One month after a Bernie Sanders supporter served the Democratic National Committee and its then-chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, with a civil complaint alleging fraud on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he was found dead in his Florida home.
In a video recorded by independent filmmaker Ricardo O. Villalba, the deceased, Shawn Lucas, appeared to be excited to serve papers on the DNC on July 3 — the day before Independence Day . . .
An unconfirmed report indicates that on Tuesday Lucas was found dead by his girlfriend in the bathroom of his home . . .
Given Lucas’ young age, news of his sudden death set social media ablaze with speculations of conspiracy — especially coming close on the heels of the July 10 murder of young DNC staffer Seth Rich.
Rich’s killer reportedly took nothing of value from the 27-year-old — with the exception of his life. His wallet, watch and cell phone were still on his person.
This follows death of 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich who was murdered-now Shawn Lucas found dead https://t.co/LgauyMtnaP
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/21581179719_571bb5a7ab_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-06 03:35:582016-08-07 00:28:10Lead Attorney in DNC Fraud Case Found Dead
Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails . . .
Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that the payment was part of the Iran nuclear deal and completely unconnected to the release of the men.
““[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time that the prisoners were released,” the Snopes article reads. “The Tribunal was created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”
The article largely sources a statement from State Department spokesman Jack Kirby.
“The negotiations over the (arms deal) settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” Kirby said in the statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.” (Read more from “Website Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama’s Lies” HERE)
Count the Department of Justice among those who thought it was a boneheaded idea to drop $400 million cash in the Iranian ayatollah’s hands the same day four American prisoners were released.
According to The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of the secret cargo plane of cash Tuesday, the timing and manner of the flight raised alarms with senior Justice Department officials. As one told the WSJ, “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment.”
The State Department rejected DOJ’s concern and carried out the payment. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry flatly denied any connection between the pallet of cash and the prisoner swap and implementation of the nuclear deal. “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” Kerry told reporters while in Buenos Aires. “It is not our policy.”
President Obama himself scoffed at the notion he’d paid a ransom to Iran, telling reporters Thursday, “This wasn’t some nefarious deal.” But an interview of one of the prisoners conducted after his release challenges that assertion.
Timing Is Everything
A quick timeline may help explain DOJ’s alarm and the growing suspicion.
Way back in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still in the White House, the Shah of Iran dropped $400 million into a Pentagon account to purchase U.S. fighter jets. Soon after, the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution and Carter canceled the deal, understanding that arming America-hating Islamists is never a good idea. The $400 million was frozen after those Islamists stormed our embassy, taking 56 Americans hostage.
In the decades since, Iran has wanted its money back with billions in interest, with the two sides endlessly haggling over the matter at an international court at The Hague.
Meanwhile, in recent years, Iran has been arresting Iranian-Americans, holding four in captivity like aces in a poker game as the Obama urged the terrorist nation to accept a deal over its nuclear program.
But what about the four hostages? John Kerry declared they are not part of the nuclear negotiations.
Obama got his Iran nuke deal last summer, with the agreement scheduled to formally go into effect January 2016.
The hostages remained rotting in prison. The public pressure mounted.
Suddenly, after 36 years — and entirely coincidentally, claims the White House — Obama decides it’s time to settle the matter of the $400 million. He’s going to give Iran back its $400 million, plus $1.3 billion in taxpayer money. And — entirely coincidentally — the hostages were being freed. Said Obama on January 17, “With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well.”
The time was right, indeed, if you were one of those four hostages. Obama forgot to mention that the initial payment to Iran had already happened nearly simultaneously with the release of the prisoners. The White House Wednesday refused to clarify whether the money had to be delivered before the four were freed.
However, also on Thursday, Fox News played a clip of an interview they conducted with one of the prisoners, Saeed Abedini, the day he was freed. Abedini said that they kept being delayed “hours and hours” at the airport even though their plane was there and the pilots were ready. When he asked about the delay, he was told repeatedly they could not leave “until the other plane arrives” and “if that other plane doesn’t come we’ll never let you go.”
The Delivery
It’s not just the timing that made the deal suspicious. It was the delivery. The money wasn’t wired. There was no delay until a proper arrangement of U.S. funds could be made. There was no ceremony with a big check acknowledging this diplomatic breakthrough-cum-lottery-win for Iran. The administration got hold of $400 million in francs and rubles, packed it on a pallet, loaded it onto an unmarked cargo plane and landed it into the waiting arms of the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. And our hostages were free.
No wonder the Justice Department thought the arrangement smelled an awful lot like a ransom payment. Still, the State Department rejected DOJ’s concerns and went ahead with its fly-by-night operation.
The Justice Department isn’t exactly denying the Wall Street Journal account, telling the newspaper the agency “fully supported the ultimate outcome of the administration’s resolutions of several issues with Iran.” “Ultimate outcome” is legal-speak for “At least they got the prisoners back in one piece.” A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the latest WSJ story.
Let’s add one more curious event to the timeline. Remember how Iran grabbed two boats full of U.S. sailors, made them kneel at gunpoint, made them appear in videos, made some of them cry, made a mockery of international law and standards? Remember John Kerry gushing over the Iranians like girls at a Justin Bieber concert? That happened just days before this magical congruence of cash flying one way, hostages flying the other and the Iran nuclear deal officially going into effect.
With Obama desperately needing the Iran deal to be implemented without a hitch, with the hostages still in limbo, with a settlement over the $400 million not yet announced, did the Iranians want to wring a few more concessions or a few more dollars out of its enemy? Or was it yet another coincidence?
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and “Old News”
Secretary of State Kerry attempted to dismiss the significance of the WSJ bombshell, telling reporters, “This story is not a new story. This was announced by the president of the United States himself at the same time.”
His predecessor, current candidate for president Hillary Clinton, said almost exactly the same thing, like it was from a script: “Well,” she says in the clip below, “the White House talked about this and this is kind of old news. It was first reported about seven or eight months ago.”
“Old news” is a familiar phrase to those who have followed Clinton scandals. As Politistick.com notes when a scandal emerges the Clinton strategy is to deny, deflect, delay and then declare any further revelations as “old news.” Still, in this case, Hillary was not at the helm when the deal was completed, and indeed her answer above is carefully couched in phrases like, “as I understand.”
Meanwhile, Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump is being roasted for suggesting he watched Iranian government video of the Iranians unloading the $400 million. It was actually file footage from Fox News of the January prisoner release. Curious how quickly the media moves away from Obama’s actions to Trump’s mouth.
The “But the Sale Was Going to End” Defense
There’s an old joke. A woman comes home from the department store with a new dress. “Honey, I made us $50!” “Great, dear. How?” “This dress was $100, but I got it half off!” Secretary Kerry is waiving that dress in defending the payment to Iran. He claims agreeing to pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle the matter of the $400 million was a win for America. “We believe this agreement … actually saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars,” Kerry said. “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.” After 36 years, how does dragging it out a few weeks make a difference?
The notion that we had to pay Iran this money right now because the only alternative was paying billions more later struck a familiar chord. As President Obama and Kerry were pushing the Iranian nuclear deal, they repeatedly stated that the only alternative to signing the deal they negotiated was war.
This was one of the false narratives — what others would call “lies” — White House adviser Ben Rhodes admitted he created in order to sell the Iranian nuclear deal.
In the wake of Rhodes’ boast and the events surrounding the $400 million payment, it’s no stretch to suggest that while America citizens were ransomed, our credibility was destroyed. (For more from the author of “DOJ Protested Payment to Iran; Prisoners Told They Couldn’t Leave ‘Until Other Plane Arrives” please click HERE)
Here is the transcript and the revelation by Assange…
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, I want to mention something else. In March, you launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents span the time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton herself. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. Why did you do this, and what’s the importance, from your perspective, of being able to create a searchable base?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilisation is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.
So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.
(Read more from “Julian Assange Says “1,700 Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Collection” Proves She Sold Weapons to ISIS in Syria” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/459271639_07cb09817a_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-05 02:53:402016-08-07 00:38:55Julian Assange Says “1,700 Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Collection” Proves She Sold Weapons to ISIS in Syria
States don’t have standing to sue Obama for illegally colonizing their cities with Syrian refugees, but illegal immigrants and criminal aliens have standing to sue for public benefits. That is the state of play in the modern judicial system and the contemporary legal profession.
One of the most basic principles of the social compact theory, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, is that only the existing members of a civil society, through their duly elected representatives, can determine who may enter and become part of that society or under what conditions that individual may become a member. As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy and why the courts, before they became autocratic in recent years, conceded that they have no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature on any immigration decision.
In Stolen Sovereignty, I warn that the unelected executive agencies and the courts are engaging in social transformation without representation by violating immigration statutes in order to achieve their de-civilization goals. As Conservative Review has observed throughout the past year, Obama is breaking statutes and abusing his power to use parole, refugee, asylum, and temporary protected status – and of course – executive amnesty – to bring in more immigrants against the consent of the people. Likewise, the courts are illegally overturning congressional immigration statutes and granting standing to illegal aliens and criminal immigrants to block deportations and even petition for affirmative rights, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and gun rights.
Yet, at the same time, American citizens, states, law enforcement, and even ICE agents have been denied standing to sue in court when Obama is violating immigration statutes and the sovereignty of the states and the people. Thus, while the courts illegally venture out of their jurisdiction to overturn congressional sovereignty statutes – the most inviolate area of settled law – they refuse to actually grant standing to cases within their core purview, which includes striking down illegal executive actions that run contrary to existing law. Remember that Civics 101 class about courts applying the law instead of nullifying it?
As we’ve noted before, while the federal government controls the refugee process, they must engage in advance consultation with the states at every stage of the resettlement process. Yet, Obama’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in conjunction with taxpayer-funded private organizations, are engaging in the ultimate social transformation without representation – jeopardizing the security, culture, and public services of localities – without even informing them of the resettlement after the fact.
Unfortunately, federal judges already blocked Texas from suing the Obama administration. Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the state of Alabama standing to sue the Administration for not engaging in advance consultation. In a 28-page memo, Ott wrote:
Nothing in the Refugee Act requires defendants to provide plaintiffs with information necessary to assess security and other potential risks posed by refugees, or information necessary to adequately plan and prepare for the arrival of refugees in the state, in regard to security and requests for social services and public assistance.
As I noted last year, statute absolutely requires ORR to take into account security and economic considerations and engage in advanced consultation with the states.
This is yet one more reason why the courts will always be a dead-end for conservatives and why simply “appointing better judges” will not help. Even good judges feel compelled to abide by existing precedent governing rules of standing, which is so one-sided against Americans that illegal aliens have more standing to fight immigration actions than taxpayers and states.
It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate. If Trump and Republicans actually wanted to turn around this pending electoral disaster and defeat Hillary Clinton, the nominee would immediately call for GOP leaders to reconvene for the summer and pass legislation empowering states to reject refugee resettlement. This is even more powerful than placing a national moratorium on resettlement; it allows the people and states to decide the future of their communities. These are the decisions the individual nation-states of the European Union never got to make before their societies were transformed into microcosms of the Middle East and now incur daily terror attacks – to the point that they are no longer newsworthy.
Any takers? (For more from the author of “States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_in_Dresden_Germany_2009-3.jpg13912086Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-05 00:54:222016-08-07 00:41:21States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can
States have passed so-called “medical marijuana” laws under the theory that pot has medicinal benefits that can’t be produced by other, legal means.
But what if there was a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug that gave you all the benefits of the active ingredients in marijuana, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol?
What if that drug had been rigorously tested through clinical trials to make sure that it worked as promised, was properly dosed, and had no unanticipated side effects?
And what if you could get that lawful drug from your doctor in pill or liquid form?
And what if there were three such different FDA-approved drugs, and two more on the FDA-approved fast track?
Would it surprise you to know there already are three FDA-approved THC drugs and that at least five more are on the way? We suspect so, because the pot pushers—those that push smoked and edible marijuana as “medicine”—don’t want you to know about these safe alternatives.
Some of those FDA-approved drugs have been around since the 1980s.
That’s right—the dirty little secret they hide from you is that you don’t have to smoke marijuana, eat it in a brownie, or chew it in a marijuana-laced gummy bear to reap the medicinal benefits of THC.
The three FDA-approved drugs are Marinol, Cesamet, and Syndros. Drugs like Syndros show great promise for countering today’s dangerous “medical marijuana” movement.
In early July, the FDA approved Syndros as the first orally administered liquid form of THC. Like Marinol, the original oral cannabinoid to gain FDA approval in 1985, Syndros treats anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS, as well as nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy.
Epidiolex is one drug currently on the FDA fast track. According to a recent press release from GW Pharmaceuticals, a study of 171 randomized patients suffering from Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes found that Epidiolex decreased seizure occurrence, was relatively well tolerated among patients, and generated no unexpected adverse effects.
Other cannabinoid-based medications on the international market today include Cesamet, another synthetic drug that treats nausea and vomiting stemming from chemotherapy; Cannador, which is currently used in Europe and has demonstrated potential to relieve multiple sclerosis symptoms and postoperative pain management; and Sativex, another GW Pharmaceuticals drug on the FDA fast track that treats spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis.
Since these are all medical cannabinoids, they do not require smoking. They are also safer to use because levels of THC can be monitored.
Knowing these safer alternatives exist, ask yourself: Why? Why have the pot pushers kept this secret and why don’t they want you to know this?
“The medicinal marijuana system in this country has become a bad joke, an affront to the concept of safe and reliable medicine, defying the standards that we have come to expect from the medical establishment,” Dr. Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama’s drug policy office, wrote in his book, “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana.”
We can thank Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan for creating the current public perception of the so-called “medical marijuana” marketplace.
In a video filmed many years ago, which we highlighted in this 2010 blog post, Rosenthal (former editor of High Times magazine) and Cowan (former director of NORML—the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law) joked about the nationwide “scam” they started. They realized that if they convinced enough people that smoking marijuana was “medical marijuana,” that would be the beginning of a movement toward full legalization.
“Once there’s medical access, if we continue to do what we have to do and we will, then we’ll get full legalization,” Cowan explained.
“I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically,” Rosenthal joked. “I have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed, and the reason why its never been diagnosed is because I’ve been treating it.”
But, according to Rosenthal, pleasure trumps any medicinal benefit he should derive from marijuana anyway.
“There is a reason why I do use it,” he said. “And that’s because I like to get high. Marijuana is fun.”
Sabet acknowledges that THC has potential therapeutic effects, but these do not come from smoking pot. (We don’t light any of our FDA-approved medicine on fire and smoke it, after all).
With the average strength of marijuana being five to six times what it was in the 1960s and 70s, the repercussions of marijuana and legalizing it are more evident than before. Some of these include higher risks of motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, and impaired immune systems and short-term memories. Evidently, the pot pushers don’t want you to know this truth.
“America is being sold a false dichotomy: ‘We can either stick to our current failed policies, or we can try a ‘new approach’ with legalization,” Sabet said. “Sadly, this kind of black-and-white thinking conceals the fact that there are better, more effective ways than either legalization or incarceration to deal with this complex issue.”
Cannabinoid-based drugs are better alternatives because they reap the benefits of marijuana’s therapeutic components safely, as well as have the potential to become FDA approved if they aren’t already.
So the next time a pot pusher encourages a state to enact so-called “medical marijuana” laws, or goes for full legalization in violation of federal law, ask them: Why are they pushing an unsafe, untested product instead of pushing FDA-approved THC? (For more from the author of “The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/marijuana-1114713_960_720.jpg540960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-05 00:25:202016-08-07 00:55:08The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About
The internet, as it is wont to do, is filled with rumors today. The rumors are specifically swirling about the seemingly preposterous notion that Donald Trump is on the cusp of dropping out of the presidential race.
Republican officials are exploring how to handle a scenario that would be unthinkable in a normal election year: What would happen if the party’s presidential nominee dropped out?
ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump’s erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.
What happens if Trump were to surprisingly tell himself, “you’re fired?”
That’s when rule nine of the Republican National Committee would come into play. Rule nine deals with how the GOP would fill vacancies in nominations. Here’s the rule from 2012, which Conservative Review has learned was unchanged in 2016.
RULE NO.9
Filling Vacancies in Nominations
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.
(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.
Here is how that would work in plain English.
First off many have wondered if that means Mike Pence automatically becomes the nominee. The answer is no.
Either the Republican National Committee (RNC) would chose the new nominee, or it could call for a new convention that would see all 2472 delegates reconvene to pick the nominee. The former is probably what would happen; the RNC would pick a new nominee.
In that scenario, the individual RNC members from a state would vote as if they were all of the delegates from their state. For instance the three members of the RNC from Texas would vote as if they were all 155 delegates from the state, and the three RNC members from Ohio would vote as if they were the 66 delegates from the state.
Furthermore, if the three RNC members didn’t vote for the same candidate, each one of them would get votes equal to 1/3 of their committee (including fractional votes). This means that, in effect, each Texas member of the RNC’s vote would be equal to 51.66 delegates, and each Ohio member would be equal to 22 delegates.
The members of the RNC would continue voting until a candidate emerged with 1237 delegates.
That doesn’t end it though. While that’s how the RNC would select a new nominee, it does not mean that the new nominee would replace Trump’s name on every state ballot. Each state has different laws on the deadline by which a party can replace their nominee on the ballot. Ballotpedia has put together what they believe to be the deadline for each state. They are careful to note that this is what they “gleaned from reviewing relevant state statutes and other government documents.” Of course as with all election law, it could be challenged.
Here’s how the team at Ballotpedia explained what happens after the RNC would replace a candidate.
The bulk of the dates for certifying the names of major party presidential candidates are in August and September—35 states in total. The GOP would have until about mid August to find a replacement nominee and still be able to get his or her name on the ballot in enough states to be competitive in November. For example, if Trump dropped out in late August, his name would already be certified to appear as the Republican candidate for president in at least 18 states. If he dropped out in September, that number could rise to more than 30 states. The Republican Party would have few options available to it, at this point, to remove Trump’s name and replace it with their new nominee.
If the rumors are true, Trump would essentially need to drop out by next week to allow a new nominee to be chosen and appear on enough ballots if lawsuits were unsuccessful.
Granted, this is probably going to never happen, but now you know how it would. But then again, it is 2016. (For more from the author of “What Happens If the Trump ‘Drop out’ Rumors Are True?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/23938264112_964f8ca0f0_b-1.jpg5761024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-04 02:12:022016-08-07 00:37:16What Happens If the Trump ‘Drop out’ Rumors Are True?
Famed Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood sat down with Esquire and opened up about this year’s presidential election, and a whole lot of other things, in a way that probably only Eastwood could.
Esquire’s Michael Haney described the 86-year-old’s work ethic, “Eastwood does not stop. Never has. Twenty years after most guys would be in full-on coast mode, Eastwood is still vital and vibrant, still pushing himself creatively. The guy is an inspiration, a reminder that we should always be evolving.”
Eastwood appeared to defend Donald Trump. The aging actor and director said, “What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.”
Asked if Eastwood was endorsing Trump with his comments, he replied, “I haven’t endorsed anybody… He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody — the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just f—ing get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”
Eastwood has strong feelings about outgoing President Obama’s leadership. Eastwood claimed Obama is an ineffective leader.
“He doesn’t go to work. He doesn’t go down to Congress and make a deal,” Eastwood said. “What the hell’s he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I’d get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You’re the top guy. You’re the president of the company. It’s your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It’s the same with every company in this country, whether it’s a two-man company or a 200-man company…And that’s the p–sy generation — nobody wants to work.”
When asked about Hillary Clinton, Eastwood didn’t exactly warm up to the idea of her being in the White House.
“I mean, it’s a tough voice to listen to for four years,” he said. “It could be a tough one. If she’s just gonna follow what we’ve been doing, then I wouldn’t be for her.”
Eastwood eventually admitted he’d choose Trump over Clinton, and referenced the money she has in politics. “I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps. There’s been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I’m sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.” (For more from the author of “Clint Eastwood on Having to Choose Between Clinton or Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/475003437_2f9151659a_b.jpg6861024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-04 01:26:342016-08-07 00:50:51Clint Eastwood on Having to Choose Between Clinton or Trump
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)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15597723400_aa7befc853_b-2.jpg504720Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-03 03:45:452016-08-07 00:25:34Hillary Says Americans Will Have to Change Their Personal and Religious Beliefs
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)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8567828196_810cd563d5_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-03 02:06:272016-08-07 00:34:22New Information on Khizr Khan Sheds Light on His Opposition to Trump
