Posts

Oh the Irony: Hillary Gets a ‘Law and Order’ Endorsement

This week, “Law & Order: SVU” star Mariska Hargitay endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president.

In a guest piece for women’s fashion magazine Elle, the actress, best known for her character, Detective Olivia Benson, explains how a Clinton presidency would best meet the needs of American women:

“As for where I stand, I’m with her. I stand with Hillary, enthusiastically and with all conviction.”

And while many voters have come to accept that both presidential nominees are less than ideal, it seems ironic that Hargitay, whose TV persona mirrors her real-life work helping victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse, would offer such a hearty affirmation.

“We need a President—and an administration—who will not only keep these issues at the forefront of domestic and international policy, but also will hold out a vision for a future free from these crimes. Whether it is arguing for change in how campuses address the epidemic of sexual assault, drawing attention to the use of rape as a weapon of war, or advocating for the criminal justice system to do all that it can to ensure victims of sexual assault have full access to all the tools at law enforcement’s disposal […] And after a lifetime dedicated to working for the rights of women and girls, her vision and her plan are informed, hard-won, and comprehensive.”

An interesting choice of words for a candidate whose husband has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault, and whose campaign site went out of its way to delete the phrase, “you have the right to be believed” in a message to victims of sexual assault on college campuses.

And as for the “lifetime dedicated to working for the rights of women and girls” claim, Hillary and her supporters can say it all they want (and, they do), but that doesn’t line up with her thick-as-thieves partnership with abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Nor does it explain her conscious defense of a child rapist. What would Det. Olivia Benson think of that?

Mariska Hargitay ends her piece with a special shout-out to Clinton, shrewdly alluding to GOP rival Donald Trump’s assertions that he would bring “law and order” to America:

“And yes, Hillary, in case you were wondering, this makes you the ‘Law & Order’ candidate.”

But like Olivia Benson, Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending the citizens and laws of this nation is the work of fiction. Though the narrative she has presented throughout this campaign has appealed to many, her track record shows that it’s all an act. (For more from the author of “Oh the Irony: Hillary Gets a ‘Law and Order’ Endorsement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New FBI Docs: FBI Official ‘Pressured’ to Change Classification of Hillary’s Email

Documents released by the FBI Monday morning reveal that in 2015 Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, a top aide to Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State, asked an FBI senior official to mark one of Clinton’s emails as unclassified before it was made public. In exchange, Kennedy allegedly offered a “quid pro quo” — agreeing to a long-standing FBI request for more agents at foreign posts.

The documents are the fourth set released by the FBI in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Congress. They contain interview summaries from the agency’s investigation of Democratic presidential nominee Clinton and her handling of classified information on a private email server.

Patrick Kennedy Barters With FBI Over Email Classification

According to one interview summary released by the FBI Monday morning, a senior FBI official stated that the State Department requested a classification review of five of Clinton’s emails sent on her private server. The emails were set to be released to the public in response to a FOIA request.

The official submitted one of the emails, marked classified, to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division (CTD), which declined to change the classification since “the email was classified properly and accurately.”

But the official was contacted again, this time by the International Operations Division of the FBI, which “pressured” him to change the email’s classification, even though the CTD had already said no. He also claims that Kennedy contacted him personally, asking him to change the email’s classification. In exchange for marking the email unclassified, Kennedy said the State Department “would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

Kennedy later presided over an agency-wide meeting to discuss the classification review of Clinton’s emails that would be released in response to the FOIA request. The interview summary reports that “during the conversation, a participant specifically asked whether any of the emails in question were classified. Making eye contact with [the senior FBI official, name redacted], KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see.’”

The interview summary says that Kennedy continued to pressure the FBI to change the email’s classification, but to no avail. The official claims that shortly after a conversation between Kennedy and the Assistant Director of the CTD, who refused once more to change the classification, Clinton appeared before the press “to deny having sent classified emails on her private email server.”

According to the interview summary, the senior FBI official “believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON.”

Congress and the FBI Respond to ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Allegations

Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a joint statement calling Kennedy’s actions “extremely disturbing.” “Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it — that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets.” Chaffetz and Nunes also compiled a summary of key findings from the FBI documents.

In their joint statement, Chaffetz and Nunes call for Kennedy’s removal.

Someone who would try to get classified markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending full investigation.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that “a senior State Department official’s attempt to pressure the FBI to hide the extent of this mishandling bears all the signs of a cover-up.” Ryan criticized Clinton’s “complete disregard for properly handling classified information” evidenced in the documents, promising that the House’s “aggressive oversight work” would continue.

In a statement, the FBI claimed there “was never a quid pro quo:”

Prior to the initiation of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.

FOIA Requests Overseen by ‘Shadow Government’

The 100-page FBI document release includes interview summaries from people who claim that Clinton was “unwilling to abide by rules” regarding the security of electronic equipment containing sensitive and classified information.

Another interview summary states that FOIA requests regarding Clinton were screened by a “shadow government” — a “powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials.”

In an off-record interview with The Weekly Standard prior to the release of the interview summaries, intelligence and congressional officials said that the new revelations would “bolster Donald Trump’s criticism of corruption at Clinton’s State Department, the FBI and Washington, D.C., with just more than three weeks until the 2016 presidential election.”

Trump is harshly critical of Clinton’s actions as secretary of state, asserting during the second presidential debate that she would be in jail if he were president.

The FBI’s investigation of Clinton and her email practices ended in July 2016 when FBI Director James Comey recommended that no charges be brought against the former secretary of state — a decision condemned by Republicans. (For more from the author of “New FBI Docs: FBI Official ‘Pressured’ to Change Classification of Hillary’s Email” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pray for Hillary Clinton. Not as the Likely Next President, but as a Person

Throughout the 2016 presidential election cycle, I’ve offered prayers for the nation, for the GOP, for the conservative movement, and other causes. I’ve added some prayers for Donald Trump, and asked God that Hillary Clinton, if elected, would govern differently than her record suggests she would.

But I’ve never offered a prayer for Clinton herself, for her soul. And I don’t think I’m alone.

Why Hillary?

First, we all need prayer. Remember such vivid dictums as “there but for the Grace of God go I,” and “all have fallen short of the Glory of God.” The Bible is full of them.

Second, Vox’s Emily Crockett was right when she said in an e-mailed comment to me that “Hillary was a victim of Bill’s affairs. He cheated on her. He humiliated her.”

I’ve never been married, and I was only 13 when Bill Clinton was impeached. It’s certainly possible that older conservatives are right that the Clintons’ marriage has been more about convenience than love.

But for a moment, I’m removing my political/conservative/reporter hat. Hillary Clinton had to stand by her husband on for a decade when he was hit with various accusations of infidelity as governor and president. Even if she married Bill for power, Hillary could not have been happy to be tied to the credible accusations against her husband. I cannot imagine it wasn’t shameful, embarrassing, etc.

On the flip side, let’s assume Clinton really is the power-hungry politician so many on the right, including myself, tend to think she is. Certainly, Wikileaks has confirmed that her political and policy principles are as up for grabs as her husband’s or Donald Trump’s marital vows. And she truly did enable Bill, attacking his accusers throughout the 1990s.

But that means she needs prayers even more. What sort of person would deal with the national embarrassment of her husband’s impeachment just to gain power? Who would be so cold-hearted so as to remove the modest protections of the Hyde Amendment in order to force taxpayers to fund more abortions? And, likewise, who would so willingly engage in a corrupt pay-for-play at her family’s foundation with dictatorships (such as Saudi Arabia) that kill over differences in religious beliefs?

And those are just her latest public policy sins.

Hillary is Not The Enemy

Hillary Clinton is not the enemy. Neither is Donald Trump or President Barack Obama. Their positions in U.S. politics say more about our national depravity than anything else — they are merely the logical conclusion of decades of abandonment of fiscal, moral and cultural principles by voters and others.

The enemy is whatever has brought us to this state of affairs — Satan, if you will. Hillary is a willing participant in his corruption of the world — we all have free will — and therefore she needs our prayers.

Over the last few years, I’ve seen a lot that has caused me to believe Hillary Clinton would do severe damage to this country. It’s not enough to convince me to vote for Trump, who was good friends with Bill and Hillary until he decided to switch parties and a host of his own political principles in order to make his own run for the White House.

But I noticed last week that I’ve almost stopped seeing Hillary as a person. As many on the Left see Trump, I’ve fallen into the trap of viewing the former First Lady and Secretary of State as the embodiment of the Democratic Party’s largely successful efforts to restructure the values and principles of our nation.

Hillary Clinton is a dishonest politician whose principles appear to be related to gaining power. Plain and simple. But she’s also a person. And it’s up to me to help her as best I can, if only for her soul — never mind the nation, and the hundreds of millions of lives a Hillary White House would affect.

Whether my prayers help her is up to God. But it’s the least I can do for her, and for myself. (For more from the author of “Pray for Hillary Clinton. Not as the Likely Next President, but as a Person” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

18 Reasons (So Far) Leaked Podesta Emails Reveal Dishonest Side of Clinton, Her Campaign and Media Collusion

Julian Assange, founder and owner of WikiLeaks, has released, so far, over 5,000 (of a promised 50,000) emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, who was also the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. Most are incoming emails to Podesta’s account, and contain everything from campaign planning emails to spammy emails from other political campaigns.

While Clinton has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the hacked emails, during Sunday’s presidential debate she clarified some comments reportedly made by her in one of the emails. Podesta has said there could have been some changes made to the emails, but has not identified any.

The Clinton campaign and Podesta claim Russia is behind the emails being hacked from Hillary’s inner circle and the Democrat National Committee, but since Donald Trump has also talked tough in regards to U.S.-Russian relations, some are skeptical that Putin is behind the hacking. As for Assange’s motives, while he says he does not like either Clinton or Trump, he has said he is a big supporter of libertarian Republicans Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, and believes the libertarian wing of the GOP is the “only hope” for real reform.

Early voting has already started in places around the country, but some of the emails are extremely damaging and may influence undecided voters. The following represent some of the worst emails in the first 5,000. Imagine ten times this many.

1. Clinton “Often” Says False Things

Brett Budowsky, a public affairs consultant with an extensive background in top levels of government, sent an email to Podesta expressing his concern over Clinton telling lies about Bernie Sanders. “Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does. I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November, and she and Benenson and others have no idea of the damage she does to herself with these attacks, which she does not gain by making.”

He went on just as candidly, “Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump. … she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify… even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me. …”

2. Clinton Hates “Everyday Americans”

In an email dated April 19, 2015, Podesta wrote to Clinton’s Director of Communications, Jennifer Palmieri, “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.” He convinces Palmieri to use the phrase “everyday Americans” in a speech Clinton is about to give in Iowa.

3. Clinton Foundation COO Almost Driven to Suicide Dealing With Bill, Chelsea Clinton

Doug Band, a former aide to the Clintons, emailed Podesta in 2011 expressing his alarm that the COO of the Clinton Foundation was about to commit suicide, in part due to Bill Clinton and Chelsea: “She called me to tell me the stress of all of this office crap with wjc and cvc as well as that of her family had driven her to the edge and she couldn’t take it anymore. I spent a while on the phone with her preventing her from doing that, as I have a few times in the past few months, and was able to reach roger and her shrink.”

Band also wrote about Chelsea, “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she’s doing because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life. I realize she will be off of this soon but if it doesn’t come soon enough. …”

4. Collusion With ABC’s George Stephanopolous to Ambush ‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer

Clinton staffers congratulated themselves over helping ABC’s George Stephanopolous, a longtime Clinton crony, prepare in advance so he could ambush “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer during a TV interview. Jesse Ferguson wrote, “Great work everyone. this interview is perfect. he lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work).” Three other staffers gloated about how enjoyable it was to watch.

5. New York Times Reporter Patrick Healy Runs His Thoughts on His Next Clinton/Trump Article Past Clinton Team First

In an email entitled “Hi Angel and Tina — running stuff by you re Clinton/Trump,” New York Times reporter Patrick Healy suggests some ideas for an election-related article to Angel Urena and Tina Flournoy, two Clinton campaign staffers. He provides the two with a lot of helpful information he’s heard from the Clinton campaign, including what Bill Clinton recommends. “President Clinton, like others, thinks that Trump has his finger on the pulse of the electorate’s mood and that only a well-financed, concerted campaign portrayed him as dangerous and bigoted will win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election.”

6. Anti-Catholicism

John Halpin at the Center for American Progress sent an email to Podesta and Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, expressing his bewilderment how Catholics could be conservative, “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith.” Palmieri agreed in response. “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” Halperin wrote back, “Excellent point. They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”

7 Bill Clinton: Someone Making $110,000 Annually Would Struggle Financially

Staffer Josh Schwerin emailed his concern about a statement Bill Clinton made in New Hampshire, “WJC just told an anecdote about somebody making $110k per year with student loans as an example of someone who would struggle. Could see that being used to say he’s out of touch.” Staffer Tina Flournoy helpfully agreed, “Or it’s so bad that even if you make $110k you struggle. – imagine how it is for those making less.”

8. The AP is “Helpful”

Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress triumphantly emailed Podesta and Palmieri last summer, “Tide does seem to be shifting a bit on this, great work by the press shop. Cummings is helpful as is AP.” (“Cummings” may be a reference to Elijah Cummings, a member of the House Oversight Committee who has treated Clinton favorably.)

9. Saudi Arabia Providing Aid to ISIS

Podesta engaged in an email exchange over the Middle East with Clinton. Clinton emailed him a 9-point plan, which appears to have been written by her, although this not clear. It acknowledges the suspicion that Saudi Arabia is propping up ISIS: “While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

10. Clinton’s Affiliated SuperPAC ‘Correct the Record’ Placed 132 Op-Eds, Killed Negative Stories

According to an email from Mary Pat Bonner to Podesta, the Clinton affiliated SuperPAC “Correct The Record” has placed 132 op-eds nationally and in strategic local markets. Since May 15, CTR has helped write and place 36 op-eds across the country in a number of publications including Politico, Times Union, Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Blade, and New Jersey’s Bergen Record.” Additionally, “Correct The Record staff members have conducted over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and “kill negative stories before they are even published.”

11. Clinton Campaign Aware Obama Campaign Committed Massive Voter Fraud in 2008

On May 14, 2015, Podesta sent an email indicating he was aware of voter fraud by the Obama campaign in Colorado during the 2008 presidential election, and was concerned the Sanders campaign might engage in it.

High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region.

12. Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches

Clinton has refused to release her private, paid speeches to Wall Street, but excerpts from some of them are in the leaked emails. In one, she discusses the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on controversial political issues. She admits that her wealth leaves her “kind of far removed” from the middle class. In fact, she complains about how tough it is being wealthy in politics, “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.”

Clinton prefers to have Wall Street write its own financial regulations, “The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” In a speech to a Brazilian bank, she expressed her desire for open borders: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open borders, sometime in the future.”

13. CNBC’s John Harwood, a Republican Presidential Debate Moderator, Congratulated Podesta on Clinton Campaign Success

After Clinton won all five state primaries on March 15 last year — Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and North Carolina — CNBC’s John Harwood, who moderated one of the Republican presidential debates, emailed Podesta: “Congrats – pretty strong.” Podesta chummily replied, “Yup. Feeling good.”

14. Staffers Brazenly Refer to the Democratic Base as “The Red Army”

While discussing support for a $15/minimum wage, Jake Sullivan writes, “John Podesta (and the Red Army) want to support $15!” Neera Tanden, with the left-wing public policy organization Center for American Progress, writes back to clarify that he’s essentially calling hardcore Democrats as communists, “And when you say Red Army, you mean the base of the Democratic party, right?”

15. Carelessly Discussing Sanctions Against Iran Over Unsecured Email

Sullivan sent an email on March 3, 2015 to Podesta, Huma Abedin and others, responding to a speech that Stuart Eizenstat, a former American diplomat, had sent him that he’d given to AIPAC, “Thanks Stu,” Sullivan wrote. “What would those sanctions look like? If Iran actually tried to break out at the end of the period, ostensibly we’d be talking about military action?” Stu helpfully responded, ” We need to keep the military option on the table, but it would be the additional sanctions in the new congressional bill, which would give the future President the right to impose them upon a finding of a violation. But it would als [sic] include current sanctions–SWIFT, CBI, etc.”

16. Racism

Someone with the email address [email protected] sent an email entitled “What’s the difference between a German and a shopping cart? A shopping cart has got a mind of its own,” to Podesta, a fellow professor of Podesta’s at Georgetown University named Charles Abernathy, several staffers at Politico and Huffington Post, and a staffer at Media Matters. The email contains statements like this:

The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes — the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.

17. Wall Street Banker Included in Top Staffer Email Discussions

As I’ve written previously, it’s no secret that Clinton is the Wall Street candidate for president. Former Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides, who is now vice-chairman at Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley, is included in several emails between Clinton’s top staffers, including at least one with his work email account. He responds to a few of them. Good thing the bank doesn’t care about his extracurricular political work!

18. Plot to Smear Bernie Sanders and His Supporters as Sexist

Clinton staffer Mandy Grunwald provided some helpful points last year on how to portray Bernie Sanders as sexist. “Bernie Sanders says he supports women’s rights, but has a pattern of expressing and tolerating extreme views on women.” She also lays out how his supporters allegedly harass women with profanity on the internet (too offensive to repeat here). (For more from the author of “18 Reasons (So Far) Leaked Podesta Emails Reveal Dishonest Side of Clinton, Her Campaign and Media Collusion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Names Named: Real Reason Media Protect Hillary

The blizzard of WikiLeaks revelations of collusion between the “mainstream media” and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign – working hand-in-hand behind the scenes to destroy Donald Trump and return the Clintons to the White House – are highly disturbing, but not at all surprising. Here’s why.

Rush Limbaugh’s frequent characterization of the establishment press as “an extension of the Democratic Party” is neither a metaphor nor an exaggeration. It is literally true. As the Media Research Center has long documented, not only is there a virtual “revolving door” between Democratic Party administrations and the “mainstream media” – but to a great extent, the two institutions are made up of the same people!

Many Americans have suspected this, especially when seeing high-profile examples like George Stephanopoulos, the fiercely loyal Clinton partisan who served as White House communications director and senior policy for adviser for Bill Clinton, but who later magically morphed into a top “mainstream” journalist as chief anchor and chief political correspondent for ABC News, co-anchor of “Good Morning America,” host of ABC’s “Sunday Morning This Week” and regular substitute anchor for “ABC World News Tonight.” One of the thousands of just-leaked Clinton campaign emails strongly suggests Hillary’s campaign colluded with Stephanopoulos before his interview with “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer last year (an interview for which Stephanopoulos was later criticized for not disclosing he’d personally donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation).

Even more egregious, another WikiLeaks email dump reveals that Donna Brazile, while at CNN, was literally Clinton’s mole – feeding her intel about Bernie Sanders attacks during the primary season, and reportedly tipping off Clinton as to questions that would be asked at upcoming town hall meetings. After Debbie Wasserman Schultz (thanks to revelations from an earlier WikiLeaks data-dump) was fired as chair of the Democratic National Committee for sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ primary run, she was replaced as DNC chair by Brazile. (Read more from “Names Named: Real Reason Media Protect Hillary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WikiLeaks: Podesta Lamented That a Muslim, Not a White Man, Named as Killer in 2015 Massacre

Top Hillary Clinton aides were upset a Muslim man was publicly named as the shooter in a 2015 massacre that left 14 people dead, and a longtime Clinton confidant even expressed regret that the terrorist wasn’t a white man, according to purported emails released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.

The emails were part of a trove of messages stolen from the gmail account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, who has had a long association with the Democratic presidential nominee and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The email chain began on Dec. 2, when digital operative Matt Ortega forwarded a tweet from MSNBC host Christopher Hayes that named one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., attack as Sayeed Farook. Consultant Karen Finney forwarded the email to Podesta, commenting, “Damn.”

Podesta responded: “Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.”

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, gunned down 14 people and injured 22 in a terror attack during a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2. The attackers pledged their allegiance to ISIS before dying in a shootout with police later in the day.

But Podesta’s written lament of the shooter’s ethnicity underscores a long-running aversion in the Clinton campaign – and many in the Democratic party at large – to associating terrorist acts with any aspect of the Islamic religion. (Read more from “WikiLeaks: Podesta Lamented That a Muslim, Not a White Man, Named as Killer in 2015 Massacre” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fact-Checking Clinton’s Climate Change Speech

In Florida earlier this week, appearing with climate evangelist Al Gore, Hillary Clinton demonstrated the extent to which she is prepared to embrace the post-Christian faith of climatism. The mainstream media revel in fact-checking the claims of her opponent, so let’s see how she does on this issue. The young people at whom she aims much of this claptrap are particularly vulnerable, having been nurtured on climatism since their first day at school.

Mrs. Clinton is right when she asserts that climate change is real. If nothing else can be said about climate, it is the reality that it changes on all spatial and temporal scales, going back billions of years.

Over that time, our planet has experienced a wide range of climatic conditions — from hothouse to snowball — and has survived. The idea of a planetary emergency is little more than opportunistic political posturing.

The science that she claims to support has clearly established that changes in the planet’s temperature are cyclical. And, taken over a long enough time frame, the direction of change is that of cooling. Against that background, the mild warming experienced over the last quarter of the 20th century does not show up except on a scale measured in tenths of a degree.

Mrs. Clinton claims that the mild warming from 1977–1997 (there was no net warming from 1998-2015) is responsible for the destructive power of Hurricane Matthew — a surprising claim since Matthew, making landfall at Category 2, didn’t break the 11-year spate of having no major (Category 3 or higher) hurricane strike the US despite all the alleged warming. The net impact of the current el Niño-la Niña cycle cannot be assessed until at least 2018. On a centennial scale, Matthew failed to reach the top ten by a wide margin. Neither its wind strength nor its rainfall fell outside well-established parameters.

She claims that ocean flooding has become a daily nightmare in Miami. Really? Tide gauge and GPS data for the Miami area show that the ocean’s level varies from one location to another, consistent with different rates of land subsidence, not with rising oceans. In any event, scientists measure the extent of change in ocean levels in millimeters, with the total rise for the global oceans during the 20th century estimated to have been about 18 centimeters, or 7 inches, and at most an inch since then, hardly an existential threat. If Miami has a problem, it is local and should be addressed at that level.

California droughts, raging wildfires, and flooding rivers are all wholly consistent with normal climatic cycles. Their impacts, however, have become more problematic because of increased population and the growth of urbanization. The Central Valley in California, for example, is a natural desert. Modern farming in the valley is possible thanks to the massive irrigation projects built in the 1930s. Since then, California’s population has increased by a factor of six, and water projects have not kept up. Again, this is a local problem requiring a local solution. Blaming climate change is just a poor excuse for lack of appropriate local action.

Political Power is the Real Issue

Mrs. Clinton’s real goal, one she shares with Al Gore and all the other climate alarmists, is power. They see alarm over climate change as a convenient way to advance their control over people’s lives.

For politicians, from the UN to local, no issue has proven more useful in justifying increased government intervention at every level. For them, it is imperative that climate change be characterized as an alarming, all-pervasive problem, one that can only be tackled through massive increases in taxes, burdensome regulations, and an all-out attack on the many benefits of fossil fuels. Sadly, every jurisdiction that has embraced the green energy dream has learned that it is a mirage. The costs are high, the delivery anemic, the green jobs are nowhere to be found, and the poor suffer more from the policies than from climate.

One final note. Mrs. Clinton herself does not believe much of what she says on the campaign trail, including on climate change. As she indicated to her press secretary in a leaked 2015 e-mail, she needed to outflank Bernie Sanders but wanted to avoid being too clear about such remedies as a carbon tax, knowing how toxic that would be. Her Wall Street speeches are equally revealing. She is biding her time until next January, when the full panoply of interventionist ideas emanating from her in-house think tank will become her agenda, and she will shamelessly continue to invoke climate change to justify it. More than with most politicians, deceit is integral to her political persona.

The good news is that most Americans do not support Hillary’s approach. They do not think that climate change is a major problem, and they are not looking for a planetary savior ready to impose upon them the nightmare of “clean” energy.

A 2016 Chapman University survey indicates that climate change is not included among the top ten fears of the American people. They are not buying the hype.

Rather, their principal concern is the rise in corruption among government officials. Voters are fed up with the nonsense that career politicians feed them on a daily basis. A Pew University survey released last week indicates that Americans are losing their faith in both scientists and the media reporting on science issues. Among scientists, climate scientists are now considered the least credible, and barely one in ten Americans is closely following the issue.

We will see in November which direction the American people want to take, but it is unlikely that climate change will be the principal issue influencing their votes. (For more from the author of “Fact-Checking Clinton’s Climate Change Speech” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Conservatives Will Need a New Party If/When Hillary Wins

When John Quincy Adams entered office in March, 1825, he had lofty ideas both domestically and on the global front. The younger Adams had one of the most impressive resumes of a new president. He was widely regarded as one of the most successful secretaries of state in our history, and presided over the tranquil years of the Monroe presidency. Yet, the Jacksonian Democrats who dominated Congress, buoyed by the voting bloc of the southern states, absolutely decimated Quincy’s agenda and rendered his entire presidency an utter failure. There is no reason the same dynamic cannot occur during a potential Hillary presidency. Sadly, it won’t until a true alternative party is conceived.

Whether you love, hate, or tolerate the current GOP nominee, the reality is that unless something cathartic occurs before the critical mass of early voting begins, Hillary Clinton will be elected president on November 8. Don’t shoot the messenger. Just three weeks out from the election (and much less when mass early voting is factored in), it’s time conservatives of all stripes at least give some thought as to a game-plan past the sensational news of the day in the media.

Republicans like Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas. (F, 42%) already have a game plan in place if and when Hillary is elected: make Hillary’s presidency a great success. In other words, nothing too different from the GOP’s modus operandi during the Obama presidency.

Here is a revealing tweet from an Austin Statesman reporter covering John Cornyn’s speech to a local Chamber of Commerce this week:

Thus, Cornyn’s biggest agenda item for a Hillary presidency is to grant her George Soros’s top policy agenda — jailbreak — which will help create a permanent Democrat majority. These people have no sense of the fact that even if Hillary wins she will have no mandate, Republicans will control the majority of state governments, the House, and very possibly the Senate. In a constitutional system that is working properly — with a party that cares to exercise its power appropriately — Hillary’s presidency should be dead on arrival. Yet, GOP leaders are already planning to greet her with tailwinds instead of headwinds.

Although Quincy Adams was a brilliant, honorable, and patriotic son of a Founding Father, the political adversity in which he found himself was insuperable, exactly what should be confronting Hillary if she wins … if only there was a true opposition party. She would have won only because of the dumpster fire in the Republican Party, not based on popular support for a single policy. Nobody wants a flood of refugees, Obamacare is spiraling out of control, and nobody likes her personality or has any trust in her leadership. She holds all of the policies of Obama that the electorate has already repudiated, albeit lacks the personal charm that has kept the lame duck president afloat. In fact, she would come in as the most hated president to begin their term in office since … well … John Quincy Adams.

Congress, together with the states, can completely cripple Hillary’s agenda if they actually cared to do so. Sure, Hillary would never do anything positive and would still have some latitude to implement some very dangerous things on the foreign policy front, but the fact that people regard a pending third term of Obama as the death of humanity reflects the reality that there is NO Republican Party left.

Not only will Republicans decline to use the power of the purse to block Hillary’s radical agenda or encourage allies in the state to thwart implementation of her policies, they will seek ways to look like they are “governing.” Every Republican will run for office as outraged against her agenda, and 2018 will be a repeat of 2010 when everyone was a “Tea Party candidate.” 2020 will be a repeat of 2012 in which the candidate with the most name recognition and promoted by Fox News will be the GOP nominee. By that point, we will have mandated sex change operations. Heck, our own military during a time of war and internal morale crisis has already published a handbook on sex changes. We simply don’t have the time to continue down this failed path. We’ve already been in the wilderness for 27 years.

The entire shelf-life of the Whig Party, which Quincy Adams helped found, was shorter than the 27 years the GOP has been around as a fake opposition party since 1989. Immediately after it became apparent that the Whigs stood for nothing as it related to the issue of the time, it was ditched for, ironically, the creation of the Republican Party. We’ve come full circle.

The modern-day Republican Party has controlled the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people and the branch controlled fully with a simple majority, for 18 of the past 22 years. Despite the unmitigated disaster of the presidential election, and the banality of the array of GOP senators running for reelection, Republicans are still better than even odds at keeping the Senate, even if Trump loses in a landslide. The bottom line is that the people don’t want the fundamental transformation. There is no popular mandate for Democrat polices. Outside of their impervious demographic firewall of support, there is a reverse mandate against their policies. Americans don’t want to give all of government to Democrats, yet this false flag operation of Republicans has allowed the worst cultural and fiscal transformation in our history on their watch, even though Democrats controlled the trifecta of the federal government for only two years.

Moreover, in the state, Democrats have held only a minority of state governments for most of the past two decades. Republicans, on the other hand, now control two-thirds of the state legislative bodies and in 23 states they control the trifecta of state government. Democrats enjoy full control in just seven states. Yet, little has changed to thwart the agenda of the far-left on most issues. On the seminal issues of our item, such as Obamacare, Islamic refugee resettlement, and funding for Planned Parenthood — which should be slam dunk policy — Republicans have been impotent if not complicit in the problem.

The biggest question that conservatives must answer the day after the election is: for how much longer will they continue doing the same things and expecting different results? The sooner that question is resolved, the quicker we can chart a new course that will be embraced by a majority of the country, which is clamoring for something different. The imperative to act and the opportunity for a clean break from the past were never stronger. At this point, it’s all a matter of initiative. (For more from the author of “Why Conservatives Will Need a New Party If/When Hillary Wins” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Poll-Tested Obama’s Muslim Roots in 2008

Hillary Clinton made it clear where she stood during the second presidential debate.

The Democratic presidential candidate blasted Republican rival Donald Trump, because, he “never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America.”

Whether it was actually her 2008 campaign who began that “racist lie” has been a matter of considerable debate . . .

Her 2008 presidential campaign wanted to know how voters would react to the fact that then-candidate Barack Obama’s “father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world’s most populous Islamic country.”

That bombshell was contained in the Wikileaks revelations released Friday, in the form of an email chain sent in January of 2008 that cc’d current Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and longtime Clinton adviser Paul Begala. (Read more from “Hillary Poll-Tested Obama’s Muslim Roots in 2008” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton

These are precarious times to be a Republican.

It is inarguably true that America is in desperate need of a conservative president. Voters have waited and waited, and the havoc Trump has wreaked on the party on his path to the nomination may take a while to heal. This was not the 2016 we deserved. It is, however, the one we got.

But why is everyone so scared of a Clinton presidency? Put simply: The reason everyone is so afraid of Hillary is because Congress sucks.

With polls looking unfavorable for Donald Trump, the sense of dread at having to face four years under Hillary’s watch is compounded by the knowledge that these will be another four years of unmitigated defeat and progressive disaster. Clinton will undoubtedly consolidate more power and tip the delicately balanced scales of checks and balances ever more toward the executive branch. After all, that is what progressives do — it’s in their nature to transform institutions and centralize power.

To a large extent, they have succeeded. Americans cannot help look at the presidency as the strongest and most decisive force in government. The founders, of course, had no such intent when they established our system of checks and balances. Congress was created to be the motor of the republic, to set legislative priorities, rein in the president, and reflect most directly the will of the people. But through eons of feebleness and inactivity, its muscle has atrophied.

It didn’t have to be this way. Congressional cowardice and the entire legislative culture of surrender forces Republicans to look at 2016 as their last hope of rebellion. No one can fathom a scenario in which we lose the presidency and still take part in setting the national agenda. If this was a real possibility on the minds of lawmakers, the aura of doom surrounding November 8 would not be quite so palpable.

The American people — despite the demographics, despite the media, despite presidential elections that are increasingly more personality based — have given Republicans control of the house 18 of the last 22 years. Americans clearly want a check on government.

Shortly after his decision not to go to bat to defend Trump’s politically toxic comments about women in 2005, Speaker Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 51%) held a conference call urging his members to “do what’s best for you in your district.” Politico quoted a source on the call who described the backlash Ryan faced from some congressmen unprepared to cede the race and unable to stomach the notion of spending another presidential term playing defense as saying: “A lot of these guys feel like there is a moral imperative to beating Hillary Clinton.”

In the 115th Congress, elected Republicans once again have a chance to lead. As several recent polls indicate — in light of the favorability of a President Clinton — come 2017, voters will take their cue from leadership as to how brutal a loss this will be. Are we in for another term of untrammeled progressivism and an opposition party eager to show a liberal media and Washington insiders it can be “reasonable” and “bipartisan”? Or will we get the conservative fighters the country deserves? Fighters that can halt the liberal Clinton agenda. Don’t forget, our nation did see conservative reforms during the last Clinton administration when Republicans asserted themselves as a check on the executive.

What will truly make America great again is reviving the most important branch of government, the only one directly tethered to will of the people.

The internet response to recent polling is filled with the terror of another liberal epoch. Republicans must stop being guided by the less awful of two fears.

I’ll say it again: Hillary is especially dangerous because Congress is especially gutless.

Please, GOP: Prove me wrong. (For more from the author of “Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.