Posts

Hillary Loves Religious Freedom… Only for Muslim Foreign Nationals

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton called for fact checkers to help her out tonight. At the risk of staying up the entire night debunking every word she spoke on policy, lets address what is perhaps the most scandalous part of the debate from a policy perspective. Hillary managed to flip two of the most foundational principles — religious liberty and sovereignty — upside down and inside out.

Early on in the debate, a Muslim voter, who was allegedly undecided, asked the following question:

There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over.

After a brief back-and-forth between the candidates on refugee policy — one of the few moments when Trump was fully on message — Hillary made the following laughable, hypocritical, outrageous, and dangerous comment:

But it is important for us as a policy, you know, not to say as Donald has said, we’re going to ban people based on a religion. How do you do that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty.

How do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own country … are we going to have religious tests?

Remember folks, Hillary is the leader of the party that believes religious Christians and Jews (or Muslims or anyone else) must service homosexual or transgender events with their own private property. They must engage in involuntary servitude or have their livelihoods terminated unless they agree to violate their conscience; the “most sacred of property” rights, as Madison put it. They believe unelected judges can force a grocery store to include every type of contraception in their pharmacy section when 30 other pharmacies within driving distance sell the products. And they believe a county clerk who has served her jurisdiction for 27 years — predating the concept of a gay marriage –—should be thrown in jail for requesting that someone else sign the license, which in itself runs country to state law that was never changed statutorily.

No, Mrs. Clinton, our country wasn’t founded upon the notion that foreign nationals have an affirmative right to immigrate to this country. But it was founded upon the self-evident truth of natural law and nature’s God — the very God you rejected with your defense of judicial tyranny tonight — that Americans and those accepted into our society through mutual consent have the right to secure their property, earn a living, and practice their religious liberty. They most certainly have the right to not have their religion debased with their own business and property.

So how about those litmus tests? Hillary seems to have figured out how to implement religious tests when it comes to the religions she doesn’t like. Oddly, she has no problem replacing the real religious freedoms of Americans with a phantom and dangerous right for any particular immigrant or groups of immigrants to come here against the will of the people, even though many of them come from cultures that will not disagree with her chosen religion — the sexual revolution — in an agreeable and cordial fashion.

Under Hillary’s dangerous conception of the First Amendment, a view shared by the majority of the modern legal profession, an American Christian has no right to run a business without violating his religion, yet a Pakistani national can sue for discrimination for not being allowed to immigrate to our shores in the first place. This position is not only dangerous, especially during a time of war; it’s ignorant.

Given that Hillary will not read my book, which debunks her premise on both accounts of religious liberty and sovereignty, she would be wise to read one court case: Turner v. Williams, [194 U.S. 279, 290 (1904)]. In Turner, which was unanimous and is the most accepted area of settled law, the Court stated, “[R]ested on the accepted principle of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

This is one “precedent” from the courts liberals don’t like to abide by.

That we have a presidential candidate who is this ignorant of our most foundational values of sovereignty and religious liberty should scare us all. Then again, it’s not like we have a Republican Party beating the drums on behalf of true religious liberty either. (For more from the author of “Hillary Loves Religious Freedom… Only for Muslim Foreign Nationals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fraudulent Hillary Blasts the Very Tax Loopholes She Uses

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today, Hillary Clinton stood before the nation to outline her vision for the American economy. During her speech, she was resolute in her differences with political nemesis, Donald Trump.

Clinton was correct; the policy positions she shares with Trump are few; their policy differences, many. Clinton would like to increase taxes, regulations, and labor union membership. Trump wants the exact opposite.

Yet, Clinton was most emphatic in highlighting the difference between the two candidates’ tax policies. Of course, Clinton took a page from the ole’, outdated Democratic playbook, claiming her Republican opponent is proposing tax cuts for the rich. And this time, Clinton can point to her opponent, a billionaire himself, who will benefit from his own policies.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, the “tax cuts for millionaires” line is an easy talking point for Democrats, since it plays into the emotions of the middle class that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Yet, the facts paint a different picture: The rich pay more than 70 percent of all federal taxes; the top one percent of Americans pay 25 percent of all taxes. On the other hand, those at the bottom of the income ladder pay only 0.8 percent (yes, that’s zero point eight) of all taxes.

So, any tax cut at all will almost always have a larger impact on those who pay most in taxes.

Clinton would like to increase taxes on millionaires. Her proposal, as studied by the Tax Policy Center, will increase taxes by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Among her liberal tax policies, Clinton would like to impose an “exit” tax on corporations seeking more favorable tax rates in other nations and a special “American Dream Tax” — meaning those who make millions will be levied a new special tax.

But perhaps NO ONE hates paying taxes more than the Clintons. In fact, the Clintons go to such lengths to avoid the very taxes they propose for others that some believe they are engaged in tax fraud.

First, Clinton highlighted (vigorously I might add) that Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax, otherwise known as the death tax, is a transfer of wealth to the federal government after a family member dies. Currently, the death tax has a relatively high threshold: Taxes apply to assets over $5 million per individual, or $10 million per couple. So, of course, they mostly apply to upper income families — Trump’s and Clinton’s included.

Conservatives have long believed the death tax is unjust since it re-taxes all those assets that had already been taxed. It’s a long-standing tradition for conservatives to propose its elimination, as Trump has done.

Today, however, Clinton trashed Trump for such a proposal. The true irony, of course, is that Clinton has set up legal tax shelters to avoid ever paying the death tax — the very tax that she thinks rich Americans should pay. Bloomberg News reported in 2014:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.

How righteous of them.

Bloomberg also found that in 2010 the Clintons shifted their mansions into residential trusts. By doing so, any appreciation in the house will not be valued in the tax base. Experts believe this could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. In addition to their residential trusts, the Clintons also participate in life insurance trusts (also created in 2010). A life insurance trust allows the Clinton’s to avoid paying any death taxes.

How many of the ordinary Americans Clinton is supposedly “championing” on behalf of can place their homes into tax exempt residence trusts? Yah, me neither. Of course, these tax loopholes are legal, but the Clintons could have avoided such tax schemes in order to fulfill their “patriotic” defense of breaking up wealth held by the country’s top performers.

Yet, this is only the beginning of the Clintons’ hypocrisy.

The Clintons have been known to utilize five different shell companies, all registered to an address in Wilmington, Delaware, for the purposes of avoiding taxes. Actually, the Clintons aren’t even that discreet about it. The one address their shell companies use is also shared by 280,000 other companies for the purpose of avoiding taxes.

Bonnie Kristian writes in The Week:

[T]wo of the five [businesses] are tied to Bill and Hillary Clinton specifically. One, WJC, LLC, is used by the former president to collect consulting fees. The other ZFS Holdings, LLC, was used by the former Secretary of State to process her $5.5 million book advance from Simon & Schuster. Three additional shell companies belong to the Clinton Foundation.

And that brings us to the mother of all tax farces: the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation. In fact, a charity watchdog, the Sunlight Foundation, called the Clinton Foundation a “slush fund.” For starters, the charity work by the Clinton Foundation is suspect. In 2013, the Clinton Foundation raised more than $140 million, yet only spent $9 million on charity. Interestingly enough, the Foundation spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits, $10 millions of luxury office space; another $10 million for “conferences and conventions,” while the rests sits in coffers presumable awaiting a Clinton retirement.

In numerous instances, the Foundation has been questioned as to whether it’s merely been a scheme to pay off friends. The New York Post reported that Chelsea Clinton’s friend, Eric Braverman, took over the Foundation in 2013 and made a killing — earning $275,000 in just five months.

In addition to paying exorbitant salaries to friends and family, a typical tax avoidance technique by the rich to shelter taxes, the Clintons use the Foundation to subsidize travel expenses, office space, and rental properties that would make a king jealous.

The profits that the Clintons realize through their foundation have been suspicious for some time. Take for example Hillary’s 2012 push for the US—Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. Included in that agreement was the ability to facilitate simplified financial transactions between the United States and Panama. That agreement may have paved the way for Panama to become one of the world’s largest tax shelters, as we now know came to fruition in the great world-wide offshore havens set up by the firm Mossak Fonseca.

As The Nation highlights in one article, “Although Hillary denounced Mossak Fonseca’s dealing on cue after the Panama Papers story broke, a number of individuals and multinationals that have contributed to the foundation used MF to establish offshore accounts.”

Furthermore, in May, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the Clinton foundation was shelling out millions in untaxed donations that didn’t fit the charity definition, per se, but their friends. In that article, the WSJ revealed that more than $2 million was committed to a for-profit company, Energy Pioneer Solutions, founded by Scott Kleeb, a close friend of the Clintons. But it gets juicier. Brietbart news reports,

Not only did the [Clinton Foundation] potentially violate tax-exempt charitable foundation law by acting for private benefit, but Bill Clinton personally endorsed the company’s request to former Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant of $812,000.

This anecdote is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless stories of Hillary selling political favors while she was Secretary of State for donations to her very own Foundation. For example, the less than democratic and perhaps American-terrorist endorsing state of Saudi Arabia, donated between $10 to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Fishy? I’d say so.

This is the difference between the two candidates. Whether you like Trump or not, you get the transparent attempt to lower taxes for both the rich — and the poor. Yet, Clinton will sell the American public a policy that makes the tax code fair by increasing taxes on the rich or closing tax loopholes only the wealthy can access. The sad fact is that Clinton is a dishonest human being who herself has been living off tax loopholes and exploiting the tax code perhaps more than anyone. My bet is that Clinton is interested in a tax code that benefits her wealthy buddies far more than you can ever imagine. (For more from the author of “Fraudulent Hillary Blasts the Very Tax Loopholes She Uses” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New WikiLeaks Document Dump Targets Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s Campaign Chairman

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks published more than 2,000 documents Friday that it said are emails from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton‘s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the emails focus on Podesta’s “communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests.”

One of the major topics of the emails is the State Department’s support for the Russian takeover of the U.S. firm Uranium One in 2010.

The book Clinton Cash alleged that Uranium One shipped millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Further, The New York Times reported that $2.35 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One.

“Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors,” The Times reported.

The Times also noted that not long after Russia moved to acquire the majority of Uranium One, former President Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

Jose Fernandez, assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, has said Clinton played no role in the deal.

However, an email released by WikiLeaks shows a link between Fernandez and the Clinton campaign.

“John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign,” the email reads.

The email dump also includes an email with snippets from remarks Clinton made at various speeches.

In speaking to a Goldman Sachs event, she noted that in terms of middle America, “I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten [my past].”

A speech to General Electric touched on politics and money.

“I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you’re out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours,” Clinton said.

” … in my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised $1.1 billion, and that was before the super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in … So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters,” she said. (For more from the author of “New WikiLeaks Document Dump Targets Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s Campaign Chairman” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CLINTON STAFF PANICS: Hospital Gurney Spotted Backstage at Campaign Event as Hillary Health Concerns Multiply

/2 Comments/in , /by

Reporter Millie Weaver was observing one of the exits at a Hillary Clinton rally when she spotted a group of EMS workers hauling a gurney to the door.

161004-hillary-gurney-010

161004-hillary-gurney-020

161004-hillary-gurney-030

Moments later, a panicked Clinton staffer (wearing the All Access pass) and began taking pictures of Weaver.

161004-hillary-gurney-050

Moments later, one EMS technician came out of the exit looking quite stressed.

161004-hillary-gurney-060

At the event, Hillary was once again able to navigate the stairs with all the agility of Peter Pan.

161004-hillary-gurney-090-1

Only one word comes to mind: comforting. (For more from the author of “CLINTON STAFF PANICS: Hospital Gurney Spotted Backstage at Campaign Event as Hillary Health Concerns Multiply” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s good to see that a superstar athlete like LeBron James cares about the presidential elections, but I take strong exception to his reason for endorsing Hillary Clinton, namely, his claim that she “has always been a champion for children and their futures.”

Come again?

James would have been far more accurate if he had said, “I believe that she’s a champion for children and their futures, unless those children are still in the womb, in which case she’s quite happy if they have no futures at all. In fact, she’s quite happy if they never even reach the status of children, let alone have a future. After all, it’s the mother’s choice!”

To be clear, I appreciate all that James is doing for children in his community, establishing the LeBron James Family Foundation and taking a genuine interest in improving the lives of those kids.

And you can hear his heart when he says, “I’m so proud of the more than 1,100 students in my Wheels for Education and Akron I PROMISE Network programs. We’re working on year six now, and my kids have big plans for their futures,” also claiming that, “We even have a future astrophysicist. I can’t wait to see how far these kids can go.”

Yes, “future” is the operative word, and again, my hat’s off to James for his initiatives in these areas.

And it is in this context that he endorsed Hillary: “Like my foundation, Hillary has always been a champion for children and their futures. For over 40 years, she’s been working to improve public schools, expand access to health care, support children’s hospitals, and so much more.”

Unfortunately, when you are a radical pro-abortion advocate like Hillary, when you are the best friend Planned Parenthood ever had running for president, when your policies support rather than diminish what some black leaders rightly call the “Black Genocide,” then in no way are you a champion of these children and their futures. (It could also be argued that Democratic policies are hurting inner-cities kids more than helping them, but that’s another subject entirely.)

That’s why pro-abortion advocates normally speak of a “woman’s right to choose” rather than “the mother’s right to choose.”

Once you call her the mother, the fetus is now her child, and how many would argue that the mother has the right to terminate the life of her own child?

How militant is Hillary on this?

She is so committed to the pro-abortion cause that she stated during a 2015 speech at the Women in the World Summit that, when it comes to a woman’s “right” to choose abortion, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed” — read those words carefully: “have to be changed.”

What, then, would it mean if Hillary became president?

Not only could we expect her continued, passionate advocacy for LGBT “rights” — at the expense of religious rights and freedoms — but we could also expect her passionate advocacy for so-called “reproductive rights,” once again, at the expense of religious rights and freedoms. (Isn’t it ironic that one aspect of so-called “reproductive rights” is the right to terminate the result of reproduction?)

Make no mistake about it. A vote for Hillary is a vote to wipe out a generation of children yet to be conceived and born — to wipe out their futures — and a vote to support the idea that “the unborn person does not have constitutional rights.” (How can the unborn baby be a “person” and yet have no constitutional rights?)

A vote for Hillary is also a virtual declaration of war on deeply-held, biblically-based, long-cherished, pro-life and pro-family positions. Indeed, it is a vote to declare war on conservative believers themselves, since it is our beliefs that, according to Hillary, “have to be changed.”

With all respect, then, to LeBron James, if he really cares for the lives of the poor and the underprivileged, for the lives of the inner-city kids, in particular of underprivileged black Americans kids — and I believe he really does care — he would do well to reflect on the ongoing attack on black babies in the womb.

Those babies deserve a hopeful future, and their very existence in the womb entitles them to the right to leave that womb alive rather than to leave the womb sliced up, mutilated, torn apart, poisoned, or burned (by salt). Surely a vote for a radical pro-abortion candidate is vote against, not for, those children, a vote against their futures.

And so, I pray that God would help LeBron James to see.

As a man who seems to care deeply, he could be a marvelous advocate for these precious little ones, the most vulnerable members of our society.

May he become a champion of life, beginning in the womb. (For more from the author of “LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Estate Tax Plan Would Affect Many Families, Not Just the Very Rich

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s newly proposed top estate tax rate of 65 percent on $1 billion estates can sound innocuous enough to the average taxpayer. Last year only a handful of estates would have been large enough to have been affected. If that was all there was to the new Clinton estate tax announced in September, most families would be wiser to focus on other things.

But Clinton’s 65 percent estate tax is really just the tip of the iceberg. She also wants to lower the level at which estate taxes become payable to only $3.5 million. By contrast, Donald Trump would eliminate the estate tax.

In addition, Clinton’s website says she would end the current law pertaining to capital gains—which her website calls an “egregious loophole”—whereby inheritors of assets bought decades ago only owe tax when they sell them, not when they inherit them. Under her plan, a much larger capital gains tax than now would be due, and it would be due at death.

A person mourning a loved one might have no choice but to sell inherited assets to pay capital gains taxes. Clinton’s website states that “[Her estate tax plan] will include exemptions to ensure this change only affects the high-income families who by far benefit the most from this loophole, and protects middle-class families.” However, no details as to the exemptions have been announced. (For more from the author of “Clinton Estate Tax Plan Would Affect Many Families, Not Just the Very Rich” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Look at the Hillary 2024 Campaign Poster

/0 Comments/in , /by

It would appear that the lack of excitement among Democrats (and the nominee’s insults of both Democrats and Republicans alike) has led to a reset by her advisers.

After eight years of President Trump (and what about my proposed campaign slogan of America needs a Trump Card?), no matter what the increasingly skewed polling results say, Hillary’s campaign is doomed. With that said, word on the street is that she wants to run again.

By that time, of course, the bloated catlady’s failing body won’t be around for the campaign (in spite of all the “yoga”), so what better way to keep her plugging away than this?

161001-hillary-brain2

(For more from the author of “First Look at the Hillary 2024 Campaign Poster” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An American Horror Story: Vignettes From Hillary’s First Hundred Days

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Friday, January 20, 2017, a woman with time-worn features raises her right hand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. She places her left hand flat on a book of law as she stands in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and takes the oath of the Presidency. Roberts’ presence chafes her. She’d voted against his nomination, considering him too conservative to fit her radical views on judicial interpretation. Today, though, she’ll overlook it. Vindication proves curative enough for past ills.

The years as First Lady, her time as the Democratic Senator from New York, and later, as Secretary of State — they have all culminated here, in the office of which she’d been in steely-eyed pursuit of for so long. She had survived the Benghazi debacle, and the classified email leaks. The puerile public had even overlooked those phones smashed with hammers. She’d finally crushed the noxious right-wing conspiracy that had hounded her every move. She would gut the system from the inside out just as she’d promised Saul Alinsky she would.

There was only the fight, and she’d won. He’d have been proud.

In rural Ohio a few weeks later on a day of waning winter, Susan Frazier and her husband Tom sit anxiously in front of a family counselor at the faith-based Agape Adoption agency. Unable to conceive, they have waited three years to adopt an infant. But with a heavy sigh, the counselor explains that the baby promised to them will instead go to a lesbian couple in Columbus. When asked why, she says that a recent law prohibits the agency from exhibiting a preference for married couples over LGBTQ individuals seeking adoption. Seeing the pain on both of their faces, she reveals that threatened with impossible fines and so many children needing homes, they felt pressured to comply despite their religious beliefs. Religion, the counselor reminds them, is no longer good for anything but church.

The next day, Susan and Tom flip on the news. An image of Chicago O’Hare flickers on the screen. The airport’s glass wall gapes like a wound, smoke spiraling heavenward. Bodies draped with white sheets lay in rows on the concrete. Susan grabs Tom’s hand. Two Syrian refugees with ties to ISIS have driven a construction vehicle through a barrier, into the main terminal and opened fire with AK 47s. In a display of force, the President quickly announces she has temporarily suspended the Second Amendment right to keep and carry a firearm. Not only will all gun sales be immediately suspended, the Democratic Congress has also approved her order for a federal weapon registry. Failure to register any and all firearms with the federal government will result in confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm(s) and any property or assets related to the transporting or housing of those firearm(s).

Susan and Tom look at each other, unsettled by the idea of “suspending” a constitutional right. Tom’s hunting rifle is used only to put venison on the table in winter. But this was a special circumstance, right? Susan reaches for a stack of mail during the commercial break, and an envelope catches her eye. It’s a tax liability statement from the Internal Revenue Service. They haven’t paid enough. Her confusion bleeds to anger as she shoves the statement toward her husband. Didn’t this President promise them lower taxes?

On the television, the President is now shaking hands with Xi Jinping, the Communist leader of the People’s Republic of China. With practiced ease, she promises the press corps that under her administration, trivialities like human rights won’t interfere with more important issues like global warming. She says nothing of the imprisonments and executions ordered by the smiling Chinese dictator standing to her left. But she is keen to apologize for America’s previous hostility toward communism.

Tom Frazier is deployed the next week. An Army air defense artillery officer, he is on his way to Aleppo to fight a war he does not understand and never seems to end. His command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base has been subjected to hours of training on transgender sensitivity and “white privilege,” but no instruction on code of conduct or law of land warfare. When he finally boards the plane for the 14-hour flight to Syria he feels acutely unprepared to fight a hidden enemy. His seat mate remarks with acid in his voice that this President doesn’t know when to quit. She is, he reminds Tom, the one who sends people in but doesn’t bring them home.

Within a few months of the President’s taking the oath, Paul Watford — an appellate judge from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and former clerk to far-left Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — is confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Within a matter of weeks, he essentially codifies the president’s gun grab by ruling with the majority in nullifying the Second Amendment right to carry a fire arm. Shortly thereafter, he denies a church’s Equal Protection claim.

The President calls a press conference, praising both decisions as the none-too-soon death knell of conservatism. She explains that in particular, religion has been given “special treatment” for too long. In matters of Equal Protection and Free Exercise, churches have used religious freedom as code for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and Christian supremacy for too long. The President promises that religious freedom will no longer be used to deny others equality.

Susan flips off the radio in her car. She touches the cross around her neck and ignores the rising knot in her throat.

The Ohio leaves return to green. Susan is still without her husband, and she’s received no promise of his return. Today, she flips the towel she’s using for the dishes over her shoulder, and clicks on the television, where the President sits at her desk in the Oval Office, pen mid-signature, flanked by Senator Elizabeth Warren and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. This is a common sight, Susan thinks, this President and her many bills. The trio of well-dressed women exchange beaming smiles and congratulatory hugs. The President has signed the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that legalizes abortion-on-demand, while simultaneously repealing the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding for abortion. All taxpayers will now be forced into partnership with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The towel falls from Susan’s shoulder. She realizes that the baby for which she so desperately longs is now simply another woman’s temporary mistake. A mistake she is being forced to pay for.

Susan is gnawed by a growing regret as she remembers the snaking lines at the polling place last year. She remembers driving by, muttering that some people were just too consumed with politics. She recalls the campaign signs and the heated rhetoric and the televised debates. She remembers trying to ignore it all, trusting it would work out. That she was just one person, and even without her vote, it would all work out.

Wouldn’t it? (For more from the author of “An American Horror Story: Vignettes From Hillary’s First Hundred Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Queen of Political Opportunism: 5 Things You Don’t Know About Hillary

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans feel like they know everything there is to know about Hillary Clinton — and Donald Trump for that matter.

But there are five things you may not know about Hillary.

1. Pakistan

Hillary criticized Senator Obama’s position when he advocated for attacking terrorists havens in Pakistan before she took credit for advising him to send Seal Team 6 into Pakistan to capture and kill Obama Bin Laden. Clinton lies and hypocricy should not shock anybody, yet this duplicitous claim has gone under reported.

PolitiFacts reported back on February 27, 2008:

At the Democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Feb. 26, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton stole a line from Sen. John McCain and President Bush.

Clinton said that last summer, Sen. Barack Obama “basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take.”

Clinton’s line echoes recent comments by McCain, who told reporters Feb. 20 that Obama “suggested bombing Pakistan,” and Bush, who said in a Feb. 17 TV interview that he didn’t know much about Obama’s foreign policy except that “he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad.

This was one of those issues that raised Republican eyebrows when Senator Obama argued that if he had actionable intelligence that bad guys were hiding in Pakistan, he would use it and not hesitate to act on it. A position that is reasonable and had many Republicans siding with Obama over McCain.

It was truly bizarre that Sen. McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 32%) and Hillary Clinton would hit him on that statement because it was the right position — and that hypothetical became reality when Hillary was secretary of state.

Obama’s position was mapped out on August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and said (as quoted by PolitiFacts):

I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Hillary criticized that statement, yet she repeatedly bragged that she advised President Obama to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. According to a Washington Post account “Through weeks of sometimes heated White House debate in 2011, Clinton was alone among the president’s topmost cabinet officers to back [the Osama Bin Laden raid].” I guess she supported the raid before she opposed it.

Too bad Hillary was not as decisive during the Benghazi attacks when Americans were at risk. She seems to have run away from that disaster and you will not find heroic chapters in any of her books detailing her tough choices when it comes to Libya. All of her decisions with regard to the Libyan war and the Benghazi attacks were wrong.

2. Flip Flop on Marriage

Hillary was for traditional marriage before she became a self-proclaimed champion for gay marriage. What a profile in courage!

In 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton spoke on the Senate floor and said the following when voicing opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one woman and one man:

I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond, between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage. To stand up for marriage. I believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution, are less committed to the sanctity of marriage. To the fundamental bedrock principal that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history, humanity and civilization and its primary principal role in during those millennia are those raising and socializing of children into society where they are about to become adults.

Wow — she would be jailed as a deplorable hate monger for saying those things today.

Can you imagine if Donald Trump said those words during the last debate? Hillary would have called him a homophobic, anti-gay bigot. Only a Clinton could be 100% pro traditional marriage in 2004, then completely flip flop ten years later and make believe that she always supported gay marriage.

3. Clinton Tax Avoidance

Although the Clinton campaign is apoplectic that Trump will not release his returns and evidently used a massive capital gains loss as a way to avoid paying taxes, Hillary seems to have done the exact same thing. From Zero Hedge:

While not on the scale of Trump’s business “operating loss”, Hillary Clinton – like many ‘wealthy’ individuals is taking advantage of a legal scheme to use historical losses to avoid paying current taxes.

I guess that makes her smart to avoid paying taxes, but a hypocrite for hitting Trump for taking advantage of the same tax law that she took.

4. Senator Clinton’s List of Accomplishments

Hillary Clinton acts as though she has had a long and distinguished career as a politician, yet her time as senator resulted in very few accomplishments.

According to a National Review Online piece from July 28, 2016 written by Nicole Goeser and John R. Lott, Jr.:

In her eight years in the Senate, just one of Hillary’s bills got enacted into law. This bill designated the U.S. courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York City as the “Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.”

Pretty lame record of accomplishment.

5. Hillary Changed Her Name for Political Purposes

How does President Hillary Rodham sound? Before Hillary changed her name to adopt Bill Clinton’s last name, she had been a good feminist and refused to take his surname. One could not be a Clinton without flip flopping on an issue as central to a person’s being as one’s last name.

According to a U.S News and World Report story from January 30, 2007:

When Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were wed on Oct. 11, 1975, she kept her maiden name, not realizing it would become a controversial decision. After her husband’s defeat for re-election in the 1980 Arkansas gubernatorial election, she changed her surname to Clinton. Voters had questioned their marriage’s stability.

Shocking to think that in 1975 Rodham and Clinton had marital problems. Who knew?

These five facts are yet five more reasons that confirm American’s belief that Hillary Rodham Clinton is untrustworthy, duplicitous and dishonest. Clinton has flip flopped on issues from the Bin Laden raid to her own last name. (For more from the author of “Queen of Political Opportunism: 5 Things You Don’t Know About Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement”

/0 Comments/in , /by

As far as message discipline goes, Donald Trump may not be the wild one among our two presidential candidates.

After first tarring half of Mr. Trump’s supporters as racist bigots and other “deplorables”, her royal heinous has now gone after Bernie Sanders’ passionate backers.

Apparently, according to the one who wears custom-fitted tarpaulins, those who supported Sanders all work in Starbucks and live in their parents’ basement.

Which does raise a good point:

And they talk about Trump being off message? (For more from the author of “HILLARY ON BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS: They’re a Bunch of Losers “Living in Their Parents’s Basement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.