller’s 30 percent, while Democrat Ray Metcalfe garnered 13 percent and 19 percent remained undecided.

Not included in the poll was left-leaning Independent senate candidate Margaret Stock.

A poll conducted in late August, prior to Miller’s entry into race, had Murkowski at 56 percent to Metcalfe’s 12 percent and Margaret Stock’s 5 percent. In other words, the senator has seen a significant drop-off since Miller entered the field.

Though Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll, Metcalfe’s consistent numbers in both surveys bolster the results as giving at least a rough picture of where the race stands.

It should be noted that Alaska has a strong conservative base, as evidenced by the Republican presidential primary results in March.

Sen. Ted Cruz, won the state taking 36 percent of the vote, followed by Donald Trump with 33.5 percent, Sen. Marco Rubio with 15 percent and Dr. Ben Carson with 11 percent. In other words, non-establishment Republicans accounted for at least 80 percent of the primary vote total in the state.

Miller’s insurgent candidacy would appear best poised to benefit from the popular anti-establishment sentiment in the country.

“We like where we stand right now,” said Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto. “We are three weeks into this race, and Joe is within single digits of an incumbent U.S. senator who spent millions billing her herself as ‘The Conservative Voice For Alaska’ but having a record of voting with Obama more than any other ‘Republican’ senator up for re-election (72 percent of the time during the last Congress).”

“I believe when Alaskans learn that record, many of those undecided voters will move into the Joe Miller column,” he added.

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 Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed

At last night’s debate, there was one issue that Hillary Clinton really exposed herself on: gun control. With her talk of the “no fly list,” discussion of a “gun epidemic,” and a “plague of gun violence,” it became evident that Hillary has many ideas of how to impose comprehensive gun control.

According to the Washington Post transcript of the first presidential debate, Hillary said of guns:

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.

The term “epidemic” and “plague” are medical terms used to describe illnesses. This is language intended to communicate the idea that gun violence is a health problem like cancer or the Zika virus. When one makes the ownership of guns akin to a sickness, it becomes easier to sell the American people the idea of mandatory gun confiscation.

Violence isn’t caused by guns, it is caused by people with guns, and knives and bombs. An issue that receives far less attention is the fact the violence is a societal problem made worse by rampant glorification in movies, cable shows, music, and violent video games. In other words, guns are not the problem. The people holding the guns are the problem because we, as a society, have been desensitized to violence through entertainment that glorifies violence.

Movies like Hostel to Reservoir Dogs to Natural Born Killers all glorify violence and make it acceptable to see death. Video games like Grand Theft Auto and the many military style games teach kids how to kill and allow kids to go on killing rampages. Violence in entertainment impacts the attitudes of people towards real life situations.

No liberal would dare to call these movies and video games an “epidemic” or a “plague” because that might lead to a chipping away of what many consider a First Amendment right. Yet, no similar treatment is given to the Second Amendment that resides in that same Bill of Rights.

According to the Washington Post transcript, Hillary argued:

And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we’ve got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.

Here Hillary called for a widespread gun confiscation, the closing of gun shows, and ending face-to-face sales of guns by requiring background checks on private sales. Hillary is an anti-gun extremist who does not respect the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Clinton closed that segment with a false equivalency:

And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

Trump, along with the NRA, supports the idea of imposing some due process when somebody is pinged as being on a watch list so they can challenge the removal of the right to purchase a gun. The NRA position is that if somebody tries to purchase a gun and they are on the “no fly list” then they have the opportunity to go into court and challenge the action.

Hillary supports legislation that process rights from those that end up, intentionally or unintentionally, on the no fly list. Trump and Clinton do not support the same idea on how to treat individuals who are on the “no fly list” who try to purchase a gun, because Hillary does not support due process protections in the legislation being supported by Trump, the NRA, and other Republicans.

The noise of “who won and who lost the debate,” Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s tax returns, and Rosie O’Donnell don’t really matter to most voters. Having their guns confiscated and does matter.

On the issue of guns, Hillary lost the debate with Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History

Early Monday morning, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council made a huge announcement that rocked the political world.

“We hereby endorse Donald J. Trump, and urge all Americans, especially the millions of lawful immigrants living within our country, to support Donald J. Trump, and to protect American jobs, wages and lives,” the organization’s president, Chris Crane, wrote in a statement published at DonaldJTrump.com.

What made the endorsement so stunning was that the National ICE Council had never before in its history made an endorsement for a candidate running for an elected office.

Plus, the council represented 7,600 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff members.

Yet this time around, the council chose to have a vote, and according to the results of that vote, GOP candidate Donald Trump received the vast majority of the council members’ support.

“This first-ever endorsement was conducted by a vote of our membership, with Hillary Clinton receiving only 5 percent of that vote,” Crane’s statement clarified.

In explaining why council members disliked Democrat candidate Clinton so much, Crane pointed to her support of “the most radical immigration proposal in U.S. history.”

He also claimed that her plan had been crafted with the assistance of “special interests and open-borders radicals.”

“Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders,” his statement went on.

The Democrat candidate would also expand executive amnesty, expand catch-and-release and prioritize the non-enforcement of America’s federal immigration laws, Crane wrote.

Trump’s plan, on the other hand, would “restore immigration security” by, among other things, cancelling President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, putting an end to sanctuary cities and providing immigration agents with the tools and resources they need to effectively carry out their jobs.

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane continued.

“We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal,” he concluded. (For more from the author of “National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends

There’s a fascinating new documentary, Clinton, Inc., which every voter in America really ought to see. Media are full of news stories, most of them hyped and some of them false, that highlight objections which conservative or moderate voters might have to Donald Trump. The same reporters and editors who fawned over Trump in the primaries and granted him billions in free coverage seem to have turned on him the day he clinched the GOP nomination.

Now some of them have abandoned even the frayed mask of objectivity and openly taken up the cause of trying to throw the election the Democrats’ way. Amiable Jimmy Fallon was subject to a public shaming because he gave Trump the same kind of friendly, softball interview he gives every other guest on his light-hearted late night show.

Conversely, major media have been virtually complicit in smoothing over Hillary Clinton’s scandals, particularly since she defeated Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Little coverage goes to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who embraces Sanders’ agenda. It’s as if a quiet memo had been issued across the media, instructing reporters and editors: “Lay off until the election.”

The makers of Clinton, Inc. didn’t get the memo. The film’s producer is Doug Sain, who also produced 2016: Obama’s America, which was a huge hit among conservatives. Clinton, Inc. is based on the book of that title by Weekly Standard editor Daniel Halper. But this film doesn’t focus on ideology. In fact, it’s a movie you can take your liberal friends and family members to see. They’ll emerge from it deeply troubled about Hillary Clinton’s character and her fitness to be president.

Clinton, Inc. is a cool, objective look at the rise of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. It consults biographers, former advisers such as Dick Morris, psychologists, marital therapists, FBI agents, and progressive activists, to analyze the characters of both candidates and the changes they’ve undergone over the decades. The film asks (and goes far toward answering) critical questions such as:

Why did such a highly intelligent, ambitious politician as Bill Clinton get himself into a long series of squalid, potentially embarrassing sexual affairs with poorer, less powerful women while joined in a very public, political marriage to Hillary? Why couldn’t he control himself?

Why did a strong-willed, overtly feminist woman such as Hillary accept Bill’s humiliating infidelities, and step in to save him from political bankruptcy again and again — even targeting and demonizing the women who truthfully admitted their part in these affairs?

How was Hillary’s political acumen crucial to Bill’s political career?

Why did Bill Clinton back the trade deal NAFTA against the fierce objections of his labor union voting base? How did that decision open the door to massive fundraising from international corporations, which far outweighed the anger of disgruntled Teamsters and auto-workers?

What behind-the-scenes bargain existed between Bill and Hillary, rewarding her for her silence about his compulsive infidelities?

How have two politicians who left the White House deep in debt accumulated a private fortune of more than $100 million, while running what is supposedly a non-profit charity, the Clinton Foundation? Why has the foundation never been properly audited?

What favors did they trade, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, to foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, in return for multi-million dollar donations?

Why did Hillary Clinton flout the law to use an insecure private email server to send hundreds, or even thousands, of classified emails while she was Secretary of State? What might have been on the 30,000 emails which Congress had requested, which she deleted instead?

It’s Not About Sex. It’s About Perjury.

Sex scandals, while unsavory, are a key part of the Clintons’ story. Those of us who lived through the late 1990s will well remember the sordid spectacle of Bill Clinton’s exploitative affair with intern Monica Lewinsky — a White House intern who was only eight years older than Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea. What we might have forgotten, and what younger voters won’t even know, is the reason that such private conduct became an issue of public debate. It wasn’t prurient interest on the part of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, though that’s how most media choose to retell the story.

No, the question of Bill Clinton’s sexual activities while in public office became relevant because he was being sued for sexual harassment by a former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, an accusation which he denied under oath. Perjury is a crime, which Starr was obliged to investigate. That was what forced Starr to look into the news of Bill’s affair with Lewinsky. It established a pattern of conduct.

What most of America wondered, as that sordid story unfolded and Hillary backed Bill in public lie after lie, was why such a strong-willed, steely woman stood by her cheating husband from the beginning to end of the scandal. What did she get in return for enduring that gross humiliation?

Clinton, Inc. gives the answer: Bill Clinton essentially appointed her the Democratic nominee for Senate in New York State. She received that party nomination without even facing a primary — a staggering coup d’etat in a state full of ambitious Democratic candidates.

The Clintons had never lived, worked, or paid taxes in New York. The one time Hillary appeared in a Yankees baseball cap reporters burst out laughing. But the New York State Democratic Party is an old-style political machine, one that a sitting Democratic president could work to his advantage. And as Clinton, Inc. makes clear, the price that Hillary demanded for backing up Bill’s lies all through those sexual scandals was that Bill jump-start her own career by short-circuiting democracy for New York Democratic voters.

As this film makes clear, that nasty back-room trade-off epitomizes the Clintons. Their governing motive isn’t even ideology. It is naked ambition — a ravenous hunger for power and wealth that trumps political issues. So fixated are the Clintons on building a political dynasty, that they are more than willing to get in bed with the crony capitalists at Goldman Sachs, or Saudi princes whose government executes homosexuals.

They will lie for each other, lie to Americans, lie under oath, and punish old friends and allies who happen to stand in their way. If you wondered how on earth someone as offbeat as Bernie Sanders became a major threat to Clinton, this film will help you understand why so many well-meaning Democrats refused to back Mrs. Clinton. She offended their sense of smell. (For more from the author of “The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.