Posts

THE HILL: 5 Things That Can Obliterate Hillary’s Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

We’re less than 90 days out from the general election featuring two deeply flawed candidates. In spite of all of Donald Trump’s flaws, Hillary Clinton appears to be circling the drain. The Hill’s Niall Stanage offers up 5 things that could trip her up:

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t start preparing her inaugural address just yet.

There are plenty of things that could trip up her campaign between now and Election Day, even if polls increasingly suggest she is on track to beat Donald Trump in a landslide.

Clinton has a significant advantage in recent polls both nationally and across battleground states. New polls from NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist on Friday put her in a dominant position in states that would be close in a normal election year. In Virginia and Colorado, for instance, Clinton led by 13 and 14 points, respectively.

But those polls came after a brutal stretch for Trump, and the race could tighten significantly heading into the fall.

Still, given the electoral map, Trump probably needs some larger development to change the trajectory of the race. Here are five scenarios that could improve Trump’s chances.

(Read more from “THE HILL: 5 Things That Can Obliterate Hillary’s Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Slips After ‘Creepy’ Hug From Biden

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Vice President Joe Biden, who is notorious for his inability to keep his hands to himself in public, just shared a ridiculously long hug with none other than Hillary Clinton . . .

Biden grabbed Mrs. Clinton around the waist and held on for nearly 20 seconds, while Clinton squirmed and patted his arm several times . . .

As luck would have it, Biden got another opportunity later in the day to cozy up to Clinton when she briefly lost her footing while stepping down from the podium following her campaign speech.

Clinton has a history of falling. After fainting and falling in 2013 while U.S. secretary of state, she was treated for a blood clot in a vein in her head at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital . . .

Photos, published by the Reuters and Getty news agencies, show Clinton, 68, receiving help as she tries to ascend a staircase in front of a home. The images were actually taken in February when the former first lady was campaigning for president in South Carolina, as WND reported. (Read more from “Hillary Slips After ‘Creepy’ Hug From Biden” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

ANALYSIS: TRUE — Yes, Obama and Hillary Co-Founded ISIS

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Even the left-stream media is now acknowledging that Donald Trump “has a point” when he blasts Hillary and Obama for creating ISIS.

“Hillary Clinton is vulnerable. ISIS did gain strength during her time as Secretary of State,” said ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt tried to give Mr. Trump an out. “I know what you meant,” he suggested. “You meant that he [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

“No,” Trump replied. “I meant, he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Trump is correct – and quite literally, so.

First, a document. Then some history.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now have an August 2012 defense intelligence report on the civil war in Syria and the situation in Iraq that openly states that the policy of the United States and its allies was to support the Salafist opposition to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

That opposition, at the time spearheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), soon morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS.

The report appears to have originated from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq, well before their intelligence product was tarnished by political interference from top commanders in 2014 aimed at diminishing the threat from ISIS.

Here’s what the report, originally stamped SECRET, actually says:

AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al- Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime…

Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… [emphasis mine]

There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want…

It is no secret that the United States was supporting the Syrian opposition in 2012 and even until very recently. In December 2012, thanks in large measure to the active lobbying of Mrs. Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, Obama declared that the United States considered the opposition as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

What was secret until the release of this August 2012 defense intelligence report is that the United States knew that the Syrian opposition was dominated by al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, groups that merged and morphed into what today we call ISIS.

So Donald Trump is literally correct. Obama and Hillary created ISIS. They figure among the founding fathers of the world’s most brutal terrorist organization. They deserve ISIS Most Valuable Player awards for their efforts.

Some of America’s enemies, such as Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, have also accused the United States of creating ISIS – but as a tool for encroaching on Iran’s efforts to dominate the Muslim world. In fact, Obama and Hillary’s policies have simultaneously favored Iran and its rise to regional dominance, standing aside as Iran filled the vacuum in Iraq with its own militias and allowing Iranian troops and weapons to flow onto battlefields in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and beyond.

Other documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the United States was also complicit with arms shipments from Benghazi to the jihadi rebel groups in Syria.

These particular shipments were distinct from the more publicized case of al Entisar, a Libyan fishing vessel that arrived in Iskanderiyah, Turkey, crammed with weapons in late August 2012.

The shipments described in this recently declassified document were sent directly to small Syrian ports under rebel control and included RPG grenade-launchers, sniper rifles, and ammunition for 125mm and 155mm howitzers.

As I revealed two years ago, the U.S. backed arms shipments to ISIS and its allies in Syria appear to have been run out of the White House by then-counterterrorism advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan. Running the clandestine arms shipments outside official channels allowed Obama and his allies – including Mrs. Clinton, who supported the arms shipments – to withhold that information from Congress.

Deflecting attention from these arms shipments is precisely why Obama and Hillary hatched their “blame-it-on-a-YouTube-video” narrative as the cause of the Benghazi attacks. It was a deliberate deception to trick the American people and cover-up their misdeeds.

Obama’s disastrous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in December 2011 clearly enhanced the ability of AQI and ISI to seize control of large portions of Iraqi territory and certainly contributed to the birth of ISIS. It also opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.

But as the August 2012 defense intelligence report states, that was the plan all along. Obama and Hillary wanted to create an ISIS-controlled enclave in Syria, “in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

Donald Trump was right. Again. (For more from the author of “ANALYSIS: TRUE — Yes, Obama and Hillary Co-Founded ISIS” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dr. Ben Carson Calls for Release of Clinton Medical Records

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Speaking to Fox News host Sean Hannity [this past week], Dr. Ben Carson — one of the nation’s foremost neurosurgeons — expressed concern over the health of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“Certainly as a person gets older, the number of medical conditions that we have to watch for increases, which is one of the reasons that we strongly suggest as you get older that you have at least an annual examination,” Carson began.

“If you’re going into a very important position like this, it’s critical,” he continued. “And that information should be something that we should have access to, because it’s very important in terms of making that decision.”

Carson’s comments came in response to a new Drudge Report headline, which claimed that as many as 59 percent of Americans believe Clinton should release her medical records.

“Also, recognize that the presidency is not a nine-to-five job. It is extraordinarily grueling and you need to have everything going for you,” said Carson.

“And also the mental capacity. There are standardized mental examinations, many mental exams, about 30 questions. You could get a very quick assessment in terms of what’s going on,” Carson added.

Carson called on the Clinton campaign to disclose her medical records to the American people, which he believes are required in order to make a fully informed decision on such a “critical issue.”

“These are the kinds of things that should be open to the public in making such a critical decision,” he said.

Hannity then turned to Dr. Marc Siegel — a Fox News contributor who serves as an associate professor at NYU’s Langone Medical Center and the Medical Director of Doctor Radio on SiriusXM — for further analysis.

“Secretary Clinton hit her head in 2012 [which] could cause the type of brain damage, possibly… that can have long-term effects, that can have effects on thinking, on memory, on gate, on how you walk, on dizziness, on balance; that’s a possibility that we need to see the records of,” said Siegel.

“She had a blood clot, she has a family history of stroke, that blood clot — as Dr. Carson will tell you — can sometimes be accompanied by a stroke. Not in this case, because an MRI was negative, because an MRI afterwords was negative, but these are the kinds of things… I’d like to see the full records,” he concluded. (For more from the author of “Dr. Ben Carson Calls for Release of Clinton Medical Records” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton, Another Soros Puppet

/0 Comments/in , /by

As usual, Soros is behind the scenes in pushing the wrecking ball which is destroying both America and Western Civilization. Hillary has been been his cat’s paw even before she was designated to be Secretary Of State by the newly elected Obama, (perhaps he was ordered to appoint her) . . .

Soros knows he can depend on Hillary, and her handlers, should she become too ill to function while in office. Her health matters not, the goal is to get her body into the Oval Office.

The email in the post below shows practically a direct order from Soros to then SOS Clinton as to how to handle flaring unrest in Albania in 2011. How many more “suggestions” he made can only be imagined. He was behind the Arab Spring and many other upheavals. Go here for a lengthy, updated and detailed background on this most evil man, his machinations, and connections. Scroll all the way down for his most recent undertakings . . .

Contained within WikiLeaks’ recent release of hacked DNC emails is a message from billionaire globalist financier George Soros, to Hillary Clinton while she was U.S. Secretary of State, that clearly reveals Clinton as a puppet of the billionaire class.

Found within the WikiLeaks’ Hillary Clinton email archive is an email with the subject ‘Unrest in Albania,’ in which Soros makes clear to Clinton that “two things need to be done urgently.” He then directs the Secretary of State to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Revealing the influence he wields within the corridors of power, Soros then provides Secretary of State Clinton with three names from which to choose. Unsurprisingly, Clinton acquiesced and chose one of the officials recommended by Soros — Miroslav Lajcak. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton, Another Soros Puppet” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Secret Ties to Putin Will Undermine American Interests

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russia’s malignant influence on American foreign policy is finally becoming a relevant issue in the 2016 presidential election, and that is definitely a positive development. Based upon their actions and associations, neither candidate has shown a sufficient understanding of — or worse, they have ignored — the nature of the Russian regime and its threat to America’s national interest. These deficiencies ought to be of grave concern to the American people.

As the Government Accountability Institute lays out in a recent report, Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Russia while serving as secretary of State appear to represent the worst kind of cronyism: sacrificing America’s national interest for her own and Russia’s benefit. As the Executive Summary of the report explains:

A major technology transfer component of the Russian reset overseen by Hillary Clinton substantially enhanced the Russian military’s technological capabilities, according to both the FBI and the U.S. Army.

Russian government officials and American corporations participated in the technology transfer project overseen by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that funnelled (sic) tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The report also notes that Hillary’s presidential campaign chairman, Tony Podesta, had dubious ties with the Russian regime:

A Putin-connected Russian government fund transferred $35 million to a small company with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on its executive board, which included senior Russian officials.

John Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this offshore company.

Podesta also headed up a think tank which wrote favorably about the Russian reset while apparently receiving millions from Kremlin-linked Russian oligarchs via an offshore LLC.

Building upon Peter Schweizer’s work in his book, “Clinton Cash,” The New York Times revealed another alleged quid pro quo detrimental to America’s national interest — but again, benefitting Hillary and Russia — with the infamous Uranium One deal.

Recall that the Russians took control of Uranium One and thus one-fifth of all U.S. uranium production capacity through three separate transactions between 2009 and 2013. Given the strategic importance of uranium, authorizing Russian control required the approval of various government agencies, including Hillary’s State Department.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation received contributions totaling more than $100 million from Uranium One’s chairman and several of its shareholders in addition to those with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, which had originally acquired Uranium One’s valuable Kazakh mine assets. Secretary Clinton also received $500,000 for a speech she gave at Renaissance Capital — a Kremlin-linked investment bank, which had recommended purchasing Uranium One stock soon after the Russians announced their intent to acquire a majority stake in the company.

Just how far back does the Clinton-Kremlin connection go? It’s worth investigating.

Concerning Donald Trump, even if we were gracious and excused his praise of Vladimir Putin as mere rhetoric (intended as a dig at Barack Obama and by extension Hillary), or just “Trump being Trump,” his substantive actions and associations are more troubling.

Even though the Trump campaign contributed little to the 2016 Republican Party platform changes, despite protestations to the contrary it did intervene regarding language about American support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. Trump officials reportedly watered down a portion of the platform calling for GOP support of “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainians in the face of Russian intervention, replacing the phrase with the softer provision, “appropriate assistance.”

Previously, Trump wavered on whether the U.S. would fulfill its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) obligations to defend Baltic nations against Russian aggression, giving a standoffish response to The New York Times that amounted to the following: I would not tell Vladimir Putin what we would do in the event of Russian intervention in the Baltics, but we cannot ignore the fact that irrespective of our own treaty obligations, NATO members must fulfill their obligations in terms of funding NATO.

Again, we could charitably chalk this up to mere rhetoric, consistent with Trump’s narrative on globalism and deal-making. By Trump’s logic, NATO is just another international deal in which America has gotten ripped off by freeloader nations, and Trump will be the only negotiator that drives a hard enough bargain to fix the deal — including threats to not fulfill its terms.

Leaving aside the not-so-small issue of honoring treaties, the central problem here is that NATO’s purpose is, in large part, to counter Russia. And Trump’s advisors have significant ties to that nation, casting a pall over everything Trump says and does relating to it.

Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has done substantial work for Viktor Yanukovych — former president of Ukraine and backed by Putin. That Yanukovych pulled Ukraine closer into Putin’s orbit is well-documented. Manafort has also partaken in business dealings with oligarchs loyal to Putin.

Trump’s advisor on Russia, Carter Page, is a big investor in Gazprom, an energy company and one of the crown jewels of Putin’s kleptocracy. Page has railed against U.S. foreign policy towards Russia with all manner of calumnies — notably at times while in Russia — and called for the easing of sanctions against Russia that affected Gazprom and other companies.

Trump’s personal and professional ties to Russia, though worthy of scrutiny, raise fewer red flags than those of Hillary.

What does Russia itself actually want out of the 2016 presidential election?

On its face, it would appear that Russia seeks to damage Hillary, while promoting Trump. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Secret Ties to Putin Will Undermine American Interests” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bush’s Commerce Secretary Endorses Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Carlos Gutierrez, President George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Commerce, said Sunday that Hillary Clinton would make a “darn good president,” and he’ll be voting for her this fall.

“I actually think Hillary Clinton has the experience, she’s been around, she knows how the system works,” Gutierrez told CNN “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper.

“I would have preferred Jeb Bush, but I think Hillary is a great choice. I am afraid of what Donald Trump would do to this country.”

He said his breaking point came when Trump expressed doubts earlier this summer that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University, could preside fairly over the case because of his Mexican heritage. Trump’s comments came just weeks after he secured the GOP nomination.

“I have been a Republican,” Gutierrez told Tapper. “My inclination was to vote for a Republican. I was a Jeb Bush person. I made the switch away from Trump, it was that week of the judge … that for me did it. That’s it. I don’t want to go back to a country where, if a child has a Spanish last name, that the president, the leader of the country, is giving kids a license to bully them.” (Read more from “Bush’s Commerce Secretary Endorses Clinton” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Comment by Hillary Clinton Raises Further Questions About Her Health

/0 Comments/in , /by

The campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton just launched its official podcast, titled With Her.

In Friday’s debut episode, host Max Linsky interviewed Clinton about her typical day on the campaign trail.

“I wake up early,” she said, informing the host she gets up at “6:30 or so.”

Linsky inquired, “I heard a rumor that you don’t use an alarm clock.”

“No, that’s not true. That’s not true,” she repeated. “That’s another one of those rumors that people spread.”

But then Clinton waffled.

“I usually wake up before my alarm clock goes off, so technically maybe that’s right,” she said.

Clinton told Linsky she relies on her cellphone as her main alarm in the morning. “Sometimes if I’m really tired when I, you know, collapse, it’s backed up by a real alarm clock,” she said.

Linsky then asked her which ringtone she relies on to help her awake. The former secretary of state said her ringtone has to be the “most obnoxious sound that [she] can find on the ringtones” to help her get up.

“You mean that crazy siren one?” the host asked. “Yes. Exactly,” she replied.

Clinton stated she needs something that “pierces through our deepest consciousness.”

Clinton’s admission she “collapses” was seen by some as raising further questions about her health as a potential commander in chief.

Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times wrote Monday, “Her stumbling, fainting, severe coughing and moments of odd behavior on the campaign have been much talked about by the reporters following her, but this knowledge was veiled in a discreet silence, until now.”

Pruden then cited a report also questioning Clinton’s health issues over the last four years.

“The Drudge Report cited four health episodes over the years Hillary has campaigned for president: needing assistance climbing stairs this year, a blood clot on the brain in 2012, a fall while boarding an airplane in 2011 and a fall on her way to the White House in 2009,” Pruden wrote. “One of the accompanying photographs, by Reuters, shows her losing her balance while touring a substance abuse center in Charleston, S.C.”

Likewise, a recently released email from longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin to another staffer said Clinton is “often confused.”

Just a week ago, Clinton stated she “short-circuited” when she was trying to clarify previously stated comments. Republican rival Donald Trump seized on her self-description, and on Saturday called her “unstable.”

A poll released Thursday found that 59 percent of voters say all major presidential candidates should release their most recent medical records to the public. (For more from the author of “Comment by Hillary Clinton Raises Further Questions About Her Health” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Magical Thinking on the Economy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Everyone likes to dream. In dreams, you can fly, you can win the love of those beautiful people who won’t talk to you in real life, and the laws of the universe no longer apply. But when we confuse dreams for reality, bad things happen. You shouldn’t jump off your roof in an effort to soar through the air, and you shouldn’t pretend that the rules that govern the natural world cease to exist.

Someone should tell this to Hillary Clinton. In her speech in Warren, Michigan on Thursday, she revealed why the Democrats’ economic policies have utterly failed to revitalize the American economy over the last eight years, and also why they tend to perform so well in elections. It’s what I call the “wouldn’t it be nice if” agenda, based entirely on magical thinking and fantasies totally out of touch with the harsh realities of economics. Of course, it all sounds great to voters. Who doesn’t like to engage wishful thinking from time to time? But when put into practice, these policies not only fail to deliver the promised benefits, but make things worse for everyone in the process.

The key example of this kind of thinking in Hillary’s speech came when she asserted that every American willing to work hard should be able to find a job that will support a family. That certainly would be nice, but unfortunately that’s not how jobs work. Employers don’t hire people because they want to support families, they do so because those workers have a skill to offer that is worth something. How much that skill is worth depends on many factors, such as the price consumers are willing to pay for the final product, how cheap it would be to have a machine do the work, or how much another potential worker with a similar skill would be willing to accept for the job. Hillary thinks she can just wave her hand and dictate how much jobs pay, but she can’t control how much consumers are willing to pay. Likewise, she can’t control the costs of automation, and she can’t control competition among workers for the same position. The price system for labor regulates all of these factors to create a working market, and when you just try to set wages by decree, you break the whole machine.

Even if you don’t want to delve into the economics of it all, this idea should be obvious nonsense. Do you really think a sixteen year old getting his first job bagging groceries should be able to make enough money to feed a family of four? If that were the case, no one would ever hire grocery baggers again. We’d have to do the bagging ourselves, and young people would lose out on an opportunity to earn a few extra dollars, as well as something to put on a resumé for future advancement.

Hillary continued her agenda of childish whimsy by calling for free college tuition for everyone. Doesn’t that sound nice? Except there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and that includes college. Professors expect to get paid for their services (they need to be able to support a family, remember?), which means that someone is going to have to pay them. It costs money to build and maintain dormitories and classrooms. Electricity, heating, furniture, books, plumbing, computers, paper — all of these things cost money. The question is, who should pay for them? It makes far more sense to have the people who desire these services, and who benefit most directly from them, to foot the bill. Hillary thinks people who don’t particularly want or profit from them to pay instead. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine what will happen to the quality of college when dissatisfied customers lose their ability to withhold funding in response to poor service. There’s also no incentive for “free” colleges to keep prices down if those prices are being paid by extorting money from an unwilling public.

Hillary didn’t stop there. She also wants government-sponsored child care, as well as government-run health care, which she asserts will strengthen competition and drive down costs, in defiance of all logic and historical precedent. Here we run into the same problems as with tuition. Her “wouldn’t it be nice” musing on free services ignores the fact that someone always has to pay. When you destroy the consumer’s ability to choose how to spend his money, you also destroy any incentive for producers to do a good job at a low cost.

This is the problem with Democrats. They refuse to acknowledge how things actually work and they have a bunch of pie-in-the-sky dreams they want to make reality. Similarly, they think the right president can just make it happen. But just as a president is powerless to change the laws of physics by decree, they are also incapable of thwarting economic reality just because “it would be nice.” (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Magical Thinking on the Economy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Would Give Us a Disastrous Third Obama Term

/0 Comments/in , /by

When it comes to unity, the Democrats talk a good game. But, in the end, they promote disunity, because their electability depends on societal division and inciting anger, resentment and distrust.

I don’t need to cite examples of Democrats blaming Republicans for divisiveness and falsely extolling their own aspirations of unity; they are everywhere. From their talk of our “common humanity,” to their glorification of all kinds of diversity (except diversity of thought, of course), to their proclaimed monopoly on tolerance, it’s what they do.

It’s ironic that Democrats get away with this lie. It is Republicans—or, at least, the conservatives among them—who preach that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Democrats simply can’t be honest about economic policy. They have to demonize the wealthy to incite class warfare. They must perpetuate and expand government dependency programs, creating incentives for people to remain out of the workforce. They must vilify the rich for not paying their “fair share” of taxes, despite the undeniable fact that upper-income earners pay far more taxes—actual and percentage—and that the lower half of income earners pay no income taxes at all. How much “fairer” can it be?

I am old enough to remember then-Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to bring all people together in a spirit of harmony and healing. I also remember him doing just the opposite once elected.

And I remember Obama’s 2012 gamble of appealing directly to minorities and alienating other groups, apparently on the theory that disaffected groups outnumber the sum of all others (or, that agitating them would increase their turnout and ensure his victory). If a Republican candidate had dared such overt divisiveness, the mainstream media would have tarred and feathered him or her.

The Democrats are having a field day attacking Donald Trump, and he’s giving them way too much ammunition. But no matter who Republicans put up, Democrats will viciously disparage. To them, virtually all Republican candidates and officeholders are mean-spirited bigots by default.

If only Republicans could successfully communicate their case that perpetual malaise, which is the only thing Democrats offer anymore, is unnecessary and correctable. If only they could demonstrate that the Democrats’ socialistic and regulatory policies thwart prosperity for all groups of people (except, ironically, the very wealthy).

But the Republicans haven’t made their case, or it’s falling on deaf ears, because Democrats are paying people, in effect, to remain on their plantations. They are encouraging them not to be productive members of society. They are deliberately undermining the nuclear family. They are fomenting envy and disharmony. It’s tragic.

Look at Hillary Clinton’s ballyhooed economic plan. What an utter package of deceit! She tells us she’s going to create more than 10 million new jobs… by continuing the same miserably failed policies of Barack Obama. President Obama and Clinton claim they saved the economy from collapse after the 2008 financial crisis that their very policies helped create. But eight years later we’ve yet to see appreciable economic growth from this team. For them, 1 percent growth is the new 5 percent; Obamanomics has given us the worst recovery since World War II. Indeed, it is an insult to the term “recovery” to designate this mess as such.

No matter what he says now, Pres. Obama promised his obscene $800 billion “stimulus” package would actually stimulate, and it did the opposite. But Clinton would continue the ruse, expecting us to believe four more years of this insanity will produce different results. Her five-part plan is more of the same:

1. Investing in infrastructure. (Deja vu, anyone?)

2. Make college available for all. (But how will graduates get jobs in their recessionary economy?)

3. Make companies share more profits with their employees. (And these people claim they’re not socialists).

4. Make corporations, the wealthy and Wall Street pay their fair share. (I’ve covered this.)

5. Create policies that “support 21st-century families”—equal pay, paid leave, reduced child care costs.

Seriously, which of these strategies could conceivably unleash sustained economic growth? Other than the infrastructure spending (which also won’t create long-term growth), these ideas have nothing to do with expanding the economic pie, but only with redistribution. Not only is Clinton’s five-point plan destined for failure, she will expand the regulatory state, which smothers small businesses.

If Democrats ever believed in economic growth, they’ve long since abandoned it, going with the myth that we have a finite pie and that they, as Big Sister, must control how it’s allocated—the free market be damned.

I repeat: The Democrats’ viability requires keeping us at each other’s throats. They must divide us. Consider candidate Clinton’s recent shunning of police unions. She is so desperate to retain the Democrats’ long-held 90 percent African-American vote that she told the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police she wouldn’t seek its endorsement.

The chilling truth is that Hillary Clinton would give us a third Obama term…and I don’t know how we can come back from it. (For more from the author of “Hillary Would Give Us a Disastrous Third Obama Term” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.