Posts

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.

Hillary Clinton Is a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Just Like Her Mentor

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton may be gaining in recent presidential polls against Donald Trump, but before those Americans go to the polls for the former secretary of state, they really ought to take a look at one of her most famous mentors: Saul Alinsky.

To many in the world, the name Alinksy has become a special kind of boogeyman, a watchword for everything wrong with the modern American Left. And rightly so. Deemed the “father of community organizing,” the Chicago native and sociological theorist dedicated his life work to developing the activism framework that has left its mark on nearly every single leftist political campaign in the mid-to-late 20th century.

A new documentary from EWTN, Arcadia Films, and City of Light Studios, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” explores just how Alinsky developed his theories of community organizing. He gleaned wisdom from his experiences with the Chicago mob and communists during the Great Depression, and imparted his theories of agitation, deceit, intimidation, and confusion to liberal ideologues for decades to come.

In Alinsky’s worldview, the civil rights movement, the Catholic Church, and civic organizations were little more than vehicles to an ultimate end. Through detailed biographical storytelling, the documentary takes the viewer step-by-step from the crime-ridden streets of Chicago into the very halls of power that he was able to infiltrate and infect with his savage and diabolical tactics.

True to the film’s name, it begins with a parable of a wolf who dresses himself in sheepskin to infiltrate a herd of sheep with the intent of subjecting the lot to slaughter. In the same context, it shows the true nature of Alinsky’s work and vision that were draped in the language of helping the world’s “have-nots,” but doing so through the means of subverting the family, traditional institutions, morality, and truth itself under a mechanism dripping with the aphorisms of Marx and Machiavelli.

All throughout, scenes of violence, manipulation, infiltration, and political chaos are juxtaposed against Alinsky himself (portrayed by a reserved and morose Jim Morlino), interposing a series of short lines that offer the viewer a deeper look into the man behind the movement. This is a man to whom truth and reality were subjective stumbling blocks on the road to Marxist ideals of progress, and who would stop at nothing to impose that ideal on the American people.

“A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” is undoubtedly an overtly Catholic production, but its insight into the life of one of the 20th century’s most dangerous American thinkers is valuable to audiences of all worldviews. This is especially true given the dire implications of the film’s message in light of the current presidential election cycle and the seemingly rapid progress that the political Left has already made during the Obama years.

Many are aware of President Obama’s connection to Alinsky, as outlined in a 2009 article by Jim Geraghty at National Review. But while Obama merely studied under Alinsky’s disciples during his tenure in Chicago, Hillary Clinton learned directly from the man himself.

Alinsky’s influence on the Democratic presidential nominee was unavoidable and intrinsic to her political development. Not only did Clinton — then Rodham — write a 92-page thesis about Alinsky’s tactics at Wellesley College, letters a few years ago reveal that the organizer’s influence on the future first lady are greater than originally thought.

“Dear Saul, When is that new book coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?” a 23-year-old Hillary wrote in 1971 about Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. “I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for radicals, written by Alinky in 1946] and need some new material to throw at people.”

As Jen Kuznicki points out elsewhere at Conservative Review: “Hillary’s whole life has been dedicated to socialist/communist ends. The fact that the arguments and the anger fomented by Alinsky in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s are the same arguments and anger of today’s Obama/Clinton model is telling.

“David Brock, in his 1996 biography, ‘The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,’ called Hillary ‘Alinsky’s daughter.’ That is an apt label,” he continues. “Where Alinsky tactics are used now on both sides to confuse and agitate, Hillary is poised to become the supreme leader with all the power and tools of our monstrous government at her fingertips.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric may have pushed some Christians toward Hillary Clinton, but perhaps an honest and sober look at her inspiration will push them back. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Is a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Just Like Her Mentor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Hillary Keeping Bill off the Campaign Trail to Limit Talk of His Affairs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fearing that the taint of sexual scandals would overshadow any positive impact, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton reportedly is minimizing the role of former President Bill Clinton in her campaign.

According to the Daily Mail, author Joe Conasaon, who wrote the new book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, said the issue is not merely whether Republican nominee Donald Trump might mine the Clintons’ past for juicy tidbits, but what might surface about Bill Clinton’s more recent activity.

“Much more troubling to Hillary and her closest associates was the constant chatter concerning her husband’s alleged extramarital romances,” he wrote.

“If he appeared anywhere with an attractive and unattached woman, even in a group photo leaving a restaurant, her name would be ‘linked’ to him in tabloid columns, as occurred regularly for a while with Belinda Stronach, a divorced Canadian heiress in her forties who held a seat in Parliament,” Conason wrote.

There was fire behind the smoke, Conason noted, referring to Julie Tauber McMahon, who was dubbed “the energizer” because of her frequent private meetings with Bill Clinton.

Conason also names actress Gina Gershon as a rumored Clinton paramour, a claim Gershon has denied.

As for Trump, who said after Monday’s debate he had planned to bring up Bill Clinton’s affairs but then thought better of it, a comment he made this week suggests Clinton’s past may be front and center in the coming days.

“The American people have had it with years and decades of Clinton corruption and scandal,” Trump said in New Hampshire on Thursday. “And impeachment for lying. … Remember that?”

Trump’s reference was to the scandal caused by Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

“The American people have had it with years and decades of Clinton corruption and scandal,” Trump said in New Hampshire on Thursday. “And impeachment for lying. … Remember that?”

Trump’s reference was to the scandal caused by Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (For more from the author of “Report: Hillary Keeping Bill off the Campaign Trail to Limit Talk of His Affairs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election, Donald Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the rise of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. According to Trump, Obama and Clinton created a “disaster” by “the way they got out of Iraq.” This refers to the tragedy that occurred after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS swept through the nation while imposing Sharia law and executing, raping and enslaving the Iraqi people.

Clinton responded to Trump that she hopes “the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard,” because “George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.” She then asserted that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”

This protection was a legal immunity that would prevent Iraqi courts from prosecuting U.S. soldiers. Obama has made the same claim, and many media outlets have published stories saying he is correct, such as the Washington Post, Salon, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact, the last two of which are “fact checkers” often invoked by the Clinton campaign.

In reality, news reports that were published when the U.S. troops were withdrawn prove that Clinton and Obama are being deceitful. As documented below, the articles show that:

the “agreement” Clinton spoke of was not intended to determine a hard date but to provide a soft placeholder.

“everyone” expected that this date would be extended.

the date was not extended because the Obama administration poisoned the negotiations and refused to use a simple and sure process to provide immunity to U.S. troops.

the U.S. State Department led by Hillary Clinton was a primary actor that destroyed these negotiations.

after the troops were pulled, Obama took credit for this and insisted that it was the right thing to do.

These articles also show that after this decision looked disastrous in hindsight, Obama and Clinton began falsely accusing Bush of forcing them to withdraw the U.S. troops.

The Status of Forces Agreement

The “agreement” Clinton spoke of was called the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. It stated that U.S. forces “shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011.

Contrary to what Clinton led the debate audience to believe, the SOFA merely provided a placeholder to satisfy Iraqis who opposed an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. When Obama announced in October 2011 that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year, the New York Times reported:

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. …

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

The same article explained that the troops did not stay because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day of the Times article, The Cable, a publication of the influential magazine Foreign Policy, revealed that Obama’s State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, refused to employ an easy and straightforward process to keep the U.S. troops in Iraq:

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its a**.”

These claims that Obama and Clinton could have used this option were proven true in 2014, when Obama employed the same process to provide immunity for 300 U.S. troops sent back into Iraq after ISIS rose to power and began wreaking havoc. As reported in a 2014 New York Times article:

The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Operations troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.

The Times related that the White House defended these conflicting positions by claiming that “this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011.” However, the article presented no evidence that any relevant law or agreement made distinctions based on the number or role of the troops. Nor has any member of the Obama administration or media presented such evidence in dozens of articles reviewed for this research.

Obama Took Credit Until It Went Wrong

On the day the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama gave a White House press conference in which he stated:

“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end….”

“After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”

Contrary to the notion that Obama wanted to keep U.S. forces in Iraq but was prevented by Bush’s agreement, the above-mentioned article by The Cable contains a note at the end of it that states:

This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the “White House” that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

“The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,” the White House official said.

A few days after the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama’s presidential campaign produced an ad stating: “Because of Barack Obama the mission in Iraq ended.”

A few months later, Obama boasted before soldiers in Fort Bragg, NC that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” At the same event, Michelle Obama said to the troops that Obama “has kept his promise to responsibly bring you home from Iraq.”

In a 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said to Romney, “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.” As an example of such, Obama said “You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Yet, in an August 2014 press conference, after Iraq was in the midst of what Obama called a “growing humanitarian crisis” and potential “genocide,” a reporter asked him if he had “second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq.” Obama responded, “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” Obama then gave the same explanation that Hillary used at the debate, which is that Bush’s agreement forced him to do this.

In sum, Obama campaigned on a promise to pull the troops from Iraq, which he and Clinton proceeded to do against the advice of Iraq’s top army officer and U.S. military officials. Obama then took credit for this, bragged about it, and defended it as the right thing to do — up until the point when it went wrong. Then he and Clinton began saying that Bush did it. (For more from the author of “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Washington Post transcript, Hillary argued:

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

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

Clinton closed that segment with a false equivalency:

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

9 Big Lies the Hillary Campaign Tells America

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is having a tough time spinning a web of half-truths, misrepresentations, and distortions around an American public that just doesn’t trust her.

The nine biggest Clinton campaign whoppers, falsehoods, and deceptions are listed below.

1. Americans trust Hillary

The Clinton spin machine is furiously peddling the lie that the American people trust Hillary, yet they it’s clear that they really don’t. According to a Newsday poll, 60 percent of the voters who know Hillary the best — New Yorkers — say they don’t believe she is honest or trustworthy. (A mere 37 percent believe she is.) An August 15, 2016 Rasmussen poll also indicates that most voters don’t trust her.

2. Hillary is a real, down-to-Earth person

Hillary believes that if you use a fake laugh and tell people you are a real person, they will believe you.

3. Hillary is just like you and me

Hillary’s net worth, according to Moneynation is between $31.3 and $10.8 million.

4. Hillary has been under live fire in a war zone

Looking back to Hillary’s first run for president, on March 17, 2008, Hillary claimed she was under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia on an official trip for the White House in 1996. The Washington Free Beacon reported in March of last year that she lied about it. Watch the CBS report here.

5. Hillary is not a serial or compulsive liar

“Louder with Crowder” hits it out of the park on this whopper.

6. A ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ is the root of all of the Clinton problems

According to a Washington Times report, Hillary was the point person to destroy women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.

7. Hillary did not Lie on ‘Fox News Sunday’ about her email scandal

The Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler concluded on July 31, 2016 the following about her repeating lies on “Fox News Sunday”:

As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.

8. Hillary supports the Second Amendment

For those who treasure Second Amendment rights and don’t want to be playing defense for the next four years on Supreme Court nominees and gun control legislation, this fall’s election will have a significant impact on the government’s respect for the Bill of Rights – because Hillary wants to effectively erase the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

9. Hillary is not a faker

(For more from the author of “9 Big Lies the Hillary Campaign Tells America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton kicks off Monday evening, at 9 p.m. EST. It will last 90 minutes and take place at Hofstra University on Long Island. Over 100 million are expected to watch, close to Super Bowl level of viewership. This would make it the most-watched presidential debate in history, topping the 80 million who watched the lone presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Lester Holt, host of NBC’s Nightly News, is the moderator. According to New York voter registration records, he has been a Republican since 2003. He is also a Christian, but says as a journalist ” I jealously guard my personal opinion.” The topics are “America’s Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity” and “Securing America.” Holt will select the questions. It is a traditional debate format, with six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots.

None of the third party candidates achieved the 15 percent required in polls in order to participate. There are six weeks left until the election, and early ballots are already being mailed out in parts of the country.

Presidential debates tend to be more about who can deliver the best zingers, since by this stage the candidates have made their positions widely known. But the slug fests still influence voters. “You can’t really win an election in a debate, but you can lose one,” Brett O’Donnell, a communications consultant with long experience coaching GOP presidential candidates, told The Washington Post.

Both Candidates Will Tone it Down

Trump is expected to continue his style as an entertainer, which works to his advantage since people find it appealing. He has plenty of experience doing live TV as the reality show host of The Apprentice. However, it could also work to his disadvantage. Trump has deliberately become more scripted giving speeches lately, using a teleprompter in order to circumvent his tendency to make reckless statements, but he won’t have that aid at the debate. Expect Clinton to take a few jabs at Trump specifically designed to entice him to say something careless.

Voters like Trump because he is an outsider inexperienced in politics, so he has the advantage of lower expectations. Clinton is widely considered the front runner, currently leading in most polls, so has more to lose with a poor performance.

Lacking energy lately from her health problems, Clinton will be trying to play it low-key and safe. Standing, doing battle for an intense 90 minutes with barely a break may prove difficult for her, and will look even worse if she has a coughing fit. In contrast, expect Trump to show off his mastery of one-liner counter punches, which he effectively used during the GOP primary debates to devastate his opponents.

Vulnerabilities

Clinton is vulnerable on the issue of her moral character and the chaos around the world from ISIS and terrorism. Trump told Fox News on Monday, “I can talk about her deleting emails after she gets a subpoena from Congress and lots of other things. I can talk about her record, which is a disaster. I can talk about all she’s done to help ISIS become the terror that they’ve become, and I will be doing that.” Clinton will have difficulty separating herself from the spread of ISIS, due to her position as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013 under President Obama.

Trump can also attack her for being part of the establishment and continuing to follow in Obama’s footsteps, taking the country further in the wrong direction. Clinton has lost her temper in public a few times recently when faced with criticism, so expect Trump to deliberately try to upset her.

Trump is vulnerable on his political inexperience, lacking years of developing public policy proposals. And, of course, there’s his mouth. The bombastic billionaire needs to look presidential and demonstrate that he has the temperament and maturity to hold the highest position in the country. Additionally, he has repeatedly been inconsistent with his previous statements on issues, and with fact-checkers closely analyzing his every word, he cannot risk many mistakes. A strategy Clinton has taken lately is using Trump’s own words against him.

The Experts Weigh in

Alex Conant, Marco Rubio’s spokesman during the primary, summarized in an interview with NPR what he expects to happen: “If Donald Trump can stand on the debate stage for two hours and not lose his temper and come across as a reasonable person, he’ll have a good night. If Hillary Clinton can stand on the debate stage and convince people that she’s not a liar, she’ll have a great night. But clearly, the former is easier than the latter.”

Joel Pollak of Breitbart warns of one disadvantage Trump faces, “[T]here is one larger reason that Clinton will win the first debate: the media will tell everyone she has won, regardless.”

Regardless of the media spin, Trump appears the favorite to prevail in the first debate. Unless he makes one or more large, glaring mistake, his charismatic, clever, energetic style should outmaneuver Clinton’s low-energy, defensive posturing.

The second debate will take place on October 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and will be co-moderated by Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC. It will be a town hall meeting format, with half the questions coming from the audience of undecided voters. The third and final debate will be held October 19 at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. (For more from the author of “Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Clinton Aide Granted Immunity Deal in FBI Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

Top Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills received an immunity deal during the FBI’s investigation into the former secretary of State’s private email server, lawmakers familiar with the agreement said Friday.

“This is beyond explanation. The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a statement.

“I’ve lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”

The Associated Press first reported the deal.

Democrats quickly pushed back on what they termed “inaccurate Republican leaks” on the deal. (Read more from “Top Clinton Aide Granted Immunity Deal in FBI Probe” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server

/0 Comments/in , /by

Communications from President Barack Obama have been discovered among those in the cache of emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The emails show that during the time Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, was secretary of state in Obama’s first term, Obama used a phony name when he was emailing Clinton and other officials.

The latest disclosure came in 189 pages of documents released Friday by the FBI.

The FBI has been investigating Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state. Although the FBI said Clinton has been careless in handling classified information, she was not charged with breaking any laws. The FBI has been issuing reports from its investigation.

The FBI report includes an interview with Clinton aide Huma Abedin in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama. However, Abedin did not recognize the sender’s name.

The report explained what happened next.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed, ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

The contents of the emails between Obama and Clinton have not been made public by the State Department, which has cited “presidential communications privilege,” to hide the communications from the Freedom of Information Act.

The FBI report does not provide details about the emails between Clinton and Obama.

The report is the first clear evidence that Obama used Clinton’s unsecured email server to communicate with his secretary of state.

The FBI earlier revealed Clinton had relied on others’ judgment to not send her classified material during email correspondences.

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

The information revealed Friday includes the FBI interviews with a number of individuals, including Clinton aides Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”

Friday’s reports also covered interviews with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director; Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton technology aide; Monica Hanley, a Clinton aide; and Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante.

Interviews were also released from FBI sessions with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA acting director Mike Morell, State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and other officials. (For more from the author of “FBI Report: Obama Used Phony Name to Email Clinton on Her Private Server” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.