There’s Nothing Free

It was Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman who made famous the adage, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Friedman could have added that there is a difference between something’s being free and something’s having a zero price.

For example, people say that there’s free public education and there are free libraries, but public education and libraries cost money.

Proof that they have costs is the fact that somebody has to have less of something by giving up tax money so that schools and libraries can be produced and operated. A much more accurate statement is that we have zero-price public education and libraries.

Costs can be concealed but not eliminated. If people ignore costs and look only to benefits, they will do darn near anything, because everything has a benefit. Politicians love the fact that costs can easily be concealed.

The call for import restrictions, in the name of saving jobs, is politically popular in some quarters. But few talk about the costs. We know there are costs because nothing is free.

Let’s start with a hypothetical example of tariff costs. Suppose a U.S. clothing manufacturer wants to sell a suit for $200. He is prevented from doing so because customers can purchase a nearly identical suit produced by a foreign manufacturer for $150.

But suppose the clothing manufacturer can get Congress to impose a $60 tariff on foreign suits in the name of leveling the playing field and fair trade.

What happens to his chances of being able to sell his suit for $200? If you answered that his chances increase, go to the head of the class.

Next question is: Who bears the burden of the tariff? If you answered that it’s customers who must pay $50 more for a suit, you’re right again.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama boasted that “over 1,000 Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires.”

According to a study done by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, those trade restrictions forced Americans to pay $1.1 billion in higher prices for tires. So though 1,200 jobs were saved in the U.S. tire industry, the cost per job saved was at least $900,000 in that year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary of tire builders in 2011 was $40,070.

Here’s a question for those of us who support trade restrictions in the name of saving jobs: In whose pockets did most of the $1.1 billion that Americans paid in higher prices go? It surely did not reach tire workers in the form of higher wages.

According to the Peterson Institute study, “most of the money extracted by protection from household budgets goes to corporate coffers, at home or abroad, not paychecks of American workers. In the case of tire protection, our estimates indicate that fewer than 5 percent of the consumer costs per job saved reached the pockets of American workers.”

There is another side to this. When households have to pay higher prices for tires, they have less money to spend on other items—such as food, clothing, and entertainment—thereby reducing employment in those industries.

Some people point out that other countries, such as Japan, impose heavy tariffs on American products. Indeed, Tokyo levies a 490 percent tariff on rice imports to allow Japanese rice growers to gain higher income by charging Japanese consumers four times the world price for rice.

Therefore, some suggest that Congress should even the playing field by imposing stiff tariffs on Japanese imports to the U.S. Such an argument differs little from one that says that because the Japanese government screws its citizens, the U.S. government should retaliate by screwing its own citizens.

Putting the issue in another context: If you and I are at sea in a rowboat and I commit the foolish act of shooting a hole in my end of the boat, would it be intelligent for you to retaliate by shooting a hole in your end of the boat? (For more from the author of “There’s Nothing Free” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


SICK: Breitbart Writer Milo Yiannopoulos Celebrates Pedophilia, Disinvited From CPAC

By Anika Smith. Yiannopoulos recently made headlines when social activists rioted at UC-Berkeley to prevent him from speaking.

He is back in the news today as conservatives register their outrage and disgust over recently surfaced comments he made defending pederasty and joking about molestation and sexual assault.

The Reagan Battalion posted a video yesterday bringing Milo’s comments to light.

Milo is a gay man noted for his outspoken support of Donald Trump, whom he calls “Daddy” for the sake of the reactions he gets. His schtick is posh-accented camp, and his reward is the outrage his comments trigger.

The right response should be easy enough: turn off, tune out, and don’t give Milo the attention he craves. Maybe spend that time reading about actual conservative intellectuals who are being punished for their beliefs. A good point from University of Washington president Ana Mari Cauce, who urged upset students not to ignore Milo but to “stay away” from his scheduled lecture there:

A. I never said “ignore,” I said “stay away.” There’s a difference. Look, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Folks need to think about how to use their energy and how to be strategic. What strategy do you want to use in what situation? The reason why I believed that he was not the most strategic thing to protest is that that’s what he feeds off, that’s what he makes money off.

Think about it for a second. If there had been no protest, what you’d see is a line of mostly white men, who might be described by some as “macho,” standing in line for hours to see a gay man in a boa in essence perform camp.

If CPAC wants to champion free speech on college campuses, they should have invited someone like Robert Oscar Lopez (also a Trump supporter, BTW), who has been hounded for his work advocating for children’s rights. As Lopez pointed out after the Berkeley riots, Milo’s campus lectures only serve to raise Milo’s profile, all while conservative professors are quietly expelled.

Instead of the positive reinforcement of a boycott or a protest of Milo, conservatives attending CPAC might choose to leave the hall quietly when he speaks, or taking to Twitter to champion those who fight against sexual assault in locker rooms, like the heroic Kaeley Triller Haver. Don’t forget what Milo said, and don’t forget that CPAC invited him to speak. But don’t give him the attention he wants. Don’t feed the trolls. (For more from the author of “SICK: Breitbart Writer Milo Yiannopoulos Celebrates Pedophilia, Disinvited From CPAC” please click HERE)


Milo Yiannopoulos’s Pedophilia Comments Cost Him CPAC Role and Book Deal

By Jeremy W. Peters, Alexandra Alter and Michael M. Grynbaum. Milo Yiannopoulos, a polemical Breitbart editor and unapologetic defender of the alt-right, tested the limits of how far his provocations could go after the publication of a video in which he condones sexual relations with boys as young as 13 and laughs off the seriousness of pedophilia by Roman Catholic priests.

On Monday, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference rescinded their invitation for him to speak this week. Simon & Schuster said it was canceling publication of “Dangerous” after standing by him through weeks of criticism of the deal. And Breitbart itself was reportedly reconsidering his role amid calls online for it to sever ties with him.

Mr. Yiannopoulos’s comments, which quickly created an uproar online over the weekend, put many conservatives in a deeply uncomfortable position. They have long defended Mr. Yiannopoulos’s attention-seeking stunts and racially charged antics on the grounds that the left had tried to hypocritically censor his right to free speech. (Read more from “Milo Yiannopoulos’s Pedophilia Comments Cost Him CPAC Role and Book Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


7 Statutes That CLEARLY Support Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

While nullifying Trump’s immigration order, the so-called “judges” were conniving in their omission of any statute. As I noted last week, every part of Trump’s order is covered by multiple statutes. This week, I found two more portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that support his actions.

Let’s review:

1. INA 212(f) [8 U.S.C. §1182(f)]

Gives the president at-will and absolute power to shut off any immigrant and non-immigrant visa category for any period of time if he determines — subject to nobody else’s review — that it’s in the national interests.

This single statute covers every aspect of the order.

2. INA 215(a)(1)[8 U.S.C. §1185(a)(1)]

Conditions entry or exit of any alien (immigrant and nonimmigrant) to “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

No limitations are placed on this power, and it was used by Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

3. 8 U.S.C. §1184(a)(1)

Conditions the “admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant” to “such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe.”

4. 8 U.S. Code §1735

Passed unanimously by Congress in 2002, requires the president to cut off visas to state sponsors of terrorism, which at the time of passage, included five of the seven countries included in Trump’s travel ban.

Trump could easily add Somalia and Yemen to the terror state list and reinstate Iraq and Libya – and it would all be covered under this statute.

5. 8 U.S.C. §1157(a)(2)

Grants the president full authority to set the cap and geographic intake of refugees. Obama used it to the detriment of the country; Trump can use it to protect our security.

After further researching the INA, I found two more applicable provisions:

6. 8 U.S. Code §1201(h)(i)

Makes it clear that the issuance of a visa does not “entitle any alien” to be “admitted [into] the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law.”

Thus if the president, using the other authorities and his war powers, chooses to suspend particular visas, those individuals are inadmissible under law. Furthermore, the statute continues by giving plenary power to customs officials to revoke visas at any time.

[T]he consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.
What’s more, this provision of law, which passed the Senate 96-2 in 2004, explicitly stripped the courts of any jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation of visas for anyone seeking entry into the country (as opposed to someone living here who is being deported).

The jurisdiction-stripping provision includes even a basic habeas corpus petition. How in the world can the courts be allowed to get involved in this matter? It is unconstitutional. I’m glad to see that the state of Texas has made this argument in its amicus brief against the liberal states suing the Trump administration.

7. 8 U.S. Code §1253(d)

Requires the secretary of State to cut off both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to foreign nationals of countries that refuse to repatriate their illegal or criminal aliens. According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute, as reported by The Washington Times, 27 countries qualify for a visa cutoff, including five of the seven countries targeted under Trump’s order (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan).

Accordingly, not only is Trump triple and quadruple covered by statute for every aspect of his immigration order (not to mention his own foreign affairs powers), he is actually required to cut off visas pursuant to several laws. Moreover, the courts have absolutely no authority to even adjudicate a case second-guessing a president’s action with regards to foreign nationals seeking entry into this country. Politics aside, the law is the law.

Yet where is Congress? Where are GOP leaders rushing to join Steve King in condemning the courts even in a non-binding resolution for their display of civil disobedience?

Make no mistake about it. There is not one morsel of legitimacy to these court opinions. They are engaging in civil disobedience and nullification against our most foundational laws governing security and sovereignty of the entire federal union.

As Robert Bork observed during a time when the courts weren’t nearly as rogue as they are today: “To the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” (For more from the author of “7 Statutes That CLEARLY Support Trump’s Immigration Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8567825104_3e647ea1f8_b (2)

The President Trump Should Be Looking up to (and It’s Not Reagan)

If President Donald Trump is looking for a conservative to model his presidency after, it should be Calvin Coolidge — our 30th (and most underrated) president. Ronald Reagan receives much (deserved) attention from the conservative movement, but even “The Gipper” recognized how principled Coolidge was. So much so that Reagan brought Coolidge’s portrait back into the White House.

As we celebrate Presidents Day, it is fitting to remember Calvin Coolidge. Born on the 4th of July, Coolidge became a lawyer at his father’s urging and quickly rose through the ranks of Massachusetts politics. He served as President Warren Harding’s vice president, and upon Harding’s sudden death in 1923, Coolidge assumed the commander in chief role. The next year, he was elected president in his own right.

During his tenure as president, from 1923 to 1929, taxes were lowered, the economy boomed, and the presidency was relatively scandal-free — a welcome departure from the scandal-ridden Harding years. Coolidge was one of the most and best conservative presidents of the 20th century.

Here are three things you may not know about “Silent Cal.”

He reduced the federal debt

During World War I, U.S. federal debt increased from $1.5 billion to $24 billion in just three years, from 1916-1919. Harding started the process of reducing the debt, and Coolidge carried on after Harding’s death.

Furthermore, total federal spending was reduced by an enormous 43 percent with Coolidge as VP and president from 1921-1924, and the federal debt shrank from $22 billion in 1923 to just south of $17 billion in 1929, when Coolidge left office.

He reduced income taxes

As Conn Carroll writes at, the top income tax rate was lowered from 73 percent to 24 percent from 1921 to 1926 — a 49 percent reduction. In 1925, the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket was reduced to 1.5 percent for people making $4,000 to $8,000 a year, which is the equivalent of around $55,000 to $110,000 in 2016 dollars.

He was a man of his word

Coolidge retained the services of Harding’s “literary clerk” — a precursor to the modern speechwriter — only till 1925. His son, John, long insisted that his father wrote his own speeches, and Coolidge published volumes of his speeches. They include pieces about the importance of religious liberty, the Boy Scouts, civil rights, and patriotism, among many other topics. Coolidge also held the most press conferences of any other president (outside of FDR’s three-term presidency.


What we need now, more than ever, is for a president who is a man of his word, and one who will reduce the federal debt, reduce taxes, and stand up for religious liberty. President Trump, like Reagan, should look to Calvin Coolidge as an example.

(For more from the author of “The President Trump Should Be Looking up to (and It’s Not Reagan)” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Rainbow Jihad Case of Barronelle Stutzman Proves: The Courts Own Us

There is no god but the state, and the courts are its messenger.

That was apparent when the Ninth Circuit ran roughshod more than a week ago over an entirely lawful, if not particularly elegant, execution of immigration sanity by President Trump. And on Thursday, emboldened by each and every unchecked usurpation of the legislative process they contrive, the courts stuck a dagger in the back of American sovereignty once again.

This time it was the Washington State Supreme Court that did the dirty work, telling florist Barronelle Stutzman that the true meaning of liberty is to swear undying allegiance to the Rainbow Jihad — First Amendment be (literally) damned.

How much longer can the Constitution take it up the tail pipe before somebody looks these black-robed bullies in the eye and tells them enough is enough?

Why on earth does a sweet old lady like Stutzman, whom I have met, have to do the heavy lifting on this instead of judges, lawyers, and politicians who have sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Your mind is a puddle of mush concerning the definition of marriage? Fine. You are overcome by a ‘nicer than God’ complex concerning immigration? Ok, whatever. While I’m used to the ease with which very smart people have bought into such frauds, I’m also confident that truth can and will win the day on those issues and many other issues if the playing field I am competing on is evenly remotely fair.

Put another way, I still like my odds even with one hand tied behind my back. But what I can’t see is cause for victory on any issue at all if the courts can and will simply veto the result of every scoreboard whose outcome isn’t deemed progressive enough. The living, breathing Constitution is this country’s Kobayashi Maru scenario. It can’t be defeated, because it makes nailing Jell-O to the wall look like a sure thing by comparison.

For if non-citizens have more rights than citizens do — as it seems based on the juxtaposition of these two rulings — the Constitution is actually dead as a door nail.

That’s not remotely how the Founding Fathers viewed its inherent purpose as a check and balance. Which means we have nothing short of a moral, ethical and intellectual coup on our hands. And the fact that the court ruled unanimously to punish Stutzman only makes such a cruel truth all the clearer. The Bill of Rights are simply a dead letter to the fake justice sweeping our land.

But what is a rock sold truth you can bet your house on, according to the Washington State Supreme Court?

That providing flowers to a fake wedding would not serve as an endorsement of that shame because “providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism.”

That’s an actual legal opinion, folks. In a sane world, it should lead to impeachment. But we are not sane. We are the people who claim to worship science, but then deny it when we look between our legs.

For what these hackneyed theologians, not-so-cleverly disguised as judges, are telling you is that the dictates of your moral conscience are null and void if they draw distinctions that grown-ups are expected and encouraged to make all the time. You may have read about that once in a dusty old document that talked about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly among other things. Our very identities are tied into who and what we choose to be associated with on any given day, just as progressives are screaming from every rooftop about right now concerning whether Trump’s America is a place they want to live.

You know, like fashion designers who decide that the best course of business for their brand is to not dress First Lady Melania Trump, or department stores who decide not to carry the clothing line of First Daughter Ivanka Trump.

Can’t wait until those travesties of justice hit the courts.

The fact that the above legal rendering actually relies on the phrase “does not necessarily constitute” when discussing the endorsement of belief or behavior gets it exactly wrong. What’s in question isn’t how other people might see the same or any other analogous circumstance, but how Barronelle Stutzman sees the particular application of her Christian worldview.

It’s her conscience, not the state’s, and our country was founded on the principle she has a right to it.

A proper understanding of liberty should make that painfully obvious. Yet even if we had such a proper understanding, it would be worthless, too. For we wouldn’t act on it. Oh, we’ll sit there and wax poetic all over conservative media about God-given rights and such. But when faced with a clear and present threat to our ideals, like this one, we’ll suddenly become impotent. Lamenting how terrible things really are while pretending the Founders left us no machinery by which to do something about it.

Progressives use unelected judges to declare war on reality, and as long as fill-in-the-blank fake conservative sticks it to the media in some viral video that provides today’s bread and circus we’re satisfied. We want the click-bait. We want the show.

Are you not entertained?

We don’t seem to want the hard work of self-governing, cleaning house, and standing up for what we believe in. Otherwise what’s happening to Stutzman would be a battle cry to mobilize a movement, instead of barely eliciting yawns.

So the courts own us. Enjoy the abyss. (For more from the author of “Rainbow Jihad Case of Barronelle Stutzman Proves: The Courts Own Us” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Armageddon Brand Big Bang Fire Fireball Explosion

Will College Campuses Give Rioters a License to Firebomb?

“I have been punched. I have been spit on. I have had my personal information posted online,” Naweed Tahmas, a Berkeley College Republican who helped invite Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, told the media. He says that since the riots another student yelled in his face, accusing him of exercising “white privilege.”

Tahmas is actually a Persian-American, not a European-American, but that hardly matters for the purposes of racist shaming of conservatives.

Tahmas said that the Oakland police have received a death threat against the president of Berkeley College Republicans, warning “You can protect Milo, but you can’t protect [name of College Republican].”

Milo Yiannopoulis, in case you haven’t been paying attention, is a performance artist and a provocateur who’s become a folk hero to campus conservatives with his fearless (and incredibly vulgar) “Dangerous F****t” tour. What Milo says is sometimes repulsive, but it is protected by the Constitution. If only the authorities would enforce it.

In two of Milo’s recent appearances at taxpayer-supported public universities, violence broke out. The story in Seattle at the University of Washington has been weirdly underreported in national media. At a rally against Milo, a protester was shot. The student (or former student: it’s still not clear) who shot him turned himself into the police, yet has not been charged, strongly suggesting police have evidence that he was defending himself from physical attack by an anti-Milo, anti-Trump protester.

At Berkeley, home of the Free Speech movement in America, Milo’s appearance was cancelled when a riot broke out among the protesters. This was not just a case of feelings getting out of hand though: It was yet another appearance of “Black Bloc” protesting, a new technique encouraged by the socialist Left.

Masked, Hooded Democrats with a Racialist Agenda

As Inside Higher Education reported, amid 1000 or so peaceful demonstrators some 150

did come to start fires, break windows and hurl rocks at police officers. … They wore black and concealed their faces with masks. They brought — and used — bats, metal rods, fireworks and Molotov cocktails to get their message across. In the process they undermined “the First Amendment rights of the speaker as well as those who came to lawfully assemble and protest his presence,” said a spokesperson for Berkeley.

Yet afterwards the college newspaper published at least five commentaries from Berkeley students and alums condoning the violence on the grounds that letting Milo speak is an act of violence. “Violence helped ensure safety of students,” an essay by one Berkeley student was headlined.

Yvette Felarca, a public middle school teacher, defended the Berkeley violence both to the LA Times and on Fox News:

“It wasn’t just people dressed in black who were acting militantly and everyone else is peace-loving Berkeley hippies,” said Yvette Felarca, a political organizer of By Any Means Necessary, an immigration and affirmative action coalition that seeks to build a mass militant movement,” reports the LA Times. “Everyone cheered when those barricades were dismantled. … Everyone was there with us in political agreement of the necessity of shutting it down, whatever it was going to take. It shows we have the power.”

Jake Shields, a World Series of Fighting welterweight, was not so enthusiastic. Emerging from a nearby restaurant where he says he watched a group of black masked men chasing a lone citizen while police stood by and did nothing. “That’s when I had to intervene, because no one is helping the guy, including the police,” Shields said. “Dude, you guys have your faces covered, you’re attacking people, you’re being f***ing fascists,” Shields told one of the masked assailants.

Violent men in masks with a racialist agenda, who are defended by the powerful, while police stand by and refuse to defend the innocent … America has been down this ugly road before. I’ll go ahead and say it: The “Black Bloc” seems to have learned from the horrifying success of the Ku Klux Klan, which for decades silenced dissent in a dozen American states.

Fascism in Canada

Things are even worse in Canada. Law enforcement there is close to declaring open season on intellectual and political dissent. Conservative students organized a panel at the University of Toronto to discuss threats to free speech on a wide range of issues, ranging from politics to climate change. The event was disrupted by thuggish protestors with profane chants, threats and false fire alarms. As the campus newspaper reports:

According to the event organizer, what [protestors] tried to do was called “no-platforming”, which is “an anti-high-fascist tactic, aimed at, if someone is trying to spread hate speech or fascism or violent rhetoric, […] you deny them the platform to actually express those views,” said the protest organizer, who further explained that the protesters joined outside the conference room when Levant started his speech.

The chants included “F*** white supremacy,” “F*** Climate Change Denial,” as well as chants against Trump and a “fascist USA.”

One of the invited speakers silenced by the protestors was publisher Ezra Levant. He responded:

“None of those words apply to me — I’m not American, and I’m not a fascist,” wrote Levant… in reference to the chants. “But the people dressed in black, wearing handkerchiefs over their mouths, carrying sticks, flipping over tables, and threatening a peaceful meeting on campus — those are actually fascists by definition.”

Levant says the Stormtroopers called his reporter Jay Fayza (who is black) a “white supremacist.” The Canadian Broadcast Company then ran a whole segment calling his media company, The Rebel, hateful and racist. Nora Loreto, a journalism union boss (yes they have journalism unions in Canada) tweeted out, “I’m getting closer and closer to publicly advocating camera smashing when people see The Rebel goons out and about.”

Levant, who left the mainstream media to found his own company, says he must now hire bodyguards for his reporters: “I know, it’s insane. This is Canada, not Russia or Venezuela. But that’s what life is like under Justine Trudeau and Rachel Notley and Kathleen Wynne,” he said. He called the protestors “anti-Semitic cowards don’t want to go on the record as Jew-bashing, gay-bashing racists. They’re ashamed of themselves. Same reason they wear masks at their riots.”

The Nation Praises Thuggish Attacks While Cops Cower

Meanwhile back the U.S., the mainstreaming of violence by the Left continues apace. On January 22, The Nation published a piece praising Black Bloc violence: “The transcendental experience of watching Roger Federer play tennis, David Foster Wallace wrote, was one of ‘kinetic beauty’… what Foster Wallace saw in a Federer Moment, I see in a video of a neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched in the face.”

Here is for me the most disturbing news from Berkeley: With a violent masked mob of 100 to 150 people creating as much as $600,000 in property damage, just one person was arrested. This was no accident. This was a deliberate police policy: “At Berkeley, the police officers felt that trying to get in the middle of the crowd would’ve sparked more violence and resulted in more severe injuries. They chose not to try to arrest the black bloc protesters, because they felt it would have compromised the safety of their students,” Inside Higher Education reported.

Other college law enforcement officials praised that approach: “It always could be worse,” University of Maryland College Park Police chief Mitchell said. “The property damage was disappointing and absolutely unlawful, but that certainly could’ve been worse as well. I applaud the way they handled the incident.”

I, on the other hand, applaud the way the NYPD handled Black Bloc protesters who tried to violently disrupt an NYU speech by libertarian Gavin McInnes the day after the Berkeley riots. Cops immediately moved in and arrested 11 people.

The Berkeley violence is clearly not a one-off — they are part of an increasingly organized and highly privileged Left’s plan to silence conservative dissent where it is most vulnerable: on college campuses.

Organized mobs are throwing firebombs to disrupt speech, destroy property, and endanger bystanders. When the authorities refuse to stop them they endanger us all. (For more from the author of “Will College Campuses Give Rioters a License to Firebomb?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Baltimore Mosque Celebrates the Murderer of a ‘Blasphemer’

Last Sunday a mosque outside Baltimore reportedly honored the assassin of a Pakistani statesman who criticized his country’s blasphemy law.

According to Ehsan Rehan in the Rabwah Times, an online Pakistani newspaper often specializing in religious persecution reporting, here is what happened:

The Gulzar E Madina Mosque in Pikesville, Maryland hosted an “Urs” in honor of the infamous killer on February 12th. Urs is a traditional commemoration usually given to Saints and Holy personages. The Mosque also advertised the event in the February 9th edition of Urdu Times, America’s most widely distributed Urdu language newspaper.

Salman Taseer was governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province when he was killed in 2011 by his bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri for criticizing Pakistan’s law prohibiting blasphemy against Islam. Specifically Taseer had defended Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman under death sentence since 2009 for supposedly insulting Islam. Another senior Pakistani statesman, Shahbaz Bhati, was also assassinated in 2011 for publicly defending her.

The killer, who shot Taseer 27 times, was unrepentant and was widely supported by protests until his execution under Pakistani law last year. His grave has become a pilgrimage site, and a popular mosque in Islamabad is named in his honor. (Read more from “Baltimore Mosque Celebrates the Murderer of a ‘Blasphemer'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Why Professors Object to Being Recorded

After the election of Donald Trump as president, a professor at Orange Coast College in California, Olga Perez Stable Cox, went into an extended hate rant against the president-elect. Among other things, she described Trump’s election as an “act of terrorism,” labeled him a white supremacist and called Vice President-elect Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

And this wasn’t even a political science class in which one might expect political talk, no matter how irresponsible. Cox is a professor of human sexuality.

When a student who recorded the diatribe posted the recording on social media, the professor’s union, the Coast Federation of Educators, AFT local chapter 1911, said on Facebook: “This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student will be identified and may be facing legal action.”

According to the union, the recording “violated the professor’s course syllabus, the Coast Community College District Code of Student Conduct, and the California Educational Code (sic), section 78907, which (exists) to provide a robust, learning environment for all students irrespective of their opinions.”

The aforementioned California Education Code section states, “The use by any person, including a student, of any electronic listening or recording device in any classroom without the prior consent of the instructor is prohibited.”

The American Association of University Professors has long opposed unauthorized recording and public posting of what professors say in classrooms.

As it happens, I taught for two years at Brooklyn College. I recall students asking me whether they could record my lectures. And I remember thinking, “Why on Earth would I say no?”

I wanted whatever I said in a classroom to be heard by more than 50 people. “Who wouldn’t?” I wondered.

Here, then, is my theory as to why most professors who object to their class lectures being recorded do so: They fear having what they say exposed to the general public.

Our colleges and universities (and an increasing number of high schools and elementary schools) have been transformed from educational institutions into indoctrination institutions. With the left-wing takeover of universities, their primary aim has become graduating as many leftists as possible.

The vast majority of our colleges have become left-wing seminaries. Just as Christian seminaries exist to produce committed Christians, Western universities exist to produce committed leftists. Aside from the Christian-leftism difference, universities differ in only one respect from Christian seminaries: Christian seminaries admit their goal, whereas the universities deceive the public about theirs.

Thus, in the “social sciences” — disciplines outside the natural sciences and math — a large number of college teachers inject their politics into their classrooms. And if they are recorded, the general public will become aware of just how politicized their classroom lectures are.

But there is another reason.

Most professors objecting to being recorded know on some level that they are persuasive only when their audience is composed largely of very young people just out of high school. They know that if their ideas are exposed to adults, they may be revealed as intellectual lightweights.

Students therefore need to understand that when professors object to being recorded, it is a statement of contempt for them. The professors are, in effect, saying to their students: “Listen. I can get away with this intellectually shallow, emotion-based propaganda when you are the only people who actually hear it. You aren’t wise enough to perceive it as such. But if people over 21 years of age hear it, I’m toast.”

All rules governing the recording of conversations without permission should apply to a professor meeting privately with a student.

But when professors stand in front of a class, they are in the public domain. Moreover, the public pays at least part of these professors’ salary at virtually every university. We therefore have a right, and even a duty, to know what professors say publicly in classrooms.

In fact, I would encourage every student who cares about truth and intellectual honesty to record what their professors say in class. I would also encourage every parent to find out for what they are paying. And I would encourage professors to record themselves in order to protect themselves against doctored material.

Any professor who is not ashamed of what he or she is saying in class should welcome being recorded.

And any student taking a class with a professor who objects to being recorded should know that this objection is almost always equivalent to the professor saying: “I want you to hear what I say in class because I’m quite confident that you can’t differentiate between instruction and indoctrination. But if what I say goes public, people who do know the difference will expose me as a propagandist.” (For more from the author of “Why Professors Object to Being Recorded” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says he wants to use his platform to build a worldwide “inclusive community.” However, a Christian ‘vlogger’ found out there appears to be no room in it for her as long as she quotes Bible passages about homosexuality.

Elizabeth Johnston, aka the “Activist Mommy,” says there is a big disconnect between Zuckerberg’s recent call for a global “inclusive community” and Facebook’s “censorship of Christians.”

“They are muzzling me and my biblical message while Mark Zuckerberg claims that FB is unbiased,” she stated in a news release.

She has had her page frozen three times now, twice in seven days, because of her posts. Last week, she posted her argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality, using Old and New Testament sources. Facebook summarily removed the post and suspended her access to the page. It also stripped her of her ability to respond to private comments for three days.

Once she was unfrozen, she complained about censorship and restored the original blog. Facebook removed it again. She was frozen for another seven days and cut off from her 70,000 followers. (Read more from “Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Robots Poised to Take Over Wide Range of Military Jobs

The wave of automation that swept away tens of thousands of American manufacturing and office jobs during the past two decades is now washing over the armed forces, putting both rear-echelon and front-line positions in jeopardy.

“Just as in the civilian economy, automation will likely have a big impact on military organizations in logistics and manufacturing,” said Michael Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania professor and one of the globe’s foremost experts on weaponized robots.

“The U.S. military is very likely to pursue forms of automation that reduce ‘back-office’ costs over time, as well as remove soldiers from non-combat deployments where they might face risk from adversaries on fluid battlefields, such as in transportation.”

Driver-less vehicles poised to take taxi, train and truck driver jobs in the civilian sector also could nab many combat-support slots in the Army. (Read more from “Robots Poised to Take Over Wide Range of Military Jobs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.