New Zealand’s Knee-Jerk Gun Ban Is EXACTLY Why We Have the Second Amendment

Thank goodness we have the Second Amendment. I say that a lot, but I’m especially grateful after seeing the latest news out of New Zealand.

Less than a week after the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand has moved to ban and confiscate semi-automatic long guns.

The bill bans so-called “military style semi-automatic firearms,” which according to the bill are any rifle or shotgun that accepts a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. But .22 and smaller-caliber arms are exempt, so everybody’s varmint guns are safe.

And, according to reports, the legal owners of now-illegal hardware will be entitled to “fair and reasonable” compensation through a buyback program that’s expected to cost a couple hundred million dollars.

How generous.

Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., says that we “must follow New Zealand’s lead.”

This is exactly why we have the Second Amendment. Whatever government currently in power in the U.S. cannot push through a ban like this or anything close to it because of our constitutional protection of the right to bear arms.

Gun bans like this frequently follow on the heels of a heinous violent crime, when people are thinking least clearly about the issue. We don’t think clearly when we’re dealing with grief and trauma. That’s just a fact. And just as it’s common for individuals to make sweeping, ill-advised life changes in the wake of personal tragedies, it’s possible for large groups of people to do ill-advised things in the wake of public tragedies, like give up their ability to defend themselves.

That’s what happened with Britain’s big gun ban in the 1990s, the same with Australia, and the same now with New Zealand. And it’s the exact tactic the anti-gunners in this country employ when they immediately try to use human suffering to push for more gun control. It took New Zealand less than a week to enact this gun-grab.

In response, you have folks like the New York Time’s token alleged conservative Bret Stephens, who piggybacks on tragedy to call to repeal the Second Amendment so that we can pass more gun control. Without 2A, a Democrat-controlled Congress could probably beat New Zealand’s time at passing a gun ban in the future.

That’s just one thing that’s so great about having a Constitution that’s hard to change by design and has language specifically protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Every human being is born with the intrinsic right to defend themselves. Period. Our Founders knew this and wisely put a backstop in place that keeps reactionary impulses from trampling over that right.

Knee-jerk gun ban proposals in reaction to horrible events don’t get to use an express lane. Activists typically have to spend a lot of time convincing a lot of people of their position if they really want to change the document. That’s a feature, not a bug.

Because, for the record, once again: Gun bans only affect the law-abiding; the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is the ability to fire back; and the warm and fuzzy feeling people might get from passing new gun control laws won’t stop a bullet when a wicked person breaks them. (For more from the author of “New Zealand’s Knee-Jerk Gun Ban Is EXACTLY Why We Have the Second Amendment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

How Long Will Media Use SPLC’s Garbage Hate List to Smear People?

Like other mainstream publications, Roll Call regularly stoops to citing the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for labeling “hate” groups. One recent such article was titled “Among the ‘Jewish groups’ Trump cites, one with neo-Nazi ties.” The author had worked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and this was clearly part of Democrats’ effort to cover Pelosi and derail criticisms of Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitism.

I work with both of the “hate” groups named in the article, the Center for Security Policy and ACT for America. SPLC’s characterization of them is fraudulent, like most of what it does. It is thus little surprise to anyone who knows anything that SPLC recently jettisoned founder Morris Dees over accusations of racism and sexual assault.

Despite years of takedowns of SPLC’s business model from both sides of the aisle, major media companies such as Amazon, PayPal, Twitter, the Washington Post, Facebook, Google, The New York Times, and more cite them and use their determinations for business decisions such as Amazon’s nonprofit donations program. When will this ever end? How many lawsuits and lies will it take?

The SPLC’s Hate Group Definitions Are Garbage

ACT does not now, nor did it ever have, ties to any “neo-Nazi.” Both ACT and the Center are long-established organizations whose leaders and scholars seek to inform and warn America about the subversive goals of Islamic radical groups in the United States, not everyday Muslims. Everyday Muslims are often as much the victims as others.

Most of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are either Muslim Brotherhood (MB) fronts or tied to the Deobandi movement of South Asia (which also has ties to MB). Both are aggressive, subversive organizations that engage in terrorism throughout the world.

In the United States they generally use subversion as a more effective strategy, and have insinuated their allies and agendas into the U.S. government, media, Hollywood, public schools and universities. This is helping encourage the recent rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.

They also engage in terrorism. The 2015 San Bernardino, California attack that killed 14 and wounded 22 was carried out by followers of Deobandi. Terrorists of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas attack and murder Israeli Jews and even Arabs on an almost daily basis in the West Bank, and—note to border wall opponents—in Israel proper before Israel built its wall.

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose U.S. front is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Why doesn’t SPLC mention CAIR?

CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, and only avoided trouble because the Obama Justice Department under Eric Holder discontinued prosecutions of organizations named in the case. CAIR is also a subversive wrecking bar against the U.S. Constitution, conducting nonstop lawfare against America. CAIR’s Chicago branch—one of 27 in the United States—brags a tally of more than 5,200 lawsuits against U.S. governments.

Smearing People Is Big Business

Many of the “hate” groups on SPLC’s list are simply those it disagrees with politically. Rather than engage in legitimate debate, the SPLC seeks to destroy its political enemies with defamatory smear tactics. The Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin advocated this strategy, saying, “We must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion and scorn among the working class toward those who disagree with us.”

Frankfurt School Communist Herbert Marcuse developed that idea into what came to be known as “partisan tolerance”: tolerance only of leftist ideas, individuals, and groups, and a wholesale effort to discredit and silence opponents. Marcuse and other Communists worked closely for years with SPLC co-founder Julian Bond.

The SPLC regularly consorts with Communist organizations. In his pamphlet, “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky advocated the tactic of accusing opponents of hate, but SPLC was the first to institutionalize it. It has since spread far and wide, in media, universities, Hollywood, and in mindless chants of leftist protesters. Apparently now it reaches even into the editorial staff of Roll Call.

The SPLC never criticizes even the vilest leftist groups. For example, Antifa, which uses violence and increasingly expresses vitriolic, obscenity-laced hate and anti-Semitism, earns no criticism or “hate” designation from SPLC. Instead, the SPLC defends groups like Antifa against the big, bad Proud Boys!

When Occupy Wall Street Black Bloc activists attempted to bomb a bridge in Ohio and blow up the GOP convention in 2012, SPLC was asked why Black Bloc was not listed among its “hate” groups. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left” was the lame response.

The oldest Muslim Brotherhood front is the Muslim Students Association. It is responsible (along with the left) for the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It never gets a mention by the SPLC.

There are countless other examples. The SPLC has singled out and destroyed numerous individuals and organizations using these smear tactics. It is a form of political terrorism.

SPLC’s Targets Have Begun to Fight Back

SPLC lost a $3.5 million lawsuit last year against Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim the SPLC labeled an “extremist,” because he spoke out against Islamic extremism and terrorism. You literally can’t make this stuff up.

Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considered suing the SPLC for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time. Thousands more could join in. It should be stripped of its 501(c)3 “nonpartisan” tax-exempt status and sued into penury. A dedicated prosecutor could easily make a claim that they are a continuing criminal enterprise and seize their assets under racketeering statutes.

The SPLC shows its extreme partisanship every day. Even liberals like Dana Milbank, Alexander Cockburn, and Stephen Bright have labeled the SPLC a fraud. It spends more than 20 percent of its income on fundraising and has amassed almost half a billion dollars in assets, some of which is squirreled away in overseas accounts.

Less than half of its revenues last year were needed to cover expenses, while its overtly socialist executives earn very capitalist salaries, and live like kings. Must be nice to be such conscience-free hypocrites.

Media Act as Megaphones for SPLC Smears

The Roll Call article cast both ACT and the Center as “hawks” on national defense, as if that were somehow further evidence of bigotry or some other evil. That is idiotic, but “hawks” isn’t even applicable.

The Center for Security Policy staff, for example, includes former CIA officers, military and law enforcement specialists, and other national defense experts. These people take positions based on a careful evaluation of each situation, not some knee jerk “hawk” response to everything. The only knee-jerk reactions seem to be coming from the pages of Roll Call and other mainstream outlets that continue to give the SPLC credibility, like Facebook and The New York Times.

It is tragic that large outlets like these have joined the ranks of leftist smear merchants who have reduced political discourse in the United States to little more than infantile name-calling. The SPLC is one of the nastiest hate groups on the planet. It deliberately provokes division and anger in America on a daily basis to advance its extreme left agenda and rake in millions in donations.

Roll Call, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the others need to drop the SPLC as a consultant on “hate” groups, but since they are all of the same stripe, they probably won’t. (For more from the author of “How Long Will Media Use SPLC’s Garbage Hate List to Smear People?” please click HERE)

_________________________________________________________

James Simpson is an economist, author and investigative journalist. His latest book is “The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.” Follow Jim on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

It’s Not About Building a Wall. It’s About Building a Will

On Wednesday, President Trump, acting in response to the fear that Boeing 737 MAX planes may be unsafe to fly due to two similar accidents, issued an emergency order through the FAA administrator to ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 from flying in and out of our country. No questions were asked. Yet almost a year into an invasion of unimaginable security, cultural, health care, and fiscal concerns, we are told that unless there are 60 votes in the Senate and every district judge agrees – something that will never happen even after Republicans win in 2020 – there is nothing Trump can do with his executive and delegated authority to grind all illegal immigration to a halt. This is simply not true. It’s time to build the will, even more than the wall.

The open-borders movement began with the premise that we must grant amnesty to those who successfully evaded deportation for 20 years and have put down roots here. However, nobody throughout our history, even recent history, suggested that we sit idly and import millions of new illegal aliens and refuse to deport a single person among those who just come in and abscond from their court appearances. Yet that is what’s happening now, and we are all acting as if we need 91 district courts and 60 senators in order to protect our country.

It’s all a matter of will.

We have never had such a severe and blatant invasion through migration last this long without the president implementing a plan to shut it down. During the Mariel boatlifts of Cubans in 1980, the Nicaraguan influx into Texas in 1989, the Haitian boat migration in the early 1990s, and even the first Central American surge under Obama in 2014, the various presidents eventually took action to shut down the flow, even without an immediate legislative fix. After two months of Cuban boatlifts in May and June 1980, totaling more than 100,000 aliens, the flow was shut off to a trickle and eventually ended by the fall. In 1989, after tens of thousands of Nicaraguans came in and demanded asylum, a “rocket docket” was set up in tent cities in south Texas to immediately adjudicate their cases and ship them out.

During the Haitian sea migration in the early 1990s, Presidents Bush and Clinton sent out the Coast Guard to prevent them from landing and returned them home immediately. In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993), a case Chief Justice Roberts just referenced in his favorable opinion to Trump in the travel ban case, the Supreme Court made it clear that presidential power to exclude all aliens at the border overrides even asylum requests.

Yet here we are today with the invasion now so bad that the cartels and smugglers have created a transport system to streamline more migration than ever and incentivize more Central Americans to come without fear of a harsh journey. The Washington Post reports that Mexican smugglers have now set up a “conveyor belt system” of express buses “to minimize overhead and maximize capacity,” creating the biggest incentives to come in the largest numbers. We have never had such an orchestrated invasion by so many terrible human beings involved with violent cartels taking advantage of people on both sides of the border so efficiently.

The numbers have been much greater than any previous sudden influx of asylum seekers, and it has been going on much longer without any effort to shut it down. If we add the number of family units and unaccompanied children who came here from the Central American countries since 2014, the tally is approaching one million. Almost none of them have been deported except for the brief period when Obama was shutting off the first wave in 2014. Now, there is no bottom in sight to this insanity if the president doesn’t set one now.

While some might not view hundreds of thousands of impoverished, unassimilable migrants as an invasion, the weaponizing of migration by the organizers of these caravans is certainly making this an invasion, just like Castro did when he weaponized migration against us with the Mariel boatlift. Both in terms of the anti-American organizers of the caravans and the Mexican cartels who use the migrants as distractions to get in dangerous criminals and drugs, this is definitely an orchestrated event to take advantage of poor migrants to harm America. In some ways, the effects are more irreversible than those of a traditional invasion.

If Boeing, which is directly the subject of Trump’s FAA order, sued in a district court and a forum-shopped judge put an injunction on the order, would this administration allow these planes to fly? Now imagine a judge usurping the power to grant standing to foreign caravans or third-party groups representing them. No other president in any other era would allow this to go on.

The language of the relevant statute (section 212(f) of the INA) is as clear as can be:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump can halt all immigration and cross-border commerce for any reason if he determines it’s in the national interest. This is no weaker and in fact is much stronger than the authorizing statute to ground planes:

When the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is of the opinion that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, the Administrator, on the initiative of the Administrator or on complaint, may prescribe regulations and issue orders immediately to meet the emergency, with or without notice and without regard to this part and subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. [49 U.S. Code § 46105]

It’s time for the president to completely halt all acceptance of any credible fear claims at our border and immediately turn back anyone coming here. The Constitution and statute are on Trump’s side.

It’s also time for the administration to play diplomatic hardball with Mexico. NAFTA should be renegotiated again with the top priority focused not on trade issues but over Mexico holding any Central American migrants. The reality is that this move, if sustained, would not need to continue indefinitely, because the Central Americans will stop coming once they know they can’t come to the United States. They have no interest in flooding Mexico as an endpoint. Those who manage to get in anyway should be sent to tent cities with a “rocket docket” of immigration judges at the front lines, as we did during past migration influxes.

Trump has no choice but to assert commonsense powers already upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. What is he waiting for? Nothing will change with this election, even in the best-case scenario. Republicans, and certainly not conservatives, will not secure 60 votes in the Senate, even if they win back control of the House and Trump is re-elected. This invasion will continue to spiral out of control, yet pigs will fly before Congress will act. And as I’ve noted before, passing new laws won’t even help anyway, because the judicial-supremacy courts are asserting that Trump can’t follow existing laws of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Congress can never write a statute more unambiguous and granting the president more unconditional power to shut off even legal immigration than 212(f).

We either have the will to be a sovereign nation or we don’t. Everything else is just an excuse and a distraction. (For more from the author of “It’s Not About Building a Wall. It’s About Building a Will” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Levin: ‘There Is Absolutely No Legitimate, Historical, or Constitutional Basis to Impeach This President’

Tuesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin ripped into all the “loose talk” about impeaching President Trump being thrown around by politicians and media figures.

Levin took issue with the seemingly common idea that impeachment is merely a political process. “It’s not a criminal process; we know that, but it’s not a purely political process, either,” Levin explained. “It is a constitutional process.”

“This loose talk about impeachment, the inability of some conservatives to effectively engage, is troubling,” Levin added.

“There is absolutely no legitimate, historical, or constitutional basis to impeach this president,” Levin concluded, “yet they keep throwing the word around.”

Levin also explained the nature of impeachment as the Founders understood it, why president Bill Clinton was impeached, and what to really expect when special counsel Robert Mueller releases the findings of his investigation.

Listen:

(For more from the author of “Levin: ‘There Is Absolutely No Legitimate, Historical, or Constitutional Basis to Impeach This President'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.

Four years ago, I wrote about my decision to live as a woman in The New York Times, writing that I had wanted to live “authentically as the woman that I have always been,” and had “effectively traded my white male privilege to become one of America’s most hated minorities.”

Three years ago, I decided that I was neither male nor female, but nonbinary—and made headlines after an Oregon judge agreed to let me identify as a third sex, not male or female.

Now, I want to live again as the man that I am.

I’m one of the lucky ones. Despite participating in medical transgenderism for six years, my body is still intact. Most people who desist from transgender identities after gender changes can’t say the same.

But that’s not to say I got off scot-free. My psyche is eternally scarred, and I’ve got a host of health issues from the grand medical experiment.

Here’s how things began.

After convincing myself that I was a woman during a severe mental health crisis, I visited a licensed nurse practitioner in early 2013 and asked for a hormone prescription. “If you don’t give me the drugs, I’ll buy them off the internet,” I threatened.

Although she’d never met me before, the nurse phoned in a prescription for 2 mg of oral estrogen and 200 mg of Spironolactone that very same day.

The nurse practitioner ignored that I have chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, having previously served in the military for almost 18 years. All of my doctors agree on that. Others believe that I have bipolar disorder and possibly borderline personality disorder.

I should have been stopped, but out-of-control, transgender activism had made the nurse practitioner too scared to say no.

I’d learned how to become a female from online medical documents at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital website.

After I began consuming the cross-sex hormones, I started therapy at a gender clinic in Pittsburgh so that I could get people to sign off on the transgender surgeries I planned to have.

All I needed to do was switch over my hormone operating fuel and get my penis turned into a vagina. Then I’d be the same as any other woman. That’s the fantasy the transgender community sold me. It’s the lie I bought into and believed.

Only one therapist tried to stop me from crawling into this smoking rabbit hole. When she did, I not only fired her, I filed a formal complaint against her. “She’s a gatekeeper,” the trans community said.

Professional stigmatisms against “conversion therapy” had made it impossible for the therapist to question my motives for wanting to change my sex.

The “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (Fifth Edition) says one of the traits of gender dysphoria is believing that you possess the stereotypical feelings of the opposite sex. I felt that about myself, but yet no therapist discussed it with me.

Two weeks hadn’t passed before I found a replacement therapist. The new one quickly affirmed my identity as a woman. I was back on the road to getting vaginoplasty.

There’s abundant online literature informing transgender people that their sex change isn’t real. But when a licensed medical doctor writes you a letter essentially stating that you were born in the wrong body and a government agency or court of law validates that delusion, you become damaged and confused. I certainly did.

Painful Roots

My trauma history resembles a ride down the Highway of Death during the first Gulf War.

As a child, I was sexually abused by a male relative. My parents severely beat me. At this point, I’ve been exposed to so much violence and had so many close calls that I don’t know how to explain why I’m still alive. Nor do I know how to mentally process some of the things I’ve seen and experienced.

Dr. Ray Blanchard has an unpopular theory that explains why someone like me may have been drawn to transgenderism. He claims there are two types of transgender women: homosexuals that are attracted to men, and men who are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as females.

It’s a tough thing to admit, but I belong to the latter group. We are classified as having autogynephilia.

After having watched pornography for years while in the Army and being married to a woman who resisted my demands to become the ideal female, I became that female instead. At least in my head.

While autogynephilia was my motivation to become a woman, gender stereotypes were my means of implementation. I believed wearing a long wig, dresses, heels, and makeup would make me a woman.

Feminists begged to differ on that. They rejected me for conforming to female stereotypes. But as a new member of the transgender community, I beat up on them too. The women who become men don’t fight the transgender community’s wars. The men in dresses do.

Medical Malpractice

The best thing that could have happened would have been for someone to order intensive therapy. That would have protected me from my inclination to cross-dress and my risky sexual transgressions, of which there were many.

Instead, quacks in the medical community hid me in the women’s bathroom with people’s wives and daughters. “Your gender identity is female,” these alleged professionals said.

The medical community is so afraid of the trans community that they’re now afraid to give someone Blanchard’s diagnosis. Trans men are winning in medicine, and they’ve won the battle for language.

Think of the word “transvestite.” They’ve succeeded in making it a vulgar word, even though it just means men dressing like women. People are no longer allowed to tell the truth about men like me. Everyone now has to call us transgender instead.

The diagnostic code in my records at the VA should read Transvestic Disorder (302.3). Instead, the novel theories of Judith Butler and Anne Fausto-Sterling have been used to cover up the truths written about by Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, and Alice Dreger.

I confess to having been motivated by autogynephilia during all of this. Blanchard was right.

Trauma, hypersexuality owing to childhood sexual abuse, and autogynephilia are all supposed to be red flags for those involved in the medical arts of psychology, psychiatry, and physical medicine—yet nobody except for the one therapist in Pittsburgh ever tried to stop me from changing my sex. They just kept helping me to harm myself.

Escaping to ‘Nonbinary’

Three years into my gender change from male to female, I looked hard into the mirror one day. When I did, the facade of femininity and womanhood crumbled.

Despite having taken or been injected with every hormone and antiandrogen concoction in the VA’s medical arsenal, I didn’t look anything like a female. People on the street agreed. Their harsh stares reflected the reality behind my fraudulent existence as a woman. Biological sex is immutable.

It took three years for that reality to set in with me.

When the fantasy of being a woman came to an end, I asked two of my doctors to allow me to become nonbinary instead of female to bail me out. Both readily agreed.

After pumping me full of hormones—the equivalent of 20 birth control pills per day—they each wrote a sex change letter. The two weren’t just bailing me out. They were getting themselves off the hook for my failed sex change. One worked at the VA. The other worked at Oregon Health & Science University.

To escape the delusion of having become a woman, I did something completely unprecedented in American history. In 2016, I convinced an Oregon judge to declare my sex to be nonbinary—neither male nor female.

In my psychotic mind, I had restored the mythical third sex to North America. And I became the first legally recognized nonbinary person in the country.

Celebrity Status

The landmark court decision catapulted me to instant fame within the LGBT community. For 10 nonstop days afterward, the media didn’t let me sleep. Reporters hung out in my Facebook feed, journalists clung to my every word, and a Portland television station beamed my wife and I into living rooms in the United Kingdom.

Becoming a woman had gotten me into The New York Times. Convincing a judge that my sex was nonbinary got my photos and story into publications around the world.

Then, before the judge’s ink had even dried on my Oregon sex change court order, a Washington, D.C.-based LGBT legal aid organization contacted me. “We want to help you change your birth certificate,” they offered.

Within months, I scored another historic win after the Department of Vital Records issued me a brand new birth certificate from Washington, D.C., where I was born. A local group called Whitman-Walker Health had gotten my sex designation on my birth certificate switched to “unknown.” It was the first time in D.C. history a birth certificate had been printed with a sex marker other than male or female.

Another transgender legal aid organization jumped on the Jamie Shupe bandwagon, too. Lambda Legal used my nonbinary court order to help convince a Colorado federal judge to order the State Department to issue a passport with an X marker (meaning nonbinary) to a separate plaintiff named Dana Zzyym.

LGBT organizations helping me to screw up my life had become a common theme. During my prior sex change to female, the New York-based Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund had gotten my name legally changed. I didn’t like being named after the uncle who’d molested me. Instead of getting me therapy for that, they got me a new name.

A Pennsylvania judge didn’t question the name change, either. Wanting to help a transgender person, she had not only changed my name, but at my request she also sealed the court order, allowing me to skip out on a ton of debt I owed because of a failed home purchase and begin my new life as a woman. Instead of merging my file, two of the three credit bureaus issued me a brand new line of credit.

Walking Away From Fiction

It wasn’t until I came out against the sterilization and mutilation of gender-confused children and transgender military service members in 2017 that LGBT organizations stopped helping me. Most of the media retreated with them.

Overnight, I went from being a liberal media darling to a conservative pariah.

Both groups quickly began to realize that the transgender community had a runaway on their hands. Their solution was to completely ignore me and what my story had become. They also stopped acknowledging that I was behind the nonbinary option that now exists in 11 states.

The truth is that my sex change to nonbinary was a medical and scientific fraud. Consider the fact that before the historic court hearing occurred, my lawyer informed me that the judge had a transgender child.

Sure enough, the morning of my brief court hearing, the judge didn’t ask me a single question. Nor did this officer of the court demand to see any medical evidence alleging that I was born something magical. Within minutes, the judge just signed off on the court order.

I do not have any disorders of sexual development. All of my sexual confusion was in my head. I should have been treated. Instead, at every step, doctors, judges, and advocacy groups indulged my fiction.

The carnage that came from my court victory is just as precedent-setting as the decision itself. The judge’s order led to millions of taxpayer dollars being spent to put an X marker on driver’s licenses in 11 states so far. You can now become male, female, or nonbinary in all of them.

In my opinion, the judge in my case should have recused herself. In doing so, she would have spared me the ordeal still yet to come. She also would have saved me from having to bear the weight of the big secret behind my win.

I now believe that she wasn’t just validating my transgender identity. She was advancing her child’s transgender identity, too.

A sensible magistrate would have politely told me no and refused to sign such an outlandish legal request. “Gender is just a concept. Biological sex defines all of us,” that person would have said.

In January 2019, unable to advance the fraud for another single day, I reclaimed my male birth sex. The weight of the lie on my conscience was heavier than the value of the fame I’d gained from participating in this elaborate swindle.

Two fake gender identities couldn’t hide the truth of my biological reality. There is no third gender or third sex. Like me, intersex people are either male or female. Their condition is the result of a disorder of sexual development, and they need help and compassion.

I played my part in pushing forward this grand illusion. I’m not the victim here. My wife, daughter, and the American taxpayers are—they are the real victims. (For more from the author of “I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Totalitarian Impulse in Intellectual Fraud

When we really want to win an argument in America, we claim that science is on our side. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t, and so there is a potent and lucrative expert witness industry in our court system, advising plaintiffs, defendants, judges and juries on everything from mental illness to economic impacts of monopolistic mergers to DNA evidence and blood spatters.

If you want to make somebody sound dumb, you can just say that the experts disagree with them. For example, liberal arts majors like John Kerry and Al Gore love to tell you that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is the cause of global warming. What kind of mouth-breather would disagree with 97 percent of the experts?

This is not a new tactic. When Russian dissidents dug in their heels against tyrannical state socialism, Soviet officials called in the psychiatrists for “scientific” diagnoses of the obvious mental disorder, and to prescribe Marxism-Leninism as an actual therapy. Thus the politicized Soviet mental hospitals began to swallow up people of conscience.

Alfred Kinsey, an academic whose professional expertise was in the study of insects, marshaled the prestige of “science” to transform Western sexual culture and behavior, under the protection of his university president, Herman Wells, and a hedonistic millionaire publisher, Hugh Hefner, who had their own reasons for blocking downfield. All three men mastered the art of intellectual fraud in an atmosphere of condescension and rhetorical smoke.

Kinsey’s so-called research has been thoroughly debunked by Dr. Judith Reisman. It is a total fraud, not even borderline. But academia and the mainstream media are not interested in exploring the implications of Kinsey’s unmasking, because the culture has already shifted. His frauds are too foundational to be renounced now.

This is what the Left is trying to accomplish in its public opinion stampede on global warming. Their position will certainly be exposed as a fraud sooner or later, but they want to hasten us so far down the road in public investments, policy commitments and student indoctrination that it will be too late to turn back. The coercive potential of environmental extremism is just too delicious to forego.

Like Kinsey, entomologist Paul Ehrlich was a New Jersey native who went west in his academic career (to Stanford) and eventually tired of insects.

California environmentalist David Brower, executive director of the Sierra Club, persuaded him to write The Population Bomb in 1968. Brower was in a hurry because he hoped Ehrlich’s book would influence the outcome of the 1968 election. Ehrlich produced the first draft in about three weeks.

The book had no impact on the election, but Ehrlich promoted the book relentlessly and eventually got his big break when Johnny Carson invited him onto The Tonight Show for the first of several interviews. Carson’s late-night audience was in the tens of millions, and Ehrlich became a household name.

“Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” Ehrlich told CBS News in 1970. “And by ‘the end,’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The entomologist’s theory was that our planet simply could not support the human population, and brisk reduction of human population was our only hope. He predicted “famines of unbelievable proportions” no later than the 1980s.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” he told Mademoiselle magazine in 1970. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

In that decade, Ehrlich told The Progressive in 1970, about 4 billion people, including 65 million North Americans, would surely perish in “the Great Die-Off.”

I doubt that 97 percent of scientists agreed with Ehrlich’s opinions on population and resource exhaustion. But the population control establishment mobilized, and acted on his alarms.

Millions of people were sterilized in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia and Bangladesh. In India, many states withheld water, electricity, ration cards, medical care and pay raises from men and women who failed to undergo mandatory sterilization. Teachers expelled students whose parents failed to get sterilized. In a single year (1975), more than eight million men and women were sterilized.

World Bank president Robert McNamara celebrated that “at long last, India is moving to effectively address its population problem.” He staffed a population division within the World Bank with about 500 employees. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund conditioned loans and emergency economic assistance to poor countries on their leaders’ willingness to impose draconian population reduction measures.

China announced its one-child policy in 1979. In April 1980, it was admitted to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, replacing Taiwan. A series of development loans from the West commenced in 1981. The one-child policy provided cover for millions of forced sterilizations and perhaps 100 million forced abortions, many of which resulted in infections, sterility or death. It was an entirely avoidable humanitarian disaster on a scale that is difficult to imagine. And reckless U.S. environmental extremists like Brower and Ehrlich never accepted blame for their role in it.

Can we expect more integrity from environmentalists this time around? Well, they’re not off to a very good start.

Begin with their claim that 97 percent of scientists agree with them. John Cook is the most recent partisan to claim he has surveyed climate scientists’ publications on the issue. He wrote that he found over 97 percent of the scientific papers he surveyed “endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

But skeptic Mark Bahner checked Cook’s work across 11,944 scientific abstracts and found only 64 that endorsed Cook’s proposition. That’s 1.6 percent, not 97 percent.

Dr. Richard Tol is a professor at two European universities. Cook surveyed 10 of Tol’s 122 eligible papers. Even within this cherry-picked data set, Tol wrote that Cook rated five of 10 papers incorrectly, including four that Cook falsely rated as “endorse” rather than “neutral.”

To the best of my knowledge, former Vice President Al Gore is the only environmental alarmist to win an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize for his efforts. In his Nobel acceptance speech, he said the Arctic sea ice might be completely melted by 2014. But it wasn’t. I worked in Alaska that year, and I think we would have noticed. In fact, I read that the Arctic ice cap increased that year, for the second consecutive year.

NASA chief climate scientist James Hansen was arguably the original global warming alarmist. He gave some 1,400 interviews about his climate change views during a long federal career, but nevertheless accused the Bush administration of muzzling him.

Whether it’s gay marriage, illegal immigration or climate change, Leftists understand that they can prevail through corporate executives and media organizations, even if they can’t persuade rank-and-file Americans.

Hansen is the federal official who proposed Nuremberg-style trials of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming deniers. That is the climax of totalitarian Leftist coercion. Hansen’s supervisor, John Theon, declared himself a global warming skeptic after he retired from NASA. Theon would thus be one of the people Hansen proposed to prosecute.

Theon said after his retirement that Hansen embarrassed the agency but was never muzzled. You can’t muzzle the Deep State. That’s fine. But I don’t want to be muzzled or prosecuted, either. Freedom-loving Americans had better resist tyrannical globalist elites and environmentalist thugs while we still can.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Progressives Are Laughing All the Way to Pagan Cultural Dominion

Can’t stop. Won’t stop.

The pagan vision quest contemporary progressivism is attempting to achieve marches on. Like Bernie Sanders daydreaming about Soviet May Day parades. Like dumpster-diving in the socialist paradise of Venezuela. Like the border invasion. This is a banana (republic), after all.

The latest stops on the crazy train include (all from just the last week):

*Captain Marvel star Brie Larson said “I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’ It wasn’t made for him! I want to know what that film meant to women of color” at the very same time that casting Will Smith to play the father of Serena and Venus Williams was criticized because he isn’t dark-skinned enough.

*Actor Ian McKellen, aka Gandalf, said Kevin Spacey and Bryan Singer abused others because of the pressure of being “in the closet.”

*A school in Great Britain agreed to stop teaching Rainbow Jihad propaganda because – wait for it – hundreds of Muslims protested and pulled their kids out of school.

*The top aide of savior of the proletariat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is alleged to have funneled more than $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission. The companies may have been established for the very purpose of making the use of those political donations hard to follow. Oh, and she also called the black staffers or employees of Republicans “tokens.”

*BirthStrike, a group of people terrified that the earth is “collapsing” because of global warming, are following Ocasio-Cortez in her belief that having children is bad.

*Toledo voters granted Lake Erie the same legal rights as a person.

*Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts admitted because of identity politics she shouldn’t have been expected to not be used as a willing pawn for Jussie Smollett’s hoax.

Are these people fools? Yes.

Are these people easy to laugh at? Yes.

Are these people to be taken seriously? Sadly, the answer is, again, yes.

While they make for excellent clickbait, they’re the ones actually laughing all the way to the bank. They control pop culture, academia, the media, and the bureaucracy. Other than that, I’m saying there’s a chance. So while we’re “owning the libs,” they’re owning our cultural devolution. Hell, they even make us subsidize it. And when we do win elections, the unelected judges render those elections all but pointless. Because, of course, they must always be obeyed no matter what rotgut they conjure up from the bowels of their depraved minds.

Which is exactly why there will be a new batch of zany high jinks I look forward to writing about next week, too. That bait ain’t gonna click itself! (For more from the author of “Progressives Are Laughing All the Way to Pagan Cultural Dominion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Sexual Swindle in Youth Sports: ‘We Have Truly Lost Our Minds’

Girls’ basketball season has ended in my state, and grandchildren are beginning to speak of track and field tryouts. All our track meets in this region are outdoors, so we schedule them in the Spring and hope for good weather. But some states have indoor facilities and have already had major competitions.

Connecticut, for example, had its state meet in mid-February. There, juniors Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood ran away from the competition again, just like last year. No Connecticut girls even came close. Miller set a new state record for the 55-meter dash at 6.95 and Yearwood came in at 7.01.

Their competition was way back, bunched behind a girl who came in at 7.23 seconds. That’s not especially surprising, because Miller and Yearwood are males, and all the others are girls. A photo of Yearwood reveals a thickly muscled young man with a moustache.

Miller’s time would have landed him 17th in the Connecticut meet if he had competed against boys like himself. Two boys from his own high school had much faster times. Only one boy ran a slower time in the preliminary heats. Yet Miller is the third-ranking runner in the nation against girls.

Yearwood, whose time would have made him dead last in the boys’ preliminary heats, is tied for 7th-fastest nationally against girls. Both young men are competing against girls, of course, for college scholarships.

Runner Selina Soule, for example, finished 8th in the Connecticut race, and thus missed qualifying for the New England regionals in Boston by two spots. Miller and Yearwood occupied two of those spots. Soule will not advance to race in front of college coaches in Boston because hirsute young men have crowded her out of the event.

Your heart has to break for the young women who have worked hard to excel at their sport and to attract the attention of college coaches, only to be crushed by politically correct adults who lack the integrity to protect them from “transgender” fraud.

We might as well repeal all drug and doping laws if we allow males to crash this boundary. In fairness to the girls, they too should be allowed abundant testosterone, thick muscles and moustaches.

It wouldn’t be the first time.

Get on your computer and Google images of Jarmila Kratichvilova. She set an astonishing world record for the 800 meter run in 1983 although she was in the twilight of her career. It has never been broken, the oldest unbroken world record in men’s or women’s athletics. She never popped dirty on a drug test, but we do know that her country was notorious for doping during her career.

The mainstream media have been the guardians of dirty Iron Curtain female athletes. Sports Illustrated called American swimmer Shirley Babashoff, 19, a sore loser and a poor representative of the Olympic spirit after she commented on East German competitors’ deep voices and masculine physiques.

It was so obvious that Saturday Night Live did hilarious skits about hairy-chested East German women who took home 11 of 13 swimming golds from the Montreal Olympics. Yet the adults in charge of the Olympics were too cowardly to take action.

A younger Olympian said she kept her mouth shut after she witnessed the media’s abuse of Babashoff. And the pressure is unmistakable for female athletes to keep their mouths shut today about boys invading girls’ sports. The Associated Press wrote of Soule’s complaint as if it was just her “belief” that the two young men had crowded her out of the Boston showcase, subtly discrediting her view as the envy of an also-ran.

The AP article used feminine pronouns for the two young men, and parroted their absurd excuses. The lead suggested that most criticisms arose, not from female athletes, but from gossipy adults who were talking behind the champions’ backs.

There is certainly no shortage of cowardly adults. Seventeen states permit gender-dysphoric boys to compete against girls, no questions asked. Another seven permit it if the boys have taken some kind of hormonal therapy or surgery to transition, thus enforcing sex reassignment against wavering adolescents. And several states have no policy at all.

Sometimes a state policy has unintended consequences.

In Texas, a high school wrestler must compete under the sex listed on his or her birth certificate. Mack Beggs is a girl who is taking testosterone as “therapy” to transition to a new male identity. She has requested to wrestle against boys instead of girls, but this is prohibited under the Texas rule. So she has wrestled against girls.

This year Beggs completed her final high school wrestling season, ending the year 35-0. In fact, she has never lost a high school wrestling match. Last year, two girls forfeited rather than fight her. This season one forfeited, citing fears of serious injury.

Chelsea Sanchez, a tough but normal Texas high school wrestler in Beggs’ weight class, probably would have won back-to-back state titles in her sport, but instead she lost to the testosterone-flushed Beggs in the championship round, two years running.

Would the state of Texas tolerate Chelsea Sanchez taking the same steroids as Mack Beggs, not to “transition” her gender, but to bulk up and become a more powerful athlete? Not likely. Didn’t we hound Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds for using the same kind of drugs? But they were just hitting baseballs, not endangering teenage girls.

“Boo all you want,” Beggs said after spectators reacted in disgust to her second tainted victory over Sanchez. That comes from a position of depraved and invincible privilege.

We have truly lost our minds.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Smollett Is Heir Apparent to Tawana Brawley

Actor Jussie Smollett is out on bail now after Chicago police arrested him for filing a false report that white attackers in Trump campaign hats thrashed him, shouted racist and homophobic slurs, looped a rope around his neck, poured gasoline on him and screamed “this is M.A.G.A. country.”

Fortunately, an abundance of surveillance cameras disproved Smollett’s hoax. He paid two young (Black) friends to stage the fake attack.

Smollett is the latest hustler to attempt to cash in on Liberals’ eagerness to lynch toxic (conservative) males. He may spend some time in jail because he was clumsy, and failed to study the lessons of Clarence Thomas, Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh before launching his own false accusations.

If he had played it smarter, he’d be a martyr now, on the college lecture circuit, invited to deliver witty comments on MSNBC and CNN news panels. But he was dumb.

Smollett’s factual claims were unambiguous. They were subject to evidence, of which there was plenty. No memories faded in three weeks. He was guided by no crafty lawyers.

Recorded video from approximately 55 public and private surveillance cameras, including residential doorbell cameras, presented an obstacle for Smollett’s scheme that Anita Hill, Leigh Corfman and Christine Blasey Ford never had to overcome.

False racially-charged accusations have a long history in our country. The age of powerful reaction against racial outrages dawned, perhaps, with the brutal 1955 lynching of 14-year-old Emmet Till in Mississippi, based on a white woman’s false accusation that the boy had grabbed her waist and muttered obscenities.

Emmet’s mom brought his body home to Chicago, insisted on an open-casket funeral and forbade the mortician to clean up the boy’s bloated and mutilated corpse. Tens of thousands came to view the body, and it was photographed and published in the Black press nationwide. It galvanized Black racial solidarity and confronted white people of conscience.

The power of outrage to mobilize support was impossible to ignore, and the Civil Rights movement continued to draw strength from outrages at Little Rock, the University of Mississippi, Edmund Pettus Bridge and Birmingham. Unfortunately, outrage is agnostic. It can serve injustice as well as justice.

In my day, there was the hoax in which Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old girl managed by Al Sharpton, accused white police officers and a white prosecutor of kidnapping and sexually degrading her over a period of several days.

Bill Cosby offered a $25 thousand reward for information leading to a conviction. Boxing promoter Don King offered $100 thousand to pay for Brawley’s education. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan led a march of 1,000 people through the streets of a neighboring town. A gulf of 34 percent opened between Blacks and whites, as 85 percent of whites but only 51 percent of Blacks said Brawley was lying.

Brawley’s grandmother took refuge in churches to avoid police who wanted to question her concerning a timeline of the girl’s whereabouts. Police were so concerned about the possibility of race riots that they decided not to enter the churches. The alleged victim Tawana defied a subpoena to testify before an investigating grand jury.

That grand jury heard 180 witnesses, including high school classmates who said young Tawana came to late-night parties during the period when she was supposedly held captive. One witness saw her climb into the dumpster where she was discovered nude, wrapped in trash bags and smeared with feces.

The rape kit showed no evidence of sexual assault. Vulgar and racially inflammatory words were written on her body in charcoal, but upside down, suggesting that she wrote them herself.

The grand jury exonerated the accused men in a 170-page report based on 250 exhibits and more than 6,000 pages of testimony. One of her boyfriends told Newsday a year later that Tawana confided that she and her mother conceived the lie to avoid punishment by her step-father for staying out all night.

Yet director Spike Lee flashed “Tawana told the truth” graffiti in his film Do the Right Thing. He gave Sharpton and Brawley cameos in Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” music video, which he directed and produced.

When one of the falsely accused men won defamation suits against Sharpton and Brawley in civil court, O.J. Simpson attorney Johnny Cochran paid Sharpton’s judgment. Brawley changed her name to Maryam Muhammad and fled the state without paying any of her judgment for 26 years. Attorneys finally tracked her down in 2013 and got a court order garnishing money from her paychecks as a nurse.

A Columbia Law School professor, under the pall of “critical race theory,” said it doesn’t matter whether Tawana was lying or not. Professor Patricia Williams wrote that young Brawley was “the victim of some unspeakable crime. No matter how she got there. No matter who did it to her – and even if she did it to herself.”

This is invincible ignorance. Even after an accusation is refuted in detail, victimhood prevails. It is absolute impunity for false witness. Thus Anita Hill and Angela Davis are honored for “speaking truth to power.” Frothing young feminists man the barricades shouting that “we believe Christine” when Dr. Ford hasn’t even testified yet, much less been cross-examined.

Film star Terrence Howard doubled down on his young co-star’s veracity despite the testimony of the surveillance cameras, and said nobody can judge Smollett but God. But didn’t he judge fictional white Trump supporters in M.A.G.A. hats? Is Smollett alone immune to human judgment for violating norms of decency and law?

Well, apparently yes. When Smollett’s allegations first hit the news, presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both rushed to denounce it as a “modern day lynching.” Booker denounced Republican legislators for a “lack of urgency” regarding lynching. After the lies were revealed as a criminal hoax, neither Democrat apologized.

Booker, for one, said he is reserving judgment until the final report of the investigation is complete. Now that Booker’s anointed victim is under accusation, the senator has rediscovered a devotion to due process and the presumption of innocence. Long time no see!

Fasten your seatbelts, America. If hard-Left rhetorical arsonists have their way, we are entering a truth-free zone.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Accepting Homosexuality Led to Accepting Transgenderism and Will Likely Lead to Accepting Pedophilia

In simple terms, the system suggests that cultures evolve through a pattern like this: Thesis (a new idea) –> antithesis (opposition to new idea) –> synthesis (compromise). (No doubt some will call this an oversimplification of the process. But I believe it accurately depicts cultural evolution.) . . .

First the dialectical process transformed our nation’s views on marriage and divorce. While the statistics on marriage and divorce are not as easily defined as some think, there is no doubt that, throughout the 20th century, particularly the latter half, marriage rates declined and divorce rates increased. Yet numerous studies have shown that children fare best in a family led by one father and one mother.

Next, the dialectical process transformed the nation’s views on homosexual practices. Prior to the publishing in the late 1940s of Alfred Kinsey’s biased and highly flawed studies on Americans’ sexual beliefs and practices, most Americans viewed homosexual practices as aberrant and abhorrent. But in the decades directly following Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, acceptance of homosexual practices gradually increased. And now those who are willing to speak of the dangers of homosexual practices find ourselves in an ostracized minority.

The latest sexual taboo to be challenged is transgenderism. I know this one well, because my father chose to be a “woman.” When my dad pursued his strange lifestyle, he was among a tiny minority, and most considered him to be an anomaly. Now, transgenderism is gaining the widespread acceptance homosexuality reached over the last few decades. . .

In this fallen world, the dialectic process tends to more commonly evolve downward rather than upward. We’re more likely to gravitate toward decadent practices than to noble changes such as the abolition of slavery. For example, many predict that the next sexual taboo to be normalized will be pedophilia. And we can only imagine the depths such regressions will reach from there. (Read more from “Accepting Homosexuality Led to Accepting Transgenderism and Will Likely Lead to Accepting Pedophilia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE