The Secret to Winning America’s New Civil War

Many people think Americans are more divided today than at any time since the Civil War – and further, that we are involved in another albeit different sort of “civil war” between two intensely opposed groups of Americans.

If this is true, we are in desperate need of understanding what we’re dealing with and why our beautiful, once-unified nation is being ripped apart – and hopefully reversing course. . .

You cannot understand America solely through a political lens anymore. A new California law, SB 219, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, says you can be thrown into prison for 12 months for failing to use the correct transgender pronoun. That is, for refusing to use words that never existed before – newly created pronouns like co, en, ey, xie and yo, which correspond to dozens of new genders that also never existed before in human history, like genderqueer, pangender, hijra and genderfluid . . .

If we want God to be on our side, we need to make sure we’re on His side. That means we need to repent of our own sins and obey His Commandments – first and foremost to love God and love our neighbor – and even, as Jesus Himself said, to love our enemy. Hate the sin, but never the sinner. There’s real magic in that.

Somehow, my friends, we have to discover how to overcome the angry, delusional, hysterical, anti-American, anti-God agenda that has captured the minds of too many of our fellow Americans, while at the same time embracing Christ’s way, when He said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Read more from “The Secret to Winning America’s New Civil War” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Is Right on Drug Traffickers: Heroin and Fentanyl Are Killing U.S.

Those who claim to be morally outraged by Trump’s proposal of the death penalty for drug traffickers, especially cartel leaders, either have no heart themselves or are oblivious to the worst drug epidemic ever and how it came about.

To understand the severity of the situation, we must first properly define the “opioid crisis” as it exists today and what has happened over the past four years.

What exactly is the “opioid crisis”?

We’ve always had drugs flowing into this country. But the supply and dangerous nature of the drugs coming into this country from Mexico (or from China and then distributed by the Mexican cartels) since 2013-2014 are at an epidemic level, dwarfing anything we’ve seen before. It all began with the suspension of immigration enforcement from 2010-2014 and suspension of interior enforcement. Transnational drug cartels worked with gangs and human smugglers to take advantage of Obama’s unprecedented dismantling of our borders in order to launch what should be described as chemical warfare on this country. If you read former senator and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ timeline on Obama’s dismantling of immigration security and border control, the timing of the drug crisis makes perfect sense.

Long before the medical profession was pressured in the ’90s (in part by government) to treat pain more often with prescription opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone, we had a culture of illicit drug use in this country. It was mainly marijuana and cocaine. Then it moved on to methamphetamine, and then to the more severe heroin. For the most part, this was not about pain-driven addiction, but a cultural collapse.

Beginning in the late ’90s, as prescription painkillers began to become a regular part of medical practice, the rate of overdoses on prescriptions steadily rose. The vast majority never became addicted and enjoyed a better quality of life thanks to the drugs, but commensurate with the increased use was an increase in drug overdoses by those who did become addicted.

The rate of prescriptions kept going up and peaked between 2010 and 2012 as a debate raged in the medical community and in state legislatures over whether prescription opioids were being overprescribed. Almost every state set up a monitoring program, and more than half of the states began to place restrictions on them, some of them severe. After peaking at 81.3 prescriptions per 100 persons in 2012, the rate declined precipitously, to 66.5 in 2016, according to the CDC, all the way down to 2002 levels.

The numbers are even starker on a state level. Let’s examine the states with the highest rates of drug deaths since 2012. West Virginia’s prescription opioid rate dropped from 136.9 per 100 persons in 2012 to 96 in 2016. In Ohio, it dropped from 97.5 to 75.3.; in New Hampshire, 83.7 to 64.3 (below the national average); in Pennsylvania from 83.3 to 69.5.; in Rhode Island from 83.2 to 60.3 (below national average). Yet the overall drug deaths skyrocketed to unimaginable levels in those states after prescription opioids became heavily regulated and the numbers plummeted.

Rather than a steady decline in fatalities from overdoses to match the decline in prescription opioids, everything went bonkers from 2013 to the present, after the public and politicians turned against the use of prescription opioids. We saw a spike in deaths of unfathomable proportions, getting worse every year through 2014, 2015, and 2016. The level of fatalities doubled and tripled in those states as, not surprisingly, heroin and fentanyl flooded the market.

Overdoses from illicit substances accounted for 78 percent of the 64,000 deaths in 2016, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And all signs from 2017 state data I’ve examined point to an even sharper trajectory since then.

This chart says it all:

Maryland is one of the crisis states, with drug deaths quadrupling over the past five years, even as prescription opioid rates have dropped well below the national average. This one chart from the Maryland Department of Health is worth 1,000 words:

And here is the story in Ohio, the second worst drug overdose state:

Amazingly, some states with sky-high opioid prescription rates, such as Alabama and Arkansas, have some of the lowest overdose death rates in the country. And in Ohio, with the second highest rate of deaths from overdoses, just 13.9 percent had prescription opioids listed on the death certificate, while 58 percent had fentanyl and 38 percent heroin. Many of the latter had both. Prescription opioid deaths accounted for only 18 percent of overdose deaths in Maryland in 2017 and 12.2 percent of overdose deaths in Pennsylvania in 2016. The numbers of cocaine and meth overdoses have also gone up in Ohio and most states, but not nearly as much as heroin and fentanyl.

What is happening and why?

The epidemic we are facing today is not from prescription opioids, at least not more than it has been for an entire generation. The number of prescriptions has already been reduced dramatically, and the overdose rate has leveled off and even dropped in some of the most affected states since 2016, like Ohio. Almost the entirety of the increased fatalities above the long-term existing trajectory beginning in 2012 were from illicit drugs and mainly from the most dangerous one – heroin. Then, as heroin use began to skyrocket in 2013-2014, we began to see the growth of the cursed synthetic drug – fentanyl – which is 50-100 times stronger than morphine and can kill in small quantities. It’s often laced into heroin. In pretty much every state, fentanyl has skyrocketed to such a level that it has overtaken heroin as the leading drug killer. Cocaine and meth overdoses have also gone up a lot but are not nearly as serious.

Thus, we don’t have “an opioid crisis;” we have a heroin and fentanyl crisis.

Even worse, beginning in 2016 and 2017, carfentanil, which is 10,000 times stronger than morphine, has hit the streets. It is used in elephant tranquilizers and is essentially a form of chemical warfare against this country. One grain of this substance will kill someone, and you essentially need a hazmat team to deal with it or even get near it. Dozens of people died from it in my home state of Maryland and in many other states hardest hit by this epidemic.

The drug cartels have launched chemical warfare against us – and we are helping

What happened circa 2013 and just before? As I have noted before and will write extensively about in the coming weeks, this was the result of suspending our borders, the promise of amnesty, and the surge of hundreds of thousands of young Central American males who served as drug mules, enriching the drug cartels who control the smuggling routes and earn a profit from every illegal smuggled over – whether that illegal is a bad hombre or merely “doing the jobs Americans won’t do.”

Mexican heroin used to be dirty, impure, black tar heroin. Now, it’s high-purity powder heroin because the cartels were so enriched by the DACA-drive smuggling that they were able to ramp up their production and networks while using the new mules and gangs entering the country to expand their empires. They also began producing fentanyl, and with their expanded distribution network on our soil, were also able to traffic the Chinese fentanyl and carfentanil sent initially by mail.

The correlation with the rise in MS-13 as a result of the UAC surge in 2013-2015 completes the circle of cause and effect, because in recent years MS-13 gangs have become the distributers for the drug cartels. In a 2013 report, the Texas Department of Public Safety warned of the developing relationships between the drug cartels and the gangs and that the gangs “increase their power and acquire wholesale quantities of drugs at lower prices, while the cartels extend their network of connections deeper into the United States.” In subsequent reports in 2016 and 2017, the Texas DPS noted that the relationship remained “steady” and that “as long as illicit cross-border crimes are profitable, the relationship between cartels and gangs will continue.”

Sanctuary cities have ensured that this relationship is profitable. The 2017 Director of National Intelligence Worldwide Threat Assessment noted “the staying power of Mexican trafficking networks” as a cause of the skyrocketing drug crisis.

Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas, in a December 2013 order, charged that the Obama administration essentially “successfully complet[ed] the mission of the criminal conspiracy” of drug smugglers to smuggle people over the border on behalf of parents “at significant expense” to taxpayers. He observed that the DHS was taking actions that were “dangerous and unconscionable,” “subject to the whims of evil individuals,” resulting in the “absurd and illogical” outcome of helping “fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.”

Hanen pointed out that “time and again, this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that cartels control the entire smuggling process.” He also observed that the cartels knew that teenagers would be treated leniently if caught with drugs. He therefore concluded that by dismantling immigration enforcement and promising amnesty, “the government is not only allowing them to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so.” In a footnote, Hanen ominously warned about the heroin smuggling that would likely follow, based on past history.

And the rest is indeed history. From 2013 to 2016, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the level of heroin production in Mexico tripled. And not surprisingly, right after 2013, is when the entire fentanyl phenomenon took off:

There is your culprit. There is your crisis. We have gone to war around the world for much less, yet Mexican drug cartels operating on our border and on our soil are never treated as the chemical warfare it is. The politics with “our Mexican friends” always prevents us from doing what it takes to stop them, even though many of their politicians are roped in with the cartels. We treat DACA – the cause of all of this – as the solution!

We could abolish doctors and pharmaceuticals tomorrow, and it would not change the problem: chemical warfare on our country from the Mexican drug cartels who now use MS-13 and similar gangs to distribute their poison. In fact, it can be posited that some of sudden spike in the crisis after the flow of prescriptions was tightened helped push more people into the illicit drug market, which is much more dangerous. At this point, any further effort to focus solely on prescriptions without dealing with the underlying cause of the explosion in supply of the most deadly illicit drugs is the worst policy outcome possible. Worst of all, those who are throwing billions of dollars at unproven federal treatment programs refuse to support tougher sentences for drug traffickers and, in fact, are trying to dismantle the existing mandatory sentences.

There is no penalty strong enough for these monsters

Which brings us back to the drug traffickers. The very people virtue-signaling about the “opioid crisis” and demanding a national prescription-monitoring database, endless government programs to enrich the health care industry, and severe restrictions on doctors are coddling the drug cartels and doubling down on their policies that fueled the worst elements of the worst drug epidemic. How dare they oppose minimum penalties for drug traffickers?

Rep. Jim Butler, a state representative from Ohio and a health care expert, spoke to me on my podcast earlier this week and explained how the ACLU blocked legislation in Ohio that minimally raised penalties on those who sold fentanyl to people coming out of drug rehab!

As we’ve noted before, there is a bipartisan obsession with retroactively releasing drug traffickers (not drug addicts) from prison and dramatically reducing penalties. Believe what you want about marijuana and cocaine, but today we are dealing with chemical warfare in our country. Obama released close to 2,000 drug traffickers from federal prison during his final two years, many of whom committed other violent crimes in addition to trafficking meth and heroin. Yet most members of Congress want to be even more lenient. Nor do they want to deal with interior immigration enforcement. We should at least all agree to severe penalties for fentanyl trafficking. And when you look at the tens of thousands of dead Americans as a result of fentanyl, the only problem you should have is that we can only kill these people once.

For those who are “offended” at the notion of giving the death penalty to those who peddle fentanyl and carfentanil, maybe they’d be happier if we punished traffickers by having them consume their own product. After all, it’s only drugs. (For more from the author of “Trump Is Right on Drug Traffickers: Heroin and Fentanyl Are Killing U.S.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Are Destroying Our Republic

Each new day brings another court ruling more absurd and damaging to our republic than the previous one. And each new ruling is met with stunning silence from the other two branches of government. This time, courts are preparing a new constitutional right to access someone else’s Twitter account, even as they violate the inviolable provisions of the First Amendment – to abide by one’s conscience with one’s own private property.

When I saw the CNBC article on Thursday titled, “A federal judge is skeptical about whether Trump can block Twitter users,” I thought it was an early April Fools’ parody. But then I remembered that U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald had actually granted standing to a random plaintiff to sue Trump for blocking him on Twitter. Because we now live in a time when judges can place any political question – even a teenager catfight on social media – into court as a justiciable case, and the other branches of government will regard their judicial malpractice as “the law of the land.”

For years we had an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits between two parties under civil law. They were disruptive to our economy. But now we have frivolous constitutional lawsuits that are literally destroying our republic – erasing the most unambiguous rights of the Constitution while creating new imaginary rights that infringe upon the real rights, all the while elevating the role of the district judge to that of a king and even God.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in the Twitter catfight case, judicial goddess Buchwald reportedly told Trump’s lawyer, “Once it [Twitter] is a public forum, you can’t shut somebody up because you don’t like what they’re saying.”

By the way, Buchwald is the same person who accused Sarah Palin of using her son with Down syndrome, Trig, as a prop during the 2008 election. I guess she doesn’t want anyone blocking her insensitivity from their timelines on Twitter.

This is an exceedingly dangerous territory the judicial statists have just entered. They are now saying that merely blocking someone from following you on Twitter is tantamount to physically shutting them up from talking and is a violation of the First Amendment.

Think about this for a moment: The federal courts are almost unanimously saying that you must violate your conscience and serve gay weddings with your private property. You are not allowed to merely mind your own business; you will be forced to take action for someone else, according to the corrupt legal profession. And now these same people think that you have the right to someone else’s Twitter account.

Isn’t it also interesting that the Left has no problem with the Twitter corporation itself banning conservatives as “haters” (while they allow ISIS accounts), but private users cannot block other people from seeing their tweets?

Folks, this is really simple. Private property is private property. All of the following is true:

Twitter, as a private company, has the right to grant an account to anyone it chooses. I have a right to talk and write about anything I want without the government locking me up, but I don’t have a right to someone else’s forum. Yes, Twitter can ban me or anyone else.

Your private Twitter account granted to you by the organization is yours (until suspended), and nobody has a constitutional right to see your tweets.

I have the right to run my private business in accordance with my conscience, and you have no right to obtain employment or services from me.

In all of these cases, people are free to make political arguments against the policies and views of individuals and companies. We have the right to real free speech, using any platform we can find, to show Twitter’s hypocrisy as a matter of policy. Others have the right to make fun of Trump for blocking them. Still others have the right to weigh in on the prudence or “morality” of a private entity denying a service. But nobody has a constitutional right to be entitled, as a legal matter, to someone else’s property.

In the past, it took about 15-30 years for liberals to transform their political positions into legal imperatives. Now we have reached a crisis in the legal profession where essentially every Democrat political belief is now instantly enshrined as a constitutional right or mandate.

For example, last week, a unanimous ruling from the Sixth Circuit, which is not even the most liberal panel, wrote transgenderism into civil rights employment discrimination law. The Sixth joined the Seventh and Second Circuits in doing so. No matter how strongly liberals might desire this political outcome, there is no way one can posit that transgenderism is included in the 1964 law. You can’t rewrite the law from the bench. But every single Democrat appointee and even a few GOP judges have done so because they conflate their political desires with legal and constitutional mandates.

Not only are judges warping the Constitution in service of an ideology against the Constitution’s most sacred precepts, they are simultaneously elevating their power to do so.

Judicial review doesn’t mean that courts get to decide on the constitutionality of every law and political act, even when they are properly interpreting the Constitution. They can only grant relief to an individual plaintiff who has a meaningful and tangible injury from the said policy or from the act of another private citizen. Not being able to directly access someone’s Twitter account is not an injury our Founders had in mind when they vested the Supreme Court with the judicial power.

Inane rules of standing have now allowed any political movement to argue their policy preferences in court and have the judge rule on abstract policies while applying them nationwide. Just last week, Judge William Alsup, the same judge who said it’s illegal not to violate immigration law, gave standing to random kids to sue the government over global warming without an individualized, tangible, and proven grievance. What’s next? A debate about UFOs in district court?

So far, Congress obsequiously toes the line of every utterance from one of these rogue judges. To his credit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is directly challenging the notion that a district judge has such power, but the administration is still refusing to take it to the next level.

What’s next?

It’s time for Trump to demand that Congress pass Rep. Dave Brat’s judicial reform bill, which explicitly denies lower courts the power to issue nationwide injunctions on political issues.

If not, we are about to be treated to the spectacle of the president of the United States as a lame duck who won’t even control his own Twitter account. (For more from the author of “Judges Are Destroying Our Republic” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Famous Atheist Proves the Bible Is True

It would probably be Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare if the famous atheist said something that proved the Bible is uncannily true.

But that’s just what he did when he asked when Americans would get over their hang-ups over cannibalism. He thinks we should all start eating lab-grown “human meat,” for a reason which I think will become clear in this commentary . . .

Elsewhere, in the Ten Commandments, for example, the murder of other humans is condemned. But the Bible elsewhere clearly condemns cannibalism as a curse, as in Leviticus 26:27-30, Deuteronomy 28:52-57, Ezekiel 5:7-11, Lamentations 2:16-21 and Jeremiah 19:7-10. It’s a punishment that results from disobedience and rejection of God and His commandments. In addition, in 1 Corinthians 39, there’s a clear distinction made between the flesh of humans from the flesh of animals . . .

He apparently has reached something of a new zenith in rejection of God in human history. That’s not to say that there haven’t been societies that resorted to cannibalism or willingly chose it in history. There is little doubt some cannibals are still around today. But there’s a difference with Dawkins. He is advocating cannibalism for others even though it’s unlikely he has actually participated in it himself. He sees cannibalism as a Judeo-Christian “taboo” that should and must be overcome . . .

It means when we purposely and systematically reject God and His ways, we are corrupted. Those, like Dawkins, who profess themselves to be wise, become fools. We become much more likely to embrace abominations – like cannibalism. Thus, Dawkins unwittingly provides evidence the Bible is true – something he is loathe to do but simply can’t help himself. (Read more from “Famous Atheist Proves the Bible Is True” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Trump’s ‘Madman Theory’ Strategy Bring North Korea to the Table?

President Trump has agreed to meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un for direct talks by May, in a location to be determined. So why now? What changed? There are many possible reasons why the Kim Jong Un regime has decided to meet with the president.

The regime is flat broke

Did U.S. sanctions force Kim to come to the table? Over the past year, the Trump administration has steadily applied a maximum pressure campaign through sanctions and diplomatic aggression, seeking to completely isolate North Korea from the rest of the world. However, North Korea maintains a powerful lifeline through China, which in the past has been caught violating international trade sanctions against North Korea. In January, U.S. spy satellites found that China was clandestinely trading with North Korea using cargo ships in violation of U.N. sanctions.

Manipulating South Korea and the United States

The North Korean regime has a history of leveraging talks as an instrument of power.

In a piece for the New York Post this week, Dr. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute explained: “While Americans (and South Koreans) often view engagement as a tool of conflict resolution, North Korea’s regime and its Chinese sponsors see diplomacy as an asymmetric warfare strategy with which to tie opponents’ hands while they seize strategic advantage.”

Additionally, South Korea has an extremely appeasement-minded government in place. In 2010, a North Korean sub torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, killing 46 people on board and wounding 56 more. South Korea never even responded to the catastrophic attack.

Change of heart?

North Korea has partners in China, Russia, Cuba, and a handful of Latin American and African nations. Besides that, North Korea is extremely isolated. Is it possible that Kim Jong Un has given up on the Stalinist anti-American dictator routine and has decided that it is in his nation’s best long-term interests to try to normalize relations with the global community?

It’s more than doubtful. The Kim regime’s existence is based on antipathy to American and western ideals. Officials in the North Korean regime view the United States as the foremost force for evil in this world and see it as their duty to combat the “American bastards.”

Buying time

The North Korean regime continues to improve its nuclear arsenal. Each day that goes by, Kim gets another opportunity to accelerate his nuclear and ballistic weapons programs.

Proving its continually advancing ballistic sophistication, North Korea conducted over a dozen ballistic missile tests in 2017.

Madman theory worked?

Perhaps North Korea is worried by the prospect of an American strike on Pyongyang. President Trump has consistently implied, through aggressive rhetoric, that all options are on the table when it comes to combating the North Korea threat.

For “madman theory” to work, people need to actually believe that the president is willing to push the nuclear button (yes, I know there isn’t an actual button). The madman doctrine was popularized by former President Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger (who sometimes acts as an informal adviser to President Trump). Nixon figured that if he could convince communist leaders that he was truly off-kilter, the rogue regimes would be more hesitant to square off against what they perceived to be a trigger-happy nuclear power.

Judging by the media and the Left’s responses to the president’s tough talk, it appears that at least many in the West believe the president was dead serious about action against Pyongyang.

It’s possible that North Korea also took the threat very seriously and now seeks to change how it conducts relations with the United States.

Now what?

Over the next few weeks, we will learn much more about the parameters and specifics of the U.S.-North Korea talks. President Trump and his team would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of previous administrations, which time and again bailed out the North Korean regime through aid packages in exchange for promises that were later broken.

We must also never set aside the fact that Kim Jong Un is a ruthless dictator who operates a modern slave state through a network of concentration camps. Therefore, the U.S. must be careful about granting Kim global legitimacy. The regime has indoctrinated North Koreans inside the country through a cult of personality that supports Kim’s rule. It’s important that Kim’s pseudo-legitimacy does not extend beyond North Korea’s borders. (For more from the author of “Did Trump’s ‘Madman Theory’ Strategy Bring North Korea to the Table?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HOLOCAUST REDUX: How We Can Be Conditioned to Murder

In his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram discusses in detail the findings of his now famous experiment. Milgram demonstrated just how easy it is to convince an ordinary person to commit torture and murder under the instruction of an authority figure.

Intrigued by the role of Nazi military personnel in concentration camps during WWII, Milgram wanted to know how much coercion people needed in order to willingly inflict harm on another person.

He asked volunteers to deliver an electric shock to a stranger. Unbeknownst to the volunteers, there was no shock—and the people they were shocking were actors pretending to be terribly hurt, even feigning heart attacks. Milgram found that most people would keep delivering the shocks when ordered by a person in a lab coat, even when they believed that person was gravely injured. Only a tiny percentage of people refused. [Source]

The suggested conclusion is that people are inherently unable to think for themselves when given a subordinate role in some authoritarian hierarchy, such as the role of the ordinary citizen in a State-controlled world. A documentary of this experiment can be seen here.

The Milgram study was controversial in that some felt the results were skewed in favor of a predetermined bias. In the fifty-plus years since the experiment, there have been no other major research studies to confirm Milgram’s findings. Nevertheless, the presumption that normal people will go as far as to commit murder if they are relieved of responsibility by an authority figure feels inherently truthful in a world of so many organized atrocities.

The question is:

Can we be manipulated through social pressure to commit murder? ~Derren Brown

It’s an important question at a time when the converging technologies of AI and social media are affecting individual and group psychology in not yet understood ways. British illusionist Derren Brown recently conducted a similar experiment, this time in a feature documentary for Netflix entitled, The Push.

“This show is about how readily we hand over authorship of our lives, everyday, and the dangers of losing that control,” says Brown, who organized the reality TV-like experiment in which ordinary people were duped into doing things most of us would never even consider.

At the heart of the experiment lies the powerful effects of social pressure and social compliance, along with the individual’s inherent need to belong and fit into society. It also questions the nature of individuality, while demonstrating that many of us simply don’t have the courage to assert our own moral courage when faced with even a slight amount of authoritarian pressure.

The Push begins with a phony police officer calling a cafe worker on the phone and in a quick minute, without even a face-to-face interaction, convinces this person to steal a woman’s baby. Interestingly, the worker carries out the abduction even while expressing significant hesitance.

The main experiment picks up from there, involving unwitting subjects who are gradually convinced of the need to push another person off of a high-rise building. It’s an elaborate setup, which builds upon one small act of compliance after another until the subject is put into a situation where they are encouraged to kill a man they just met.

It’s a rather theatrical and unscientific presentation, but the results are noteworthy as three out of four participants actually shove an actor off of a building, believing they are committing murder, after being pressured into it by a small group of others. It’s a shocking act of compliance and subservience to the pressures of a peer group and a persistent authority figure.

What we don’t know about society today, though, is just how many people are this extremely socially compliant, capable of doing anything to appease the directives of others. As Brown notes, “the more socially compliant a person is, the more likely they are to look to others for signs on how to behave. And the more people, the greater the pressure to join in.”

This says a great deal about humans. Are we somehow wired to abandon our own morals and sense of self-integrity for the false belief that fitting into a group is necessary for survival?

A trailer for this show is seen below.

(For more from the author of “HOLOCAUST REDUX: How We Can Be Conditioned to Murder” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Trump Is So Hated by Leftists

My brother expressed his disgust watching an animated TV show trashing Trump, titled Our Cartoon President. Incredibly, leftists have hijacked the airwaves and everywhere people gather to exploit as platforms to spread their vitriolic, insane hatred for Trump. Outrageously, TV coverage of the Olympics included leftist hatred for the Trump administration.

Despite the shocking discovery that leftist policies probably played a role in the deaths of 17 kids in the Florida school shooting, leftists continue puppet-mastering students to blame Trump.

Even Sunday worship has been hijacked by leftists to trash Trump. My brother asked the pastor of his all black church to please stop including a lie-filled Democrat-talking-points rant about Trump in his sermons.

Leftist disrespect and venomous hatred for President Trump is unprecedented, over the top, and boldly spewed 24/7. I wondered, why?

I reached out to prominent conservatives and Republicans for their thoughts.Why Trump Is So Hated by Leftists


I think Trump is hated by the left because his ideology, his words and actions, are the exact opposite of the left’s ideology. He is not a “globalist,” but loves America, our homeland; he knows that we can’t continue being the world’s number-one giver if we are not safe and successful ourselves. He knows that capitalism, not communism, will feed the poor; capitalism makes everyone richer, while communism makes everyone equally poor. He knows that free enterprise and less government regulation will provide jobs and boost our economy, not socialist handouts and overregulation.

He knows that less unemployment and getting out of debt will save our nation much more than wasting time and money on things like the scientifically unproven climate change hoax and its hidden goal of controlling the masses. He believes in individual freedom and responsibility, not government control. He’s not a secularist (new word for atheist, according to Julia Sweeney’s TED talk), but a defender of religious liberty, including Christianity. He is protective of Americans and not protective of our enemies, some of whom sneak into our midst through unenforced immigration law.

He thinks all lives matter, not just black lives; he respects the police, firefighters, and military instead of fanning the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals flames of violent civil unrest and class and racial warfare. He is not a saint, and he doesn’t pretend to be. He believes in free speech, not political correctness. The left is confused; leftists don’t know how to respond to a politician who speaks from the heart, not from talking points. The left hates Trump because the Tea Party loves him.


Trump is hated the same way and for the same reason President Reagan was hated. He is a fighter, and he is moving a conservative agenda forward. The left did not like George W. Bush, but they did not hate him the way they hate Trump, because Trump believes in fighting and winning.


Why are the reprobates in both parties so averse to helping President Trump stabilize and protect what little of a future we have left? What is it that both political parties find so repulsive about protecting American citizens?

The answer is fairly easy to state, and more complex to explain in intricate detail. Ergo, I will simplify the explanation as much as possible. They are fighting President Trump because he is a threat to their “one-world government.”

President Trump’s victory in America has spawned a new generation of pro-nationalist leaders who refuse to be ruled by a heteronomous government that is handpicked in a wine- and cheese-filled room located in a hotel at some posh island retreat. Bush had great dreams for a North American-style European Union by implementing NAFTA, full amnesty, and open borders.

While we were marginally successful in stopping Bush, Obama destroyed any chance of making it happen because of his contemptible arrogance and his hedonistic wife, who viewed the American taxpayers as her American Express Card.

Notwithstanding, the bones of North America becoming the Western-type E.U. were still in place, and both parties knew that it was only a matter of time until they succeeded.

But then “Along Came Donald J. Trump.” Once again, the arrogance of the ruling elite thought We the People could be bullied and intimidated into doing as we were told. But this time, their schemes and machinations did not work because we saw in President Trump a man we could trust. And the power elite will never forgive President Trump nor will they forgive We the People for electing him.


As I explained in the run-up to the 2016 election here and here, I’ve always believed that Donald Trump is the Real Deal. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does or says. But there’s little question that the president is his own man. And that drives the Establishment crazy. The oligarchs want someone they can control. They rely on leveraged politicos to do their evil bidding, but Trump has given them no such foothold. So they use their Establishment-controlled media to foment hate against him. This fake news jihad is effective but will not stop Trump.


He fights!


Trump is hated not only by the left, but by the RINOs for the exact same reason: they can’t control him. They can’t intimidate or shame him as they do everyone else, and probably the most poignant and profound is that he believes in something greater than himself, than the state, than politics…and that is God.

I wish to thank these great patriots for their insightful input. Here’s why I believe that Trump is so hated by leftists.

Leftist hatred for Trump is rooted in their mission to undermine all things wholesome, godly, and good for America. Everything leftists do, in essence, gives the God of Christianity the middle finger. It is not coincidental that leftists hijack Christian symbols and institutions for their anti-God agenda.

For example: The rainbow was God’s promise to Noah to never again let floodwaters destroy all life. Homosexuals hijacked God’s rainbow to symbolize behavior God calls an abomination.

God created marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman.

Despite civil unions readily available to them, homosexuals successfully broke down marriage, resulting in every conceivable deviant configuration to eventually be legally declared marriage.

Trump in the White House is a miracle. Despite leftists’ 24-7 efforts to stop and destroy him, President Trump has remarkably implemented 64% of his Make-America-Great-Again agenda. Fasten your seat belts, leftists: Trump has only just begun. (Published with permission of the author, read more from Llyod Marcus HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This May Be the Dumbest Idea House Republicans Have Ever Had

House Democrats are ready to revolt against Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., if party leadership fails to deliver for the Democrats in the 2018 midterms. But Republicans? Republicans plan on sticking with the same failed leadership if they lose in the midterms.

Expectations from GOP lawmakers who spoke to The Hill Tuesday show that if Republicans blow their majority in November, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is in a good position to take the number one GOP leadership spot. It all hinges on whether or not Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., leaves Congress after the election.

“Hopefully in November, we’re talking about a third term for Speaker Ryan,” one House Republican told the Hill. “But if that’s not the case, I think Kevin’s the guy, and that comes from a more conservative member.”

Why is Kevin “the guy?” According to The Hill, if Republicans go back to being a minority party, McCarthy would need just a majority of the GOP conference to secure the minority leader job. His closest competition might be the number three Republican, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., but the Republicans who spoke under condition of anonymity say that while Scalise could win the speaker job if Ryan leaves and the GOP keeps its majority, it’s “McCathy’s to lose” in the minority. Many Republicans are in McCarthy’s debt after he’s crisscrossed the nation fundraising in their districts. The favors he’s owed, plus his good relationship with the president, would likely be enough to head off a challenge from a more conservative Republican.

“I think there will be a play from the right. But will it be the Freedom Caucus 30 or will it be a larger movement? And would Scalise lead it? I don’t know,” said another GOP lawmaker. “But if McCarthy shows strength and there’s no opening, then I think McCarthy stays on as leader.”

Keeping the current GOP leadership in the House after losing the majority under said leadership would be dumb. Really, really, dumb.

Why are Republicans in a position where they could lose their House majority in the first place? Because when the failures of Obamacare were the pressing issue on the minds of most Americans, Republican leaders put forward their own RINOcare bill that broke their promise to repeal Obamacare. Because when it came time to cut taxes, bungled messaging from House Republicans and a flawed bill convinced too many Americans that their taxes were going up. Because when it comes to advancing the Trump immigration agenda and securing the border, leaders like McCarthy are dragging their feet at the behest of open-borders, big-agriculture businesses.

Republicans aren’t keeping their promises to voters.

What is the purpose of Republican leadership? The idea is to lead, right? The point is to make sure that Republicans make their best effort to persuade voters to vote for the GOP — and then keep the promises they make to voters after they are elected. And the goal is to keep getting elected, right?

Well, if Republicans aren’t keeping the promises they made to voters, and if voters punish them for it in 2018, how could it possibly make sense to keep the same leadership team if the party fails under that leadership?

If Republicans lose their House majority, they should drop McCarthy along with the entire leadership team and start from scratch, rebuilding the the conservative agenda that put them in power in the first place. (For more from the author of “This May Be the Dumbest Idea House Republicans Have Ever Had” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In America, Mass Murder Academy Is Always in Session

Gun control partisans sometimes claim that rampage shootings are a uniquely American affliction, caused by our failure to imitate other countries’ gun policies. It’s true that other countries have fewer school shootings than we have. But uninformed anti-gun Americans overstate their case.

There have been massacres in Germany, Scotland, Canada, Brazil, the Soviet Union, China, Japan and South Korea. And the foreign countries do not rely exclusively on gun policy to prevent gun violence in their schools.

For example, rating by the Ministry of Justice is mandatory for all video games released in Brazil. As a result of that prospect of scrutiny and accountability, online game stores do not sell their most violent and harmful games in the Brazilian market.

The Brazilian government outlawed Mortal Kombat, Postal, Carmageddon, Requiem, Blood and other violent first-person shooter games in 1999 after a 24-year-old medical student killed several people at a cinema, re-enacting a bloody Duke Nukem video game scenario.

Sega gained a competitive advantage over Nintendo in the U.S. market by allowing a bloodier, more brutal version of the Mortal Kombat game. But Sega canceled release of that most inhumane version in Spain, where the government was unlikely to tolerate it.

South Korea and Australia banned the Mortal Kombat game altogether.

Germans passed the Children and Young Persons Protection Act in response to the Erfurt Massacre of 2002, in which an expelled 19-year-old student killed 16 at his high school.

It was already illegal to provide content on how to commit a crime, and to glorify or trivialize violence. But the new law created an age-based system for listing and restricting video games that are harmful to youth, whether due to violence or a dark and threatening atmosphere.

American game publishers and developers began to release edited versions of their games in the German market in order to avoid a restrictive rating that would depress sales. Microsoft opted not to release its third-person shooter Gears of War game in the German market, and did not initially submit to the rating system.

Gears of War was nevertheless imported into Germany by travelers. The government then revised its system to presume that unrated imported video games deserve the most severe restrictions. The first two iterations of Gears of War were added to the restricted “index” of media harmful to youth.

German prosecutors enforced the index, and youth welfare agencies brought violations to their attention. On the third phase, Microsoft finally relented and submitted to the German rating system.

Americans have attempted to counter the influence of toxic entertainment media here, too, but have been unable to overcome elite opposition in Congress, the courts and the mainstream media.

After the Columbine High School massacre, President Bill Clinton denounced “video games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and Doom, the very game played obsessively by the two young men who ended so many lives at [Columbine].”

“What does it do to children, who see thousands of acts of violence on television,” asked Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001, “who are conditioned by video games to do things that are abhorrent to the human spirit?”

Manufacturers should “understand that there’s a certain responsibility in the development of video games,” he said.

Ashcroft said boys who massacred fellow students at Columbine (Colorado) and Heath (Kentucky) watched violent video games before their crimes. The Kentucky murderer learned tactical shooting skills in video games and was a better shot than most police officers, according to the Attorney General.

Industry spokesmen were dismissive of the idea that video games condition players to commit violence or that they can hone players’ marksmanship. Although everybody seems to agree that great art and literature can inspire us, many who enjoy or profit from the bad stuff claim to doubt that it’s harmful.

Yet an Australian university experiment studied participants who played Mortal Kombat and found that “playing violent video games leads players to see themselves, and their opponents, as lacking in core human qualities such as warmth, open-mindedness and intelligence.”

Simulated violence can lead to actual violence, wrote a University of Missouri psychology professor, because “to the extent that a player learns to make specific or violent responses in the context of the game, those same skills could transfer to scenarios outside the game, potentially increasing aggression in non-gaming situations.”

Novelist Stephen King, a former classroom teacher, was more sensitive than video game entrepreneurs to the fact that art and entertainment can rehearse adolescent violence. He was appalled to learn that the Kentucky shooter had a copy of King’s rampage novel, Rage, in his school locker. King asked his publisher to let it go out of print.

The U.S. courts have sided with the publishers against parents. When three parents of Heath High School shooting victims sued, their claim that media violence inspired the shootings got as far as the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before it was was dismissed in 2002.

It’s “simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom,” that Court held. I don’t know enough about law to express an opinion on the legal merits of that holding. But it was certainly a dagger through the heart of any prospect of accountability for those who get rich degrading and destabilizing adolescent character, at the cost of great human suffering.

Even our video game industry’s rating system is a sham. The Video Game Decency Act of 2006 was an attack on the obvious corruption of our system, which relies on voluntary disclosure by publishers. It would treat publishers’ false descriptions of their video game content as “unfair or deceptive acts affecting interstate commerce” under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It died in committee. In other words, it was never even brought to the House floor for a vote.

Thus parents have no recourse against entertainment media corporations when their children fall in a media-inspired hail of bullets, and they have no reliable, authoritative rating system to guide them in shielding their own adolescents from material that might deform their character.

“A child growing up in America today witnesses 16,000 murders,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre said after the Sandy Hook massacre, “and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”

The suppression of American gun ownership will not reduce rampage shootings. When will we join the rest of the civilized world in confronting the loathsome commercial media, mostly American, that invades our families to entice and train our most troubled adolescents to slaughter classmates and teachers?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Can END the Tyranny of the Courts TOMORROW

No, the Constitution doesn’t vest the lower courts with the power to immediately shut down our sovereignty. Congress has complete control over courts’ subjects of jurisdiction, as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This was made evident by a pair of high court opinions issued this week. These cases were relatively low-profile, but if Congress were paying attention, these cases should provide a blueprint for dealing with the political tyranny from the lower courts.

Tuesday, the Washington Times published an analysis of a trend we’ve been observing here for quite some time: How district judges have illegally seized the weapon of nationwide injunctions to place a national, illegal veto on every practice, tradition, law, and policy under the sun. The article quotes from legal scholars noting that this trend is very new and it has expanded the role of a court from settling disputes between two plaintiffs to essentially vetoing and determining national policy.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: Leftist organizations can take any executive action and find a radical district judge within a liberal circuit to enjoin the entire practice nationwide and automatically win the appeal. They get to determine where to litigate any issue that is national in scope and will never take it to a circuit where they will lose. Thus, none of the good judges Trump is appointing in places like the Fifth and Eight Circuits will ever hear these cases. The Left wins every time, and there is never a circuit split, so the Supreme Court takes up appeals slowly, if ever. This is how we have the most extreme judges shutting down national policy and violating Supreme Court precedent and rarely being rebuked before their edicts do irreversible damage to our country. It also has the effect of swaying public opinion against a policy, because voters are treated to constant headlines of “Trump’s policy struck down,” or “Another Trump action ruled unconstitutional,” even though the Supreme Court justices would eventually overturn it if the case actually came before them.

Congress could simply clarify, in the Rules Enabling Act governing the administrative procedures of the courts, that the courts lack any power to issue nationwide injunctions beyond the individual plaintiff. Dave Brat’s bill does just that.

But if members of Congress were paying attention to the Supreme Court this week, particularly to Justice Thomas, they would see that their power over the courts is much more expansive than they think.

Ideally, the plain language of Article III Sec. II, along with its robust history, should be enough for Congress to remember that it has the power to determine any subject-matter jurisdiction and rules of standing before a federal court. But we all know that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land; the Supreme Court is. So, let’s review what the Supreme Court said this week.

Patchak v. Zinke

Patchak v. Zinke was a very complex multi-tiered litigation by a Michigan private landowner who sued the interior secretary for taking over neighboring lands into a trust so that an Indian tribe could build a casino. The details of the underlying case are not important for our purposes. What is relevant is that after the first round of litigation over whether the plaintiff had standing, Congress passed legislation kicking all federal courts out of this arcane issue, something we have long called for on important political issues. In 2014, Congress passed the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which stated that any legal action “relating to the land [in question] shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.” Thus, Congress categorically blocked all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating any claims about this land.

On Tuesday, the high court released an opinion, 7-2 in judgement and 6-3 on the merits, in favor of the act of Congress. The majority ruled that Congress can categorically strip the courts of any jurisdiction over a particular subject, even when it is clearly intended to influence the outcome of only one particular case that is already in the process of adjudication. All nine justices affirmed the plenary power of Congress to strip jurisdiction over entire categories of subject matter from the courts. The only disagreement was whether Congress can use jurisdiction-stripping to reverse a specific case that is already pending in court. Justices Roberts and Gorsuch dissented because they felt this law went too far and was tantamount to actually engaging in the judicial power. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the rationale of the dissent but sided with the majority in upholding the act of Congress for a technical reason. Yet the six other justices were clear that even in this case, Congress was exercising its legislative authority over the judiciary, not actually ruling in favor of a particular plaintiff, even if indirectly that is the outcome and even the intent of Congress.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas observed:

Congress generally does not infringe the judicial power when it strips jurisdiction because, with limited exceptions, a congressional grant of jurisdiction is a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power.

And more specifically to this case:

[T]he legislative power is the power to make law, and Congress can make laws that apply retroactively to pending lawsuits, even when it effectively ensures that one side wins.

In other words, while Congress can’t exercise the judicial power (“In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins,” for example), the legislature has the power to exercise full control over the judicial branch of government. Contrary to what you hear in the political class, the judiciary is not supreme or even equal, at least not in the traditional sense. And if Congress exercises its legislative powers and Art. III Sec. II powers to make “exceptions and regulations” to the jurisdiction of the courts, then courts cannot rule on that particular matter.

Specifically related to immigration, there already are existing statutes that do just that, yet they need to be asserted more clearly and expanded. The Department of Justice won’t even assert them in litigation. Which brings me to the next major opinion from this week.

Jennings v. Rodriguez

In 2013, an extreme district judge in California gave standing to a criminal alien going through deportation proceedings to sue on behalf of all detained aliens and demand bond hearings. The district judge and the Ninth Circuit essentially ruled that criminal aliens (whom even Obama wanted to deport) must be given bond hearings every six months to be released into our communities, even though they are the consummate flight risk. They, of course, applied a nationwide injunction.

Thankfully, after this injunction hampered for years our interior enforcement and turned America into a dumping ground, we got relief from the Supreme Court, which voted 5-3 (Justice Kagan had to recuse) to remand the case back to the Ninth Circuit.

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, noting that the courts should never have granted standing to this alien to begin with and that the case should immediately be dismissed, not just remanded. Existing law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9), 1226(c)) already kicks the courts out of this case altogether, in their opinion. Thomas seemed bewildered that the DOJ didn’t even assert this argument. This is a point I’ve made, that the DOJ didn’t assert a similar jurisdiction-stripping provision (§1201(h)(i)) against litigation pertaining to denial of visas as part of the immigration pause executive order.

Justice Alito, writing for the plurality, disagreed on technical grounds because he read the statute differently, but it is clear that five justices believe Congress clearly has the authority to kick the courts completely out of most immigration litigation as long as the statute does so clearly.

The three liberals, of course, made the argument that denying bail to criminal aliens in deportation proceedings would violate the Constitution (their version of it), and as such, Congress could not pass a law sidelining them from such litigation. But we already knew they would say that. However, even under their system, although bail against indefinite detention without deportation is a constitutional right, there is no right to immigrate or not to be deported, and there is no reason Congress cannot strip the courts of the power to adjudicate such cases.

It is more clear than ever now that in cases pertaining to life, marriage, immigration, election law, religious monuments, and religious liberty, five justices should easily agree that Congress can certainly prospectively strip the courts of jurisdiction when the statute is not aimed exclusively at a particular pending case as a means of siding with one party. And most certainly Congress can do so just for the lower courts, which have posed the most serious problems for our country. Even the four most liberal justices, who assert that Congress can’t strip the Supreme Court of power to hear an appeal on what they deem is a constitutional right, must agree that since Congress could abolish the lower courts altogether, Congress can strip the lower courts of jurisdiction while leaving an avenue to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

So why is almost nobody in Congress or at the White House demanding legislation that says, in effect, “any legal action relating to litigation against a deportation or the granting of affirmative rights to illegal aliens shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed”? Or on life and Christian memorials?

The sad thing is that so many members of Congress are ignorant about the powers of their own branch of government. Thus, we will continue to be ruled by unelected federal judges who serve for life. (For more from the author of “Congress Can END the Tyranny of the Courts TOMORROW” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.