The CIA vs. The Presidency: This Is Not the First Time

In 1947, the president of the United States, Harry Truman, decided: I’m going to create a snake and call it the CIA. Its watchword will be secrecy. It will collect secrets of our enemies and hold them secret and report the secrets to the president, who will decide what to do. Of course, the snake will remain under the president’s control. Its entire personality will be based on deception, but it will remain loyal to the president. No problem. Sure.

I’m thankful for Charles Hollander’s challenging piece on Thomas Pynchon’s novel, The Crying of Lot 49: “Pynchon, JFK and the CIA: Magic Eye Views of The Crying of Lot 49.”

Hollander offers vital reminders of the war between two parts of the Executive Branch: the presidency and the CIA.

“Implicit in Pynchon’s fiction is the view that events in recent American history have led to a virtual constitutional crisis, a challenge to the supremacy of the presidency by the intelligence community.”

“When Eisenhower made his ‘open skies’ proposal, in July 21, 1955, at a Geneva summit conference, calling for unrestricted but monitored overflight of national territories on both sides of the Iron Curtain, many observers felts its acceptance would have gone a long way toward thawing the Cold War. To make a gesture of good faith toward Soviet Premier Khrushchev, the president ordered the CIA (under Allen Dulles) to halt its U–2 photo–reconnaissance flights. But Dulles secretly arranged for the flights to continue. When Francis Gary Powers’s U–2 spy plane was shot down in the Ural mountains on May 1, 1960, and Khrushchev announced the facts to the world media, the embarrassed Eisenhower lied to cover up. To many it appeared that the CIA chief had disobeyed a direct order from the Commander–in–Chief. The St. Louis Post–Dispatch asked the next day, ‘Do our intelligence operatives enjoy so much freewheeling authority that they can touch off an incident of grave international import by low–level decisions unchecked by responsible policy–making power’?”

“Later, when Lee Harvey Oswald’s possible role in the U–2 affair became known, some observers felt Dulles’s action implied that the director of the CIA was above the president and that the military–industrial complex could do what it pleased, independent of the will of the people as expressed by the popularly elected and duly constituted chief executive. No wonder Ike [Eisenhower] was peeved: the CIA was running the U.S. the way it ran Latin America. The U–2 affair was no mere personality squabble, Ike vs. Dulles; it was two institutions of the executive branch vying for supremacy, the presidency vs. the CIA, hence the democratic process vs. a form of totalitarism.”

“The CIA had already planned the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion before Kennedy took office in January, and when the invasion failed, Kennedy felt that the CIA had set him up. He let it be known he intended to dismantle the CIA and assign its functions to the other intelligence units within the government. He reportedly vowed ‘to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds’… Kennedy, a Democrat, forced the Republican Allen Dulles to resign, along with other senior CIA officers. But the CIA was too deeply involved just then in operations around the world to be disassembled. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, in a way that implicated the CIA…critics of the Warren Commission Report, maybe even J. Edgar Hoover—believed the CIA had some hand in Kennedy’s assassination and the coverup. If it had, the CIA was again demonstrating that the presidency was subordinate to the CIA.”

“In a very short time, two presidents, a Republican and a Democrat, ran afoul of the CIA. The result amounted to a constitutional crisis, a change in our actual form of government without benefit of a duly ratified constitutional amendment. The crisis is reminiscent of that period in Roman history when the Praetorian Guard could sell the office of Emperor to the highest bidder and then, after a time, assassinate him and have a new auction. To this day, the president has never again challenged the CIA, though the agency has made its share of egregious errors. With the selection of former CIA director George H.W. Bush, the presidency and the CIA effectively merged…”

These days, President Trump is in his own war against the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community (IC).

In his case, he has overtly criticized the IC and called them disseminators of fake news and lies. He claims he’s putting an end to foreign wars of conquest. He’s already canceled a major Globalist trade treaty, the TPP.

But the IC believes it owns the Presidency and sets his agenda.

This is not a recent assumption. It goes all the way back to the early days of the CIA; Eisenhower, Kennedy.

In 2016, the IC leadership decided Trump would be a threat to their power, so they leaked/invented information about the Russians influencing the election on behalf of Trump. This effort was aimed at corroding his right to claim that he was the legitimate president.

The war continues.

The IC doesn’t want presidents with independent ideas.

They’re the bosses, and they intend to keep it that way.

—The snake slithers in the sun and the shade. It moves deftly and collects information and decides what to do with it. It compiles its own private list of enemies and allies. It senses its own power. Why should it honor its mandate? There is an Empire to be gained. (For more from the author of “The CIA vs. The Presidency: This Is Not the First Time” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Denounces ‘Bigotry and Hatred’ at African American Museum. The Left Didn’t Get the Memo

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump denounced bigotry and racism in a short speech given at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The reaction to his speech on Twitter was, ironically, full of bigotry and racism.

“Today and every day of my presidency I pledge to do everything I can to continue that promise of freedom for African-Americans and for every American,” Trump said. He called his first visit to the museum “a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry and hatred and intolerance.”

Many on Twitter were vocally intolerant of Trump’s presence at the museum.

Dr. Ben Carson, the president’s nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was in attendance of Trump’s visit to the museum. The reaction to Carson’s presence was also hateful.

What was it that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said? “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

It’s a shame these folks won’t listen. (For more from the author of “Trump Denounces ‘Bigotry and Hatred’ at African American Museum. The Left Didn’t Get the Memo” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

obamacare (2)

Why Is the GOP Just Sitting Around on Repealing Obamacare After Winning the Impossible?

In other news, Congress has said it plans to debate repealing Obamacare, maybe sometime end of February, and “hopes” to have a bill end of March. Maybe not … the GOP could just keep stalling.

How many times have Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare in the last six years? Twenty, 30, 40 times? MSNBC claims it’s around 62. In 2015, Congress actually put a repeal bill on President Obama’s desk.
And now that Republicans control every lever of power in the legislative process, suddenly the task to repeal has become monumental. Not so when the GOP was in the minority.

It is not easy to name a member of Congress — or any GOP elected official — who has not run on repealing Obamacare. Certainly every House Republican worth his or her salt is already on record voting for a full repeal — that is, back when there was no danger of those bills seeing daylight. As one member recently phrased it: “We’re playing with live rounds this time.”

The prospect of making a difference has resulted in schoolboy stage fright. The chance to win has made our guys terrified of facing the other team’s fans in the parking lot.

Campaign pledges to do away with the Affordable Care Act were not always, nor even often, married to specific replacement plans. It was widely acknowledged from the start that repealing the law would leave room for debate over the best market-based solutions. Well, Republicans got their chance. Voters believed them. And within five weeks, the repeal movement has smashed up against barriers erected by the very members who ran and won on the promise of ACTION.

A repeal bill would not pit the country against the party — that is only what the opposition wants us to believe. What is certain to damage the party, perhaps irreparably, is a stalled Congress, an impotent executive, and a surviving health care law that continues to wreak havoc on a country that has stridently rejected it. Leave the law where it is, and the GOP flushes its mandate. There are too many other things to accomplish — and such little time to see them through — for this party to squander its credibility on the one issue it can wipe out with a two-page bill.

In the age of Trevor Noah, Lena Dunham, and John Oliver, elected Republicans have my sympathies. Liberal elites control the levers of culture, and as such, it is hard not to believe that after the non-stop bombardment from liberal media, even when in power, that one is governing in direct opposition to the wishes of a hostile electorate. But it is an illusion. Trump won because he saw the illusion for what it was. He ignored the ache of bad press, shaking off the weight on his shoulders intensified by a media-biased bubble. He proved that if you simply press on and do what you told the voters you would do, the voters will keep up their end. They will show their appreciation by showing up for you.

Republicans must learn this lesson, if no other. (For more from the author of “Why Is the GOP Just Sitting Around on Repealing Obamacare After Winning the Impossible?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Milo Yiannopoulos Apologizes for Remarks, Quits Breitbart

Polarizing writer Milo Yiannopoulos resigned as an editor at Breitbart News on Tuesday and apologized for comments he had made about sexual relationships between boys and men . . .

He said he was resigning from Breitbart, which helped make him a star, because it would be “wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting.”

The apology followed days of criticism from fellow conservatives after the release of video clips in which Yiannopoulos appeared to defend sexual relationships between men and boys as young as 13. (Read more from “Milo Yiannopoulos Apologizes for Remarks, Quits Breitbart” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Targets Criminals, Late Arrivals in Immigration Enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security will make prioritization key in its beefed-up enforcement of the border and the interior of the country—removing criminals first, while more recent arrivals will also face expedited removal.

However, critics call it “mass deportation” that will face a legal challenge.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly released implementation memos to agencies to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive orders he signed in January. A key new policy is expanding the number of illegal immigrants subject to “expedited removal” procedures if an illegal immigrant can’t provide evidence they have been in the country for more than two years.

Among other matters, the memos call for moving forward on building a border wall, hiring more Customs and Border Protection agents to stop illegal border crossings, and adding more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to police the interior. Also, the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office was established within ICE.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the actions Tuesday demonstrate the administration is serious about making the country safer.

“The message from this White House and from DHS is that those people who are in this country and pose a threat to our public safety and committed a crime will be the first to go and we will aggressively be making sure that occurs,” Spicer said during the White House press briefing.

The DHS actions are a welcome change from the Obama administration that interfered with immigration enforcement, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a pro-enforcement group. But, Mehlman added, the emphasis on prioritizing dangerous illegal immigrants is “a lot like the Obama administration.”

“The past administration put a priority on criminals and those that just entered the United States,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “The difference is that the Obama administration just focused on recent arrivals at the border, and sent them back. That’s important, but we also need serious interior enforcement.”

The policies won’t survive a court challenge, said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“These memos confirm that the Trump administration is willing to trample on due process, human decency, the well-being of our communities, and even protections for vulnerable children, in pursuit of a hyperaggressive mass deportation policy,” Jadwat said in a public statement. “However, President Trump does not have the last word here—the courts and the public will not allow this un-American dream to become reality.”

More than likely, the implementation orders have solid legal ground, said Josh Blackman, an associate professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.

“There is probably not a strong challenge to the order Secretary Kelly signed, but a question of due process could come up regarding expedited removal,” Blackman told The Daily Signal. “If you’re picked up at the border and turned around there usually is no question. Expanding that to being picked up at the interior, that could arguably imply a stronger connection to the U.S. and require due process for removal.”

A legal challenge would have little merit, but doesn’t necessarily mean the administration will prevail, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It is well within the administration’s authority, but anyone can file a lawsuit, and that won’t stop errant judges from acting,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Spicer stressed that the administration is only enforcing immigration law as it would any other law.

Our job, especially here at the White House, isn’t to call balls and strikes and say this person only violated part of the law. If this was any other subject, if this was tax evasion and we said, ‘Well, they really only cheated on their taxes a little,’ you wouldn’t be saying should they be going to prison or should they be getting a fine. At some point laws are laws. If people have a problem with the law, whether it’s at the local, state, or federal, then we should petition our lawmakers and executives to change it. Our job should not be should this individual not have to abide by the law, should this individual get a pass?

(For more from the author of “Trump Targets Criminals, Late Arrivals in Immigration Enforcement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump’s Stellar Pick for National Security Adviser

Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster is a perfect fit for the position of national security adviser, and it is no surprise that his selection by President Donald Trump has delighted many in the defense and national security community.

Trump announced Monday night that McMaster will replace Michael Flynn, the retired Army general who resigned a week ago after he admitted misleading the vice president about the content of a December phone call with the Russian ambassador.

McMaster is a scholar-warrior, much like two fellow flag officers serving in Trump’s Cabinet—retired Marine generals James Mattis and John Kelly.

McMaster is a brilliant strategist who has devoted his Army career to understanding military history and helping America’s armed forces learn from the mistakes of the past in order to fight more effectively in the future. One of us, Thomas Spoehr, can say this with confidence, having known him for many years.

Notably, McMaster wrote a 1997 book, “Dereliction of Duty,” which criticized top military leaders during the Vietnam War for failing to give their candid advice to the president and secretary of defense. As national security adviser, one of McMaster’s key roles will be to provide unvarnished advice to the president.

More recently, as commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment during the Iraq War, McMaster led U.S. forces in beating back an insurgency that was running rampant in the western Iraqi city of Tal Afar, where al-Qaeda had taken control.

In an interview with National Geographic, he described the situation his troops, and the Iraqi people, faced in Tal Afar:

All the schools were closed because of violence, all the marketplaces were closed. There was no power. There was no water. The city was lifeless. People lived in abject fear.

What McMaster did next changed the course not only of one city, but the entire U.S. military strategy in Iraq. He invested in working directly with the Iraqi people and building trust in the U.S. military’s capability to eliminate terrorists threatening their livelihoods. He moved his troops off large bases and brought them in contact with local residents.

In so doing, McMaster contributed to laying the groundwork for a new counterinsurgency strategy implemented by Army Gen. David Petraeus that ultimately would lead to the neutralization of al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased stability throughout the nation.

This strategy was not popular at the time, yet McMaster recognized its potential and was unwavering in his drive to try a new approach. Remaining willing to re-examine strategies and plans is a key attribute for the national security adviser.

McMaster is also just as much a warrior as he is a scholar and brilliant intellectual. He served in the first Persian Gulf War, receiving a Silver Star for his leadership and bravery in the 1991 Battle of 73 Easting, the largest tank-on-tank battle since World War II.

In this 23-minute battle, McMaster’s company destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel transports, and more than 30 trucks.

These accomplishments speak volumes about McMaster’s professionalism, leadership, and passion for defending America. He is an extraordinary choice to be national security adviser, and Trump was wise to select him.

Going forward, Americans can rest assured knowing that H.R. McMaster will be the man providing national security advice and options to the leader of the free world. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Stellar Pick for National Security Adviser” please click 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 Townhall.com, 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.


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.