Posts

A Week in the Life and Lies of Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here’s what we know: The news involving Hillary Clinton was flying hard and fast last week. And the mainstream news media is so in-the-tank for Clinton it’s growing barnacles.

So let’s see if we can run down some of last week’s adventures and revelations that the mainstream media won’t put together for you, and find a common denominator among them all.

Clinton’s Campaign Pays to Cause Violence at Trump Rallies

One of the main themes of the general election has been the notion that Trump’s rallies are violence-filled exercises in extremism. What we learned from the first Project Veritas undercover videos is that the violence was instigated by paid operatives of Hillary Clinton. Her people boasted about it. They are also seen on the tape saying knowledge of their dirty works went all the way up to Hillary. This should be no surprise. The tactics used were straight out of Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, and Hillary Clinton is nothing if not a disciple of Alinksy. But what we lack in surprise we should make up with horror.

Think about it: A major candidate for president of the United States is deliberately instigating violence in the American streets. In Chicago, that instigation led to riots that injured two Chicago policemen, among others. Blue Lives Matter? Black Lives Matter? For Hillary, apparently only the White House matters.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Hillary neither denied nor defended herself against the charge. Instead, she again accused Donald Trump of inspiring violence. Accusing your enemy of what you yourself are doing is just another of Alinky’s Rules.

Exposing National Security Secrets

During the debate, Hillary Clinton managed to share with our enemies America’s response time to a nuclear attack! Military experts immediately worried that she had just spilled an extremely sensitive national security secret. Remember the saying “Loose Lips Sink Ships”? Loose Lips should at least sink a candidacy, especially if it’s a candidate who, according to FBI Director James Comey, was “extremely careless” when handling national secrets. She didn’t need a computer server this time. Just a few seconds of air time.

Speaking of Hillary’s mishandling of classified information, a video emerged of Hillary lecturing State Department staffers in 2010 of the dangers of such carelessness. Either Clinton believes rules don’t apply to her or she is unaware of what she is reading into a camera. Neither bodes well for a potential commander-in-chief.

The “Quid Pro Quo” to Protect Hillary

While we’re on the subject of the FBI and classified emails, notes from the FBI’s criminal investigation of Clinton revealed an appalling effort by Undersecretary of State, and former Clinton underling, Patrick Kennedy to pressure the FBI to change the classification of one of the most highly classified emails found on Hillary’s server.

The FBI had been begging Kennedy for months to allow more FBI agents overseas. Kennedy ignored the requests. Suddenly, Kennedy calls up out of the blue with what the FBI notes specifically call a “quid pro quo” offer. Basically, Kennedy said he’d give them those agents they wanted, if they did him this little-itty-bitty favor: Downgrade the classification on one of two emails found on Hillary’s private server that the FBI had flagged. Downgrading the email would not only keep it from the public, it would give Hillary more cover for her lie that there was no classified email on her server. Not coincidentally, the email had to do with Benghazi.

The State Department and the FBI deny there was any “quid pro quo” because there never was a deal. There never was a deal because when the FBI agent saw that the email involved Benghazi, he told Kennedy to take a flying leap.

“Mr. Fix It” Meets the Possibility of Blackmail

With the mainstream media’s joy at digging up all the abundant dirt on Donald Trump, you’d think a cover story from the people who exposed John Edward’s affair in 2008 would generate at least some attention. Apparently not, if the target is Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Wednesday, the National Enquirer released a detailed story from a self-described Hollywood “Mr. Fix It,” who says that from 1994 to 2008, he covered up a dozen or so lurid incidents involving both Bill and Hillary Clinton, including Bill’s romps with a hooker caught on tape and Hillary’s dalliances with both men and women.

You can read all about it in the grocery line.

“Oh, but that’s just sex. That’s just her personal life,” we’ll hear. (As if somehow her personal life is less relevant than Trump’s.)

Wrong. Far more important is the implication of the story. For six of the years Mr. Fix It says he cleaned up the Clintons’ messes, they were the President and First Lady of the United States. Meaning, if even one of those stories is true, Hillary Clinton behaved in a manner that could have exposed the U.S. government to blackmail.

As did her careless use of a private server.

This gets us to the common denominator linking all these above stories together.

Hillary’s Self-Interest Over the Security of the Nation

The one theme running through just this one week of stories is that time and time again, Hillary Clinton puts her needs and desires over the security and safety of the United States. Her ambition comes before America, her power over “We the People.”

These recent revelations alone spell out how completely Hillary Clinton has betrayed the public trust. However, The Stream ‘s Nancy Flory lays out how this pattern of betraying the public trust goes back to the early 1970s, when she was fired from the Watergate Committee.

We’re Not Done Yet …

Among last week’s other Clinton moments:

1. WikiLeaks revealed that the Clinton Foundation pays women drastically less than it pays men, despite the fact that she has used such disparity statistics for years to paint corporate America as sexist.

2. Pay-to-Play: WikiLeaks also revealed Hillary Clinton agreed to attend a meeting in Morocco if Morocco kicked in $12 million to the Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. In the email, her aide and BFF Huma Abedin grumbled, “She created this mess and she knows it.” Huma could have said the same about the Clinton campaign bus that illegally dumped fecal matter into a city sewer.

3. Project Veritas also released a second video showing Clinton operatives scheming on ways to commit massive voter fraud. When Donald Trump said in the debate that given such evidence as the video he would have to wait and see before accepting the election results, Clinton expressed shock and horror. Yes, a woman who served in the administration of a man birthed in the Chicago machine, expressing horror over the possibility of voter fraud.

Finally, the notes released by the FBI show that Hillary Clinton was so rude and “contemptuous” of her State Department security detail that senior agents refused to work with her. (They also resented being put in significant danger just for a photo op during a trip to Jakarta.)

If Hillary Clinton has that much contempt for people willing to take a bullet for her, how much more contempt does she have for voters she’s never met? (For more from the author of “A Week in the Life and Lies of Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A President Hillary Clinton Must Be Impeached

/0 Comments/in , /by

After reading a comprehensive roundup of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal by National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin declared on Facebook that, “A President Hillary Clinton must be impeached.” Levin went through the reasons why.

Levin is exactly right. McCarthy lays out why it would have been an easy prosecution for the Department of Justice, if they weren’t so politically motivated regarding the Democratic presidential nominee.

The question arose because the “(C)” designation — applicable to classified information at the confidential level — turned up in at least one of Clinton’s personal e-mails. Those would be the e-mails that, she repeatedly insisted, never, ever contained classified information. Or at least, that’s what she insisted until government agencies confessed that hundreds of the e-mails do contain classified information. Then Clinton’s “never, ever” tale morphed into the more narrowly tailored lie that there were no e-mails “marked classified.” Alas, that claim could not withstand examination of the e-mails, during which the “(C)” markings were found . . . whereupon the explanation underwent more, shall we say, refining. Thus the final, astonishing claim that she didn’t know what the markings meant, along with the laugh-out-loud whopper that maybe it was all about alphabetical order.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

In case you’re keeping score: When a person being prosecuted for a crime changes her story multiple times, as if she were playing Twister (kids, ask your parents), the prosecutor gets to prove each of the evolving lies at the trial. As you’d imagine, juries grasp that the truth doesn’t need an editor. That’s why people whose explanations can’t keep up with the evidence are pretty much a lock to get convicted.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, and the Electoral College confirms that result in December, impeachment is the only remedy left to bring Clinton to justice. But it would require the Congress to actually take its role under the Constitution seriously — something that, lately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan have failed to do.

While impeachment is warranted, for Hillary Clinton’s crimes, the feckless leaders of the “opposition” will undoubtedly say that the “voters have spoken” that they knew about the illegality and elected Clinton anyway. This is why the nation is in need of a true opposition party.

Mark Levin has promised to expand upon his thinking on Monday’s LevinTV episode. (For more from the author of “A President Hillary Clinton Must Be Impeached” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wikileaks: Disney CEO Bob Iger, ABC News Have Cozy Relationship With Hillary Clinton and Her Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks emails revelations from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta show that not only is there a deep connection with the media — reporters, opinion writers, and news anchors — but it also reaches as high as the corporate executive suite.

Disney CEO Bob Iger appears in the latest round of released WikiLeaks emails, offering insight that those at the very top of the organization accept and encourage the pro-liberal bias at the company’s media division: ABC News.

Iger is a visible and active supporter of progressive politicians, thus sending a powerful message throughout the company about his political beliefs and — potentially — his expectations of news coverage. With the CEO investing significant amounts of his personal money in liberal politicians, it would likely be career-limiting to challenge his political investments. On the contrary, attacking conservatives could be the ticket to career advancement.

A long-time Hillary supporter, Iger appears in an email chain — subject: “Email from Steve Bing” — with Clinton campaign head John Podesta and Steve Bing and Andy Sowers from Shangri-LA business group.

The emails refer to Iger expressing an interest in taking an active role in the campaign stating, “”He wants to be helpful.” In a follow-up email months later, Bing mentioned that Iger had connected with Podesta and that those discussions had gone well, “[Iger’s] had a couple of good talks with you.”

At this point, we don’t know the outcome of Iger’s conversations with Podesta or what it meant to Clinton’s campaign, but we do know the Disney’s leader co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser at billionaire Haim Saban’s home last August that carried a $100,000 cover charge for hosting couples.

According to a Washington Free Beacon story last year, “Disney CEO Bob Iger has given more than $400,000 to Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton) and campaign committees since 1999.”

Iger’s aggressive support of Democrats, in general, and Hillary Clinton, in particular, provides cover ABC News to be as biased as its left-wing heart desires.

Given the pro-Clinton bias at Disney and ABC, it’s not surprising that the Clinton campaign would target George Stephanopoulos with ideas to challenge “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer. (The book describes how the Clintons built a personal fortune by leveraging their political influence.) WikiLeaks documents show a series of emails from Clinton staffers celebrating the April 2015 interview on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” One Clinton team member, Jesse Ferguson, touts Stephanopoulos’ success in refuting Schweizer’s claims and takes credit for the group providing background to the host of “This Week.”

great work everyone. this interview is perfect. he lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work)

In addition, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he donated a total of $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation prior to the interview with Schweizer, even though the Foundation was the focal point of his book. Stephanopoulos merely issued a statement apologizing to ABC News and his viewers for not disclosing his donations to the Foundation. Predictably, ABC News backed Stephanopoulos, saying the failure to disclose his donations “was an honest mistake.”

Given Iger’s support of Clinton and that Stephanopoulos is the former communications director for President Bill Clinton, it was highly unlikely the host of “This Week” would get penalized for aggressively challenging Schweizer or for not disclosing his own donations to Hillary’s campaign.

It seems that Iger’s backing of Clinton virtually eliminates any penalties for its media unit’s employees who get caught playing footsie with team Clinton. And WikiLeaks shows that when it comes to Disney and ABC News, liberal media bias comes from the very top. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks: Disney CEO Bob Iger, ABC News Have Cozy Relationship With Hillary Clinton and Her Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undercover Activist: New Video Targeting Clinton, DNC Coming … Dead or Alive

/0 Comments/in , /by

Activist James O’Keefe has a warning for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee Chairman Donna Brazile.

The man whose undercover videos detailing dirty tricks — activities those on the videos insist were bought and paid for the Clinton campaign and the DNC — is going to be back next week, with a vengeance.

O’Keefe implied Friday that his high-profile videos were endangering his life, but said the truth would emerge regardless.

Brazile came in for special mention.

Trump himself mentioned the video Saturday to buttress his claim that the election has been “rigged.”

This past week, O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action released undercover videos taken by a Project Veritas Action staff member who infiltrated a group called Americans United for Change. The videos were released on its Project Veritas Action channel on YouTube.

In one of the videos, staff members of the group who have since resigned their jobs claimed they planned and executed a scheme to cause disruptions at rallies held by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Staff members claimed they were the lead organizers of a violent protest that forced the cancellation of a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. One leader, Scott Foval, claimed a woman who alleged she was punched by a Trump supporter last month was one of the group’s activities. Although that woman has denied the claim, she has also withdrawn her assault accusation since the videos came out.

A second video released by Project Veritas Action showed a group of staff members talking about how to get around laws regarding voter fraud without the authorities being any wiser. (For more from the author of “Undercover Activist: New Video Targeting Clinton, DNC Coming … Dead or Alive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?

/1 Comment/in , /by

Americans are still recovering from the whiplash of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric concerning women during the final presidential debate Wednesday evening.

Clinton’s anti-women, anti-family politics were on full display during the final pre-election showdown, masquerading before millions of viewers as “women’s empowerment” and “feminism.” But in the end, instead of brandishing her womanly strength, the Democratic nominee abandoned her campaign slogan, “Stronger Together,” and whipped out her woman card.

Prior to the event, Clinton tweeted this inspiring statement to her supporters:

Her message was clear: Women need to stand up to men like Donald Trump and show them that they won’t be pushed around.

But as with all things “progressive,” over the course of the evening, Clinton laid out her case for female victimhood instead. Her long list of grievances included the fact that states are restricting women’s “right” to an abortion by defunding Planned Parenthood, and the fact that the so-called wage gap is a roadblock in the fight for women’s equality.

And of course, she addressed Trump’s lewd comments about groping women:

“Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like.”

Donald Trump’s poor track record with women shouldn’t be ignored or diminished. But while Trump absolutely does belittle women (and everyone, for that matter), Hillary belittles women as well — but in a much deeper sense. Laying aside the fact that she has received millions from countries that do actively persecute women, the way she undermines women’s dignity is far subtler, and far more dangerous.

Hillary capitalizes on the emotions of American voters in order to convince them of their ultimate dependency on Big Government. Her vision for America is beyond belittling — it’s a direct assault on the dignity of women and all people.

Everything about Clinton’s rhetoric Wednesday said that women need to be rescued from men like Trump. And though they are “strong,” their strength is ultimately dependent on Big Government handouts and Planned Parenthood.

So, do women need to be empowered, or are they already powerful?

Why should women be forced to pay for other women’s abortions? Why should they be forced to welcome in millions of migrants who hail from countries where actual abuse of women is the norm? (We see the consequences, on a regular basis, throughout Europe.)

That seems like a hefty price to pay for “empowerment.”

If there’s one thing the former secretary of state has shown the American people during this election season, it’s that she hates accountability. But anyone who truly supports women should hold her accountable for victimizing women, patronizing them, and yes, bullying them into compliance. Trump may be an unapologetic bully, but Clinton is a sneaky, hypocritical bully with a much more damaging message. (For more from the author of “Get Your Story Straight, Hillary! Are Women Strong or Are They Victims?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton demonstrated tonight that if we only had a political party committed to American sovereignty — sans the gratuitous baggage that has come along with Trump — the Democrats would be decimated on the issue of immigration alone, not to mention other policies.

Kellyanne Conway must have invented a pill to finally keep Trump on message about the issues, and it especially showed with regard to immigration before it wore off later in the debate. Hillary got ensnared in the classic open borders canard in which the radicals extol the virtues of illegal immigration, but then are forced to proclaim why they still support border security. Which begs the question: what exactly are they trying to secure if they want illegal immigrants?

Hillary referred to “undocumented” immigrants almost a dozen times and refused to recognize the interests of American citizens. At one point she brazenly said this used to be a bipartisan issue. She is more correct than she knows!

In the 1995 State of the Union Address, her husband, President Bill Clinton, exalted the work of the Jordan Commission on immigration — which called for a reduction in immigration and comprehensive enforcement against illegal immigration. He railed against the unfairness of illegal immigration and sounded, ironically, a lot like …Trump.

During tonight’s debate, Hillary went on to offer the false choice between open borders and mass deportations by trains and buses. Nobody is buying that line anymore. We already have a deportation force — it’s called ICE. Husband deported four times as many people as Obama did and more than the Bush administration did using that force. And don’t even get me started on Harry Reid’s strong position on immigration in the ‘90s and the bipartisan bill after 9/11 to cut off visas to countries with a presence of Islamic terrorists.

Indeed, there was a time when both parties supported the concept of a nation state with borders.

Then, Chris Wallace caught her in the tight rope act between what she really believes on immigration and what she tells the public:

Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. So that’s the question…”

Hillary simply could not answer the question, and in an awkward pivot, began hitting Trump on his comments about Putin. She simply demurred on the issue of immigration by saying the comments were only about energy. Yeah, right.

You could hear the sucking sound coming out of her level of support from your average swing voter.

Unfortunately, this was probably a dollar late and a dime short to get to issues of substance, given that the contours of this race are already defined by baggage. But what this debate did demonstrate is that when the focus is on issues, Democrats lose; when it’s about personalities, Democrats win. It’s that simple. The few times Chris Wallace veered off his very effective and disciplined agenda into personal stuff you could feel Trump doing damage to himself. When it was about issues, Trump’s performance vacillated depending on the issue, but Hillary was not winning points on a single policy and was an utter disaster on immigration. In general, Trump expressed the least support for some of his liberal positions and the most support for conservative ideas than at any other time, especially towards the beginning on the topics of the Constitution and immigration.

Does this mean he is back in the game? It’s hard to see enough people moving beyond the character issues to dramatically alter the entrenched impressions of him, especially when he is down by so much with early voting already under way. He also didn’t help himself by refusing to accept the outcome of the election. Once again, when he wasn’t attacking Hillary from principle on issues he was hemorrhaging support. However, the exposure of Hillary’s radicalism on policies such as immigration will likely help Republicans down ballot by reminding voters that there is more to life than Donald Trump’s zaniness after November 8. The American people don’t want to give the keys of all of the federal government to the Democrats. Hillary will not have a mandate to pursue a single policy issue.

The field is wide open for a new movement, unencumbered by the distraction of personal baggage, to fight the Democrats on the issues. The Left has nothing left but to fight Republicans on their own glass jaw. What if we had a party unvarnished by Trump-like personal baggage or pale-pastel immigration and economic views of establishment Republicans? Perhaps, even if we accepted the outcome of the presidential election, their dangerous agenda would be crushed in the states and in Congress.

A Hillary victory will be an utter disaster. But tonight’s debate performance shows why there might also be a critical opportunity to finally fight back on the issues in a way we’ve never done before. (For more from the author of “Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks flooded the internet with thousands of leaked emails by Clinton campaign head, John Podesta, exposing serious issues about Hillary Clinton and her team.

The leaked emails caught Clinton using completely different positions depending on whether she was talking to potential supporters in private settings or public campaign stops. On a wide range of important issues, such as immigration, hydraulic fracturing, and trade, Hillary argued two different sides a revelation that adds to the existing doubt about Clinton’s trustworthiness.

In addition, Clinton’s team criticized ordinary Americans for their race, religion, and for living in the South.

Other emails showed CNN contributor and new DNC head Donna Brazile sent a debate question to the Clinton campaign prior to a CNN town hall.

In total, the emails expose Clinton’s duplicitous nature, provide evidence that she will say anything to get elected, and proves that she really meant it when she called Americans a “basket of deplorables.”

I had the opportunity to debate these topics on Fox Business Network’s “Risk & Reward” with guest host Liz MacDonald and Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jill Stein on Latest WikiLeaks Reveal: How Much More Evidence Does Government Need to Press Charges Against Hillary Clinton?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is calling on the federal government to press charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in light of the latest WikiLeaks release.

“#PodestaEmail10 show HRC kept 55K emails from Congress. How much more evidence does the govt need to press charges?” Stein tweeted on Monday.

Stein also highlighted the hypocrisy that members of corporate media–who have spent months speculating “that Trump would try to silence critical journalism”– have offered no defense of the WikiLeaks releases, which have exposed the cozy relationship between members of corporate media and the Clinton campaign, and have revealed the failure of some “journalists” to critically cover the Clinton campaign.

Glenn Greenwald has said that the releases have revealed “serious impropriety” of the media’s collusion with the Clinton campaign– such as Donna Brazile’s decision to feed Clinton’s campaign with a question in advance for a town hall as Clinton was trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

(Read more from “Jill Stein on Latest WikiLeaks Reveal: How Much More Evidence Does Government Need to Press Charges Against Hillary Clinton?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Hillary Packs the Supreme Court, Democracy Is Dead. We Should Give It a Decent Burial.

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you want a young person to have a hopeful, patriotic view of the U.S. government, you probably shouldn’t set his first trip to Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As I wrote back in 2008:

The first time I ever saw our nation’s capital was on the March for Life, way back in high school on a bus the Knights of Columbus rented to take us down there. Those vast, wedding cake buildings that represent the authority of the U.S. government, adorned with flags, bronze statues, bas-reliefs and grand inscriptions… it all seemed such a miserable sham. Those structures built out of butter cream looked to me like whited sepulchers. The Supreme Court on whose steps we stood seemed a structure built of bones, and the city a fortress defending a vast and soulless regime of death. And so it stands today.

When that essay appeared, the question of unborn children’s rights was still a live one, resting on the faithfulness of Republican presidents. Today, if the upcoming election hands the White House to Hillary Clinton, and if Senate Republicans fail to fight her doggedly like wildcats on every Supreme Court appointment, the issue is dead and gone. It goes in the medical waste dumpster along with the Court’s 58 million victims.

A Clinton court menaces the rest of us who escaped the womb intact. Chief Justice Mark Tushnet (or his chemical equivalent) would indeed treat Christians and conservatives as “losers in the culture war” who deserve no more consideration than defeated Japanese or Germans — as the Harvard Law professor and plausible SCOTUS appointee wrote back in March.

The left already uses the Supreme Court as a permanent Constitutional Convention, in which five progressives use the battered text of our founding document like the letters in a ransom note — clipping and pasting as they like, to yield the meaning they want. A Clinton court would switch from scissors to a shredder.

Our Constitutional right to spend our own money and time to influence elections — imagine that! I thought the First Amendment was just for flag-burning and porn! — hangs by a thread, on the decision in Citizens United which Hillary has pledged to overturn. So does the future of free journalism, if you remember the left’s dogged attempts to imprison the likes of David Daleiden and James O’Keefe.

Our basic human right, marked out in the Second Amendment, to defend ourselves by owning private firearms is dangling dangerously on a similar narrow vote on the Court, in another decision Clinton opposes.

Our religious freedom is already in Clinton’s gunsights. She never admits our “free exercise of religion,” but only “freedom of worship,” in language crafted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to cover the narrow privilege that Orthodox monks have, a few times a week, to offer quiet services in places like Istanbul — though they’d face jail time if they criticized Islam. Combine this with Obama administration threats to church groups’ tax exemptions, California’s attacks on Christian colleges, Hillary’s demand that Christians’ “beliefs must be changed” to accommodate abortion and the Clinton campaign’s attempt to blow up the “medieval dictatorship” that is the Catholic church, and you know exactly what to expect:

The rights of orthodox churches and believers will be pared down relentlessly, while churches that cooperate with progressivism will rake in federal contracts — until we really do have something like the two-tier Chinese system: in Column A will be the approved “patriotic” churches, and in Column B the faithfully Christian ones, which the state persecutes at will.

We Face Rule by Decree, Like Natives in a Colony

Keep in mind that we’re not facing a Democratic president who will pass evil or foolish laws on any of these subjects. No, we face someone who will appoint lifelong judges who will rule us by decree. None of these issues — unborn life, free speech, gun rights, or religious liberty — will be settled by the Congress and the Executive via the democratic process, in a law subject to repeal. They will be carved in stone by the god-like fingers of five philosopher kings, hoisted far out of reach of mere peons like you and me. For our lifetimes, and perhaps for our children’s, they will be dogmas enshrined on altars. Democracy will be dead.

What will we tell our kids once that has happened? When we have to inform them that their Christian school has been taxed into bankruptcy and is closing; that we cannot protect them from home invasions by coddled illegal immigrants; that the faith we are sharing with them is condemned by their own government; that there are certain subjects on which they are not even free to speak — how will we explain that? Or the fact that they can’t even vote on it? It’s a conversation you might need to have very soon, so it’s time to start thinking about which words you’ll use.

When I was young, democracy still seemed vital. At age 11, I became a pro-life activist, ringing doorbells and collecting signatures for the Right-to-Life Party candidate for New York City mayor — radio host Barry Farber. No he didn’t win, but he out-polled the liberal, pro-choice Republican Roy Goodman, coming in second. Taking part in that action sparked my faith that in America, the people could have a voice. It set me on track to a lifetime of activism — volunteering for pro-life Senate candidates and later for Ronald Reagan, then to editorship of the pro-life, conservative paper at Yale, and finally, to The Stream.

If I had a child in the America ruled by Hillary’s appointees, would I encourage him to emulate my actions? It might not even be fair. It would surely damage his future, as being a baptized Christian used to haunt Soviet citizens as a black mark throughout their lives.

In fact, I think we will have to teach resistance. We aren’t called to give the next generation “success tips” but the Truth — as my Irish Catholic mother passed along to me when I was only eight. Again, from 2008:

I cannot forget the actual day in 1973, when Harry Blackmun (moved to change his mind on the subject by a Rockefeller Foundation report on U.S. “overpopulation”) issued the farrago of logical fallacies [Roe v. Wade] which still makes [first-year] law students blush. I saw something about it on the news. Only eight years old, I needed the story explained to me, and asked my mother. She tried her best:

“Well, the government just decided that if a woman is going to have a baby, and she doesn’t want one, now she doesn’t have to.”

“So what can she do?”

“Now she can go to a doctor, and he’ll take out the baby.”

“Won’t it be alive?”

“No. The doctor will make sure it’s dead.”

“They’re allowed to do that?”

“Yes, John. Now they are.”

“In America? Really?”

It’s a question I still ask myself.

(For more from the author of “If Hillary Packs the Supreme Court, Democracy Is Dead. We Should Give It a Decent Burial.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Stream is winding down its coverage of Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary with a roundup of the best social media posts about the anniversary and The Stream‘s own #100forLife campaign against it.

Planned Parenthood and its supporters tweeted with #100YearsStrong, and many pro-lifers borrowed it to engage in some intense debates. One writer from Teen Vogue (where she ran an interview of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards) engaged us back. While some became a bit agitated, such as one Planned Parenthood supporter who said she would “slit her wrists” before voting for Republicans, for the most part the banter remained respectful.

Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.

Do not be deceived.

She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.

Writing for the left-leaning Washington Post, Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, declared that “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty.” He began his October 13 column with these two sobering paragraphs:

In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.”

Thiessen is not overstating the case, and in light of one recent court case and one pending bill, both in California and both with potential to go to the Supreme Court, the real dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency can hardly be exaggerated.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic.

Yes, under the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, this is the law; the Ninth Circuit upheld it.

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well. She has made this abundantly, unequivocally clear for many years, without wavering, and she is the most favored Planned Parenthood candidate in history.

As I wrote previously, if you vote for Hillary Clinton, you will have the blood of the unborn on your hands.

And note also the extreme hypocrisy of this ruling, since abortion clinics are not required to refer their clients to local pro-life pregnancy centers. They are not even required to show the mother an ultrasound of her baby, since that would allegedly infringe on her rights.

God forbid that you remind her that she has a baby in her womb.

In an email announcing the Ninth Court’s ruling, Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel, said, “It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say — under threat of severe punishment — is even more unjust and dangerous.”

The ADF is considering appealing the ruling, which, as stated, could ultimately make it to the Supreme Court, but with Hillary as president, you know how the court will rule.

Do you want to facilitate this by helping to elect her to the highest office in the land? Do you want to be one of the people who helped empower her to be president?

This brings me to a major bill in California, SB 1146 which “would officially label private Christian colleges with Christian values, morality, and even dorm policies which conflict with the LGBT agenda as ‘discriminatory,’ and make the colleges liable to state (and federal) lawsuits as well as vicious attacks by activists. . . . The goal is to make Christian colleges surrender their belief systems and force the LGBT agenda onto every facet of education. California is the first state in the US to attempt this outrageous action. If it passes there, it will surely spread to other states.”

This is the exact kind of legislation that Hillary Clinton would promote and celebrate, fully backed by her handpicked Supreme Court justices.

This would also be harmony with her oft-quoted phrase that “gay rights are human rights,” and therefore any group or denomination or nation that opposes the goals of LGBT activism is guilty of opposing human rights. And let’s not forget the pressure Hillary Clinton put on African nations in her 2011 speech in which she made clear that nations across the continent would need to change their policies regarding homosexuality.

Not surprisingly, there was a major backlash to her speech, with John Nagenda, a senior adviser to Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, stating, “Homosexuality here is taboo, it’s something anathema to Africans, and I can say that this idea of Clinton’s, of Obama’s, is something that will be seen as abhorrent in every country on the continent that I can think of.”

Can you imagine the kind of pressure Hillary Clinton would put on American Christians who remain opposed to same-sex “marriage” and LGBT activism in our children’s schools? After all, if she took it upon herself to tell sovereign African nations what to do, what would she seek to impose on her own country as president? And I haven’t even mentioned the open disdain expressed towards conservative Christians in her campaign’s recently released emails.

So I’ll say it again: Do not be deceived. We already know how a Hillary Clinton administration would view people like you and me.

I do understand that many of you cannot find it in yourself to vote for Donald Trump, but whatever you do, do not vote for Hillary Clinton, and please encourage your conservative Christian friends not to vote for her either. To do so is to hand her the tape to gag your mouths and the rope to fasten your hands.

You have been forewarned. (For more from the author of “Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.